Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Congressional research reportDec 7, 2006

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the

109th Congress

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Immigration Policy

December 7, 2006

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL33125

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Summary

Security concerns have figured prominently in the development of and debate on immigration

legislation in the 109th Congress. In May 2005, the REAL ID Act became law as Division B of

P.L. 109-13. It contains a number of immigration and identification document-related provisions

intended to improve homeland security. Among these are provisions: to make changes to the

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) with respect to asylum and other forms of relief from

removal; to expand the terrorism-related grounds for alien inadmissibility and deportation; and to

set standards for state-issued drivers’ licenses and personal identification cards, if such documents

are to be accepted for federal purposes.

The security-related issue of immigration enforcement remains on Congress’s agenda. H.R. 4437,

as passed by the House, contains provisions on border security, the role of state and local law

enforcement, employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement, smuggling,

detention, and other enforcement-related issues. In addition to these provisions, H.R. 4437

contains significant and, in some cases, highly controversial provisions on unlawful presence,

voluntary departure and removal, expedited removal, and denying U.S. entry to nationals from

uncooperative countries. Despite efforts by some House Members to amend H.R. 4437 to

establish new guest worker programs, the bill does not contain any such provisions. S. 2611, as

passed by the Senate, combines provisions on enforcement and on unlawful presence, voluntary

departure and removal, expedited removal, and denying U.S. entry to nationals from

uncooperative countries with provisions on legal temporary admissions, including guest workers,

and legal permanent admissions. S. 2611 also would establish legalization programs to enable

certain groups of unauthorized aliens in the United States to obtain legal permanent resident

(LPR) status.

The 109th Congress has enacted some border security-related provisions. P.L. 109-295, the

FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, includes border tunnel provisions

like those in S. 2611, as well as other enforcement-related provisions. P.L. 109-367 includes

border fencing provisions similar to those in H.R. 4437. In addition, the House has passed other

bills with border security and enforcement-related provisions (H.R. 4830, H.R. 6094, H.R. 6095,

H.R. 6160, H.R. 6162).

The 109th Congress also has enacted limited provisions on temporary and permanent

employment-based immigration as part of P.L. 109-13 and P.L. 109-364.

Among the other immigration bills that have received action are measures on alien victims of

domestic violence (P.L. 109-162, P.L. 109-271, and S. 1197), trafficking in persons (P.L. 109-162,

P.L. 109-164, and S. 1197), and refugees (P.L. 109-102 and P.L. 109-149).

This report will not be updated.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

REAL ID Act ..............................................................................................................................2

Changes to Laws on Asylum and Other Forms of Relief from Removal.................................2

Judicial Review.....................................................................................................................3

Terrorism-Related Grounds for Exclusion and Removal ........................................................3

Expediting the Construction of Barriers at the Border............................................................3

Improving Border Infrastructure and Technology Integration.................................................3

Requirements Concerning State-Issued Drivers’ Licenses and ID Cards.................................4

Border Security...........................................................................................................................4

U.S. Military at the Border ....................................................................................................6

Civilian Patrols .....................................................................................................................7

Role of State and Local Law Enforcement...................................................................................7

Employment Eligibility Verification and Worksite Enforcement ..................................................8

Alien Smuggling ....................................................................................................................... 11

Detention .................................................................................................................................. 12

Illegal Presence, Removal, and Exclusion ................................................................................. 13

Unlawful Presence .............................................................................................................. 13

Voluntary Departure and Removal....................................................................................... 14

Expedited Removal............................................................................................................. 14

Denying Entry..................................................................................................................... 14

Documentary Requirements for Western Hemisphere Travelers........................................... 15

Consequences for Terrorist and Criminal Activity................................................................ 15

Reduction of Appellate Review ........................................................................................... 16

Temporary Immigration ............................................................................................................ 17

Guest Workers .................................................................................................................... 17

Professional and Managerial Workers.................................................................................. 19

L Intracompany Visas.................................................................................................... 19

H-1B Visas ................................................................................................................... 19

H-1C Visas ................................................................................................................... 20

Permanent Immigration............................................................................................................. 20

Recaptured Visa Numbers for Nurses .................................................................................. 20

Recaptured Employment-Based Visa Numbers.................................................................... 20

Elimination of Diversity Visas............................................................................................. 20

S. 1033/H.R. 2330............................................................................................................... 21

S. 1438 ............................................................................................................................... 21

H.R. 3700 ........................................................................................................................... 21

S. 2454 ............................................................................................................................... 21

S. 2611................................................................................................................................ 22

LPR Status for Unauthorized Aliens .......................................................................................... 23

Immigrant Victims .................................................................................................................... 24

Battered Aliens ................................................................................................................... 24

Trafficking Victims ............................................................................................................. 24

Other Legislation and Issues...................................................................................................... 25

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Refugees ............................................................................................................................. 25

Resettlement Funding.................................................................................................... 25

Citizenship and Naturalization ............................................................................................ 26

International Adoption ........................................................................................................ 27

Immigration Issues in Free Trade Agreements ..................................................................... 28

Document Fraud ................................................................................................................. 29

Other Legislation Receiving Action..................................................................................... 29

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)....................................................... 29

S Visa ........................................................................................................................... 30

Unaccompanied Alien Children..................................................................................... 30

Foreign Medical Graduates ........................................................................................... 30

Special Immigrant Status for Translators ....................................................................... 30

Nonimmigrant Traders and Investors from Denmark ..................................................... 31

Legislation ................................................................................................................................ 31

P.L. 109-13 (H.R. 1268) ................................................................................................ 31

P.L. 109-97 (H.R. 2744) ................................................................................................ 31

P.L. 109-102 (H.R. 3057) .............................................................................................. 31

P.L. 109-149 (H.R. 3010) .............................................................................................. 31

P.L. 109-162 (H.R. 3402) .............................................................................................. 32

P.L. 109-163 (H.R. 1815) .............................................................................................. 32

P.L. 109-164 (H.R. 972) ................................................................................................ 32

P.L. 109-271 (S. 3693) .................................................................................................. 32

P.L. 109-295 (H.R. 5441) .............................................................................................. 32

P.L. 109-364 (H.R. 5122) .............................................................................................. 32

P.L. 109-367 (H.R. 6061) .............................................................................................. 33

H.R. 1285 (Rush) .......................................................................................................... 33

H.R. 1817 (Cox) ........................................................................................................... 33

H.R. 2293 (Hostettler)................................................................................................... 33

H.R. 3647 (Sensenbrenner) ........................................................................................... 33

H.R. 3648 (Sensenbrenner) ........................................................................................... 33

H.R. 4312 (King, P.)...................................................................................................... 33

H.R. 4437 (Sensenbrenner) ........................................................................................... 33

H.R. 4830 (Dreier) ........................................................................................................ 34

H.R. 4997 (Moran, Jerry) .............................................................................................. 34

H.R. 5522 (Kolbe) ........................................................................................................ 34

H.R. 5647 (Regula) ....................................................................................................... 34

H.R. 6094 (Sensenbrenner) ........................................................................................... 34

H.R. 6095 (Sensenbrenner) ........................................................................................... 34

H.R. 6160 (Rogers, M. [Ala.])....................................................................................... 34

H.R. 6162 (Rogers, M. [Ala.])....................................................................................... 34

S. 119 (Feinstein) .......................................................................................................... 34

S. 1197 (Biden) ............................................................................................................. 35

S. 2611 (Specter)........................................................................................................... 35

S. 3708 (Specter)........................................................................................................... 35

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 35

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Introduction

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, policymakers have linked the issue of

immigration, particularly unauthorized immigration, to homeland security. This linkage was

cemented with the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), which shifted

primary responsibility for immigration policy from the former Immigration and Naturalization

Service (INS) to a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As in the past several years,

security concerns have figured prominently in the development of and debate on immigration

legislation in the 109th Congress. In May 2005, the REAL ID Act became law as Division B of

the FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror,

and Tsunami Relief (P.L. 109-13). It contains a number of immigration and identification

document-related provisions intended to improve homeland security.

The security-related issue of immigration enforcement continues to be on the congressional

agenda. Various bills have been introduced that address enforcement-related issues, including

border security; the roles of the U.S. military, civilian patrols, and state and local law enforcement

agencies in immigration enforcement; smuggling; detention; and the enforcement of prohibitions

on employing unauthorized workers. Among these bills are the Border Protection, Antiterrorism,

and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437),1 which was passed by the House on

December 16, 2005, and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611), which

was passed by the Senate on May 25, 2006. Fencing provisions similar to those in H.R. 4437

have been enacted in P.L. 109-367. The FY2007 Department of Homeland Security

Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295) contains several security-related provisions, including border

tunnel provisions like those in S. 2611. In addition, the House has passed a number of other

enforcement-related measures, among them H.R. 6094, H.R. 6095, H.R. 6160, and H.R. 6162.

In addition to its enforcement provisions, S. 2611 contains provisions on temporary and

permanent immigration, unauthorized aliens in the United States, and other issues. In March

2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee amended and approved an S. 2611 predecessor proposal

drafted by Committee Chairman Specter, known as the Chairman’s mark. This bill contained

provisions on border enforcement, interior enforcement, and unlawful employment of aliens, as

well as on guest workers, legal permanent immigration reform, unauthorized aliens in the United

States, and other issues. Prior to the completion of the mark-up, Senator Frist introduced a

separate bill, Securing America’s Borders Act (S. 2454), containing selected titles of the

Chairman’s mark, with some modifications. These titles address border enforcement, interior

enforcement, unlawful employment, permanent legal immigration reform, and other topics. S.

2454 does not contain provisions on guest workers or on the future status of unauthorized aliens

in the United States. During Senate floor debate on S. 2454 in late March, Senator Specter

proposed a substitute amendment based on the Judiciary Committee-approved bill (S.Amdt.

3192). On April 6, 2006, the Senate rejected a motion, by a vote of 39 to 60, to invoke cloture

(and thereby initiate post-cloture procedures to eventually move to a vote) on the Specter

substitute. The following day, the Senate rejected two other cloture motions: It rejected, on a 38 to

60 vote, a motion to invoke cloture on a motion to recommit S. 2454 to the Senate Judiciary

Committee with instructions that it be reported back with the Hagel amendment (Hagel-Martinez

compromise); and it rejected, on a 36 to 62 vote, a motion to invoke cloture on S. 2454. The

A number of provisions in H.R. 4437 were included in a predecessor bill (H.R. 4312), as reported by the House

Homeland Security Committee.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Hagel-Martinez compromise, with some modifications, was subsequently introduced in the

Senate as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611/S. 2612).2

While major immigration reform proposals remain pending, Congress has enacted limited

provisions on temporary and permanent employment-based immigration as part of P.L. 109-13

and P.L. 109-364. It also has enacted legislation concerning alien victims of domestic violence,

trafficking in persons, and refugees. This report discusses these and other immigration-related

issues that have seen legislative action or are of significant congressional interest. DHS

appropriations and immigration legislation related to Hurricane Katrina are addressed in other

products and are not covered here.3 The final section of the report lists enacted legislation and

selected bills receiving action.

REAL ID Act

During the 108th Congress, a number of proposals concerning immigration and identificationdocument security were introduced, some of which were enacted as part of the Intelligence

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458). At the time that law was adopted,

some congressional leaders reportedly agreed to revisit certain immigration and documentsecurity issues in the 109th Congress that had been dropped from the final version of the

legislation. The REAL ID Act (P.L. 109-13, Division B) contains a number of the dropped

provisions, along with some new proposals.4 This discussion focuses on Titles I, II, and III of the

REAL ID Act. Titles IV and V, which deal with nonimmigrant and immigrant workers, are

covered respectively in the temporary and permanent immigration sections of this report.

Changes to Laws on Asylum and Other Forms of Relief from

Removal

The REAL ID Act makes a number of changes to Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)5

provisions concerning asylum and other forms of relief from removal. It provides express

statutory guidelines regarding burden of proof, eligibility, and credibility standards in relief from

removal cases. In most cases, no statutory standards existed prior to the REAL ID Act; instead,

standards were established by regulation and (sometimes conflicting) case law. In some areas, the

guidelines established by the REAL ID Act are arguably more stringent than under preexisting

law (e.g., pursuant to the act, an asylum applicant must now show that one of the five grounds for

asylum eligibility was or will be at least one central reason for his persecution, a higher standard

than previously employed in some federal circuits); in other cases, the REAL ID Act simply

codifies existing regulation or case law. The act also eliminates the annual caps on the number of

S. 2611 and S. 2612 are identical. S. 2611, introduced by Senator Specter with Senators Hagel and Martinez among

its cosponsors on April 7, 2006, was placed on the Senate legislative calendar. S. 2612, introduced by Senator Hagel

with the same cosponsors as S. 2611 on April 7, 2006, was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

See, respectively, CRS Report RL32863, Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations, coordinated by

(name redacted) and (name redacted); and CRS Report RL33091, Hurricane Katrina-Related Immigration Issues and

Legislation, by (name redacted).

For a detailed discussion of the REAL ID Act, see CRS Report RL32754, Immigration: Analysis of the Major

Provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Act of June 27, 1952, ch. 477; 66 Stat. 163; 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. The INA is the basis of current immigration law.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

persons granted asylum who may have their status adjusted to legal permanent residents (LPRs),

and on the number of persons who may enter the United States as refugees/asylees on account of

persecution for resistance to coercive population control methods (a special asylum category).6

Judicial Review

The REAL ID Act expressly limits federal habeas review and certain other non-direct judicial

review for certain matters relating to the removal of aliens under INA §242, while permitting

appellate court review of constitutional claims and questions of law. These measures appear to be

in response to Supreme Court jurisprudence, which had previously interpreted the general

limitations on judicial review contained in INA §242 as not precluding federal courts from

exercising their habeas corpus jurisdiction review over removal-related decisions concerning

aliens who had been detained pending removal.

Terrorism-Related Grounds for Exclusion and Removal

The REAL ID Act expands the terrorism-related grounds for alien inadmissibility and

deportation, as well as the meaning of certain terms used in the INA to describe terrorist activities

or entities, to cast a wider net over groups and persons who provide more discrete forms of

assistance to terrorist organizations, particularly with respect to fund-raising and soliciting

membership in those organizations. The REAL ID Act makes activities such as espousal of

terrorist activity and receipt of military-type training from, or on behalf of, a terrorist organization

grounds for exclusion. It also significantly expands the terrorism-related grounds for deportation

so that they are identical to the terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility. At the same time, the

REAL ID Act provides the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security with

authority to waive certain terrorism-related INA provisions that would otherwise make a

particular alien inadmissible or cause a group to be designated as a terrorist organization.7

Expediting the Construction of Barriers at the Border

The REAL ID Act provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with authority to waive the

application of any legal requirements when he believes such a waiver is necessary to ensure the

expeditious construction of certain barriers and roads along U.S. land borders, including a 14mile wide fence near San Diego. The act provides that federal judicial review of waiver decisions

or actions by the Secretary is limited to those claims alleging a violation of the U.S. Constitution. 8

Improving Border Infrastructure and Technology Integration

The REAL ID Act includes measures to improve border infrastructure and technology integration

between state and federal entities. DHS is required to conduct a study on border security

For further information on asylum, see CRS Report RL32621, U.S. Immigration Policy on Asylum Seekers, by (name

redacted).

For additional information, see CRS Report RL32564, Immigration: Terrorist Grounds for Exclusion and Removal of

Aliens, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

For additional information, see CRS Report RS22026, Border Security: The San Diego Fence, by (name redacted)

and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

vulnerabilities, establish a pilot program to test ground surveillance technologies on the northern

and southern borders, and implement a plan to improve communications systems and

information-sharing between federal, state, local, and tribal agencies on matters relating to border

security. DHS is also required to submit reports to Congress concerning the implementation of

these requirements.

Requirements Concerning State-Issued Drivers’ Licenses and

ID Cards

The REAL ID Act contains a number of provisions relating to the improved security of stateissued drivers’ licenses and personal identification (ID) cards. It requires states to adopt certain

practices and procedures regarding the verification of documents used to obtain drivers’ licenses

and ID cards, and establishes minimum issuance standards for state-issued drivers’ licenses and

personal identification cards, if such documents are to be accepted for official federal purposes.

States must also verify an applicant’s legal status in the United States before issuing a driver’s

license or personal identification card that may be accepted for any federal purpose, and may only

issue aliens temporary drivers’ licenses or ID cards which expire on the date when the aliens’

legal presence in the United States is due to end. If a state opts not to conform with REAL ID Act

guidelines, the act nevertheless requires the state’s drivers’ licenses and ID cards to contain

certain identifying features that alert federal officials that such documents are not to be accepted

for any official federal purposes. Further, all states are required to maintain a motor vehicle

database that contains specified information regarding persons issued drivers’ licenses and ID

cards, and this database must be made accessible to all other states. The deadline for state

compliance with all applicable provisions of the REAL ID Act is three years after enactment

(May 11, 2008), though the Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to extend this deadline

for any state that presents an adequate justification for its noncompliance.

Border Security

DHS is charged with protecting our nation’s borders from weapons of mass destruction, terrorists,

smugglers, and unauthorized aliens. Border security involves securing the many means by which

people and things can enter the country. Operationally, this means controlling the official ports of

entry (POE) through which legitimate travelers and commerce enter the country, and patrolling

the nation’s land and maritime borders to safeguard against and interdict illegal entries.

Border security has been a key immigration issue for the 109th Congress. Enactment of border

security provisions as part of the REAL ID Act, as discussed above, has been followed by

congressional consideration of a variety of other related measures. There has been much debate in

the 109th Congress about whether DHS has sufficient resources to fulfill its border security

mission, and some bills would add resources to the border, including personnel, infrastructure,

and technology or institute new programs within the Department. Other bills propose to expand

various programs already being implemented by DHS at the border. H.R. 4437, as passed by the

House, 9 and S. 2611, as passed by the Senate, contain provisions of both types. Some border

security provisions in H.R. 4437 and S. 2611 have been enacted in the FY2007 DHS

Almost all of the border security provisions in H.R. 4437 were included in a related bill (H.R. 4312), as reported by

the House Homeland Security Committee.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295) and in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367). Other

border security-related measures, including H.R. 4830, H.R. 6160, and H.R. 6162, also have been

passed by the House. 10

P.L. 109-295 makes the construction and financing of tunnels crossing the U.S. international

border crimes subject to a fine and up to 20 years of imprisonment, and doubles the applicable

criminal penalties for individuals who use tunnels to enter the country illegally or to smuggle

people or goods into the country. These tunnel provisions also appear in S. 2611, as passed by the

Senate, and H.R. 4830, as passed by the House. Another border-security related provision in P.L.

109-295 requires the DHS Inspector General to review all contracts relating to the Department’s

Secure Border Initiative (SBI)11 worth more than $20 million. This provision was included in

H.R. 4437, S. 2611, and House-passed H.R. 6162. P.L. 109-295 also includes $1.2 billion in

funding for border fencing, infrastructure, and technology, but does not specify what mix of

resources should be implemented or to what locations on the border these resources should be

allocated, instead leaving these decisions to DHS’s discretion.12

P.L. 109-367 directs DHS to construct border fencing along five different stretches of the

southern border that total roughly 850 miles.13 This language is identical to that in H.R. 4437, but

includes later construction deadlines. P.L. 109-367 also calls for a study on the feasibility of

constructing border security infrastructure along the northern border. S. 2611, as amended, would

direct DHS to replace current border fencing in the Border Patrol’s Tucson and Yuma sectors and

to construct additional border fencing totaling 370 miles and additional vehicle barriers totaling

700 miles.

H.R. 4437, as passed by the House, and S. 2611, as passed by the Senate, contain a number of

other border-security related provisions. Both bills would require the Secretary of DHS to submit

a National Strategy for Border Security outlining a comprehensive strategy for securing the

border, including a surveillance plan and a time line for implementation. Both would add

personnel, technology, and infrastructure resources at and between POE and would direct DHS to

work with the Department of Defense (DOD) to formulate a plan for increasing the availability

and use of military equipment to assist with the surveillance of the border. Both bills would

require DHS to expand the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Technology (US-VISIT) Program14

to collect 10 fingerprints from aliens currently required to register with the program as they enter

the country, and would require DHS to submit a time line for deploying and enabling the exit

component of US-VISIT at land POE. Both bills would also require DHS to enhance the

connectivity of its biometric fingerprint database with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s

For an expanded discussion of immigration-related border security issues, see CRS Report RL33181, Immigration

Related Border Security Legislation in the 109th Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

The Secure Border Initiative is a three-pillared plan for securing the border that, according to DHS, “will focus on

controlling the border, building a robust interior enforcement program, and establishing a Temporary Worker

Program.” SBI includes all the DHS resources that are deployed at the border, including personnel, technology, and

infrastructure such as vehicle barriers or fencing. United States Department of Homeland Security, FY2007

Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-S&E-6.

For more information about FY2007 DHS appropriations, see CRS Report RL33428, Homeland Security

Department: FY2007 Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

From CBP Congressional Affairs, September 25, 2006.

For additional information on the US-VISIT program, see CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status

Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by Lisa M. Seghetti and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

database and develop and implement a plan to ensure clear two-way communications for DHS

agents working along the border.

While the border security provisions in S. 2611 and H.R. 4437 are largely similar, there are some

substantive differences between the two bills. Among the major differences, House-passed H.R.

4437 would direct DHS to improve coordination and communication among its component

agencies by creating task forces and other mechanisms to enhance information and intelligence

sharing, and would require DHS to design and carry out a border security exercise involving

officials from federal, state, local, tribal, and international governments as well as representatives

from the private sector within one year of the bill’s enactment. It would allow homeland security

grant funding to be used for reimbursing state and local governments for costs associated with

detecting and responding to the unlawful entry of aliens.15 H.R. 4437 would also remove Air and

Marine Operations (AMO) from DHS’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and establish a

stand-alone AMO Office within DHS. For its part, S. 2611 includes three separate provisions that

would direct DHS to acquire and deploy various kinds of surveillance assets in order to establish

a “virtual fence” along the southwest border. S. 2611 would also establish criminal penalties for

attempting to evade inspection at POE or for disregarding orders given by CBP officers, Border

Patrol agents, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigators.

H.R. 6160, as passed by the House, would give recruitment and retention bonuses to Border

Patrol agents.

U.S. Military at the Border

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-163) includes a provision

(§1035) that requires a report from the Secretary of Defense concerning the potential use of

military air assets to support DHS by surveilling the border. This language was inserted during

conference, and replaced prior language in the House-passed version of the bill (H.R. 1815) that

would have authorized the U.S. military to be deployed to the border to assist DHS in preventing

the entry of terrorists, drug smugglers, and unauthorized aliens at and between official ports of

entry. Under the House-passed provision, which also appears in H.R. 5122, as amended and

passed by the House, U.S. military personnel would have been deployed to the border only at the

request of the Secretary of Homeland Security and only after completing a training course on

border law enforcement. Military personnel would have to have been accompanied by DHS law

enforcement personnel once deployed, and would not have been authorized to conduct searches,

seizures, or other similar law enforcement activities, or to make arrests. This provision would not

have superseded the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the U.S. military to perform

civilian governmental tasks unless explicitly authorized to do so.16 The conference report on H.R.

5122, signed into law as P.L. 109-364, does not include this provision. H.R. 4437 and S. 2611

include language to direct DHS to work with DOD to create a plan that would enhance the use of

military surveillance assets at the border. S. 2611, as amended, would also allow state governors

to deploy the National Guard to the southwest border in a support capacity. The National Guard

For a discussion of the role of state and local law enforcement in the enforcement of immigration law, see the next

main section of the report.

For a detailed explanation of the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385), see CRS Report RS20590, The Posse

Comitatus Act and Related Matters: A Sketch, by (name redacted); and CRS Report RS21012, Terrorism: Some Legal

Restrictions on Military Assistance to Domestic Authorities Following a Terrorist Attack, by (name redacted) and

(name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

would be explicitly prohibited from participating in searches, seizures, arrests, or other similar

activities.

Civilian Patrols

Several bills in the 109th Congress would create civilian border patrolling organizations. In the

Senate, S. 1823 would establish a pilot Volunteer Border Marshal Program. This program would

use volunteer state peace officers who would be assigned to the Border Patrol and charged with

assisting in “identifying and controlling illegal immigration and human and drug trafficking.” In

the House, H.R. 3704 would create a Border Patrol Auxiliary that would be deployed to the

border and charged with notifying the Border Patrol about unauthorized aliens attempting to cross

into the United States. These auxiliaries would be vested with the same powers as Border Patrol

agents. DHS would be charged with recompensing members of the auxiliaries for their travel,

subsistence, and vehicle operation expenses. H.R. 3622 would authorize state governments to

create a militia called the Border Protection Corps (BPC) in order to prevent the illegal entry of

individuals and to take individuals who have entered illegally into custody. DHS would be

responsible for recompensing the states for all the expenses incurred in the establishment and

operation of their BPCs.

Role of State and Local Law Enforcement

Since the attacks of September 11, many have called on state and local law enforcement agencies

to play a larger role in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Some question, however,

whether state and local law enforcement officers possess adequate authority to enforce all

immigration laws—that is, both civil violations (e.g., lack of legal status, which may lead to

removal through an administrative system) and criminal punishments (e.g., alien smuggling,

which is prosecuted in the courts). Historically, the authority for state and local law enforcement

officials to enforce immigration law has been construed to be limited to the criminal provisions of

the INA; by contrast, the enforcement of the civil provisions has been viewed strictly as a federal

responsibility, with states playing an incidental supporting role. Some posit, nonetheless, that

states and localities, as sovereign entities, retain certain police powers under the Constitution, and

consequently, possess inherent authority to enforce civil as well as criminal violations of federal

immigration law. 17 Multiple bills in Congress would address these possible authority issues and

enhance the role of state and local law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of immigration

law.

H.R. 4437 (§220) and H.R. 6095 (§101), both of which have been passed by the House, would

“reaffirm” the existing inherent authority of states, as sovereign entities (including their law

enforcement personnel), to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer into federal

custody aliens in the United States for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of the

immigration laws. Similar to H.R. 4437 and H.R. 6095, the Department of Homeland Security

Authorization Act for FY2006 (H.R. 1817), as passed by the House, would authorize state and

local law enforcement personnel to apprehend, detain, or remove aliens in the United States in the

course of carrying out routine duties (§520). Likewise, H.R. 1817 would “reaffirm” the existing

For further discussion of this issue, see CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and

Local Law Enforcement, by Lisa M. Seghetti, (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

general authority for state and local law enforcement personnel to carry out the above mentioned

activities. S. 2454 (§229) and Senate-passed S. 2611 (§229) would also “reaffirm” a state’s

inherent authority to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer into federal

custody aliens in the United States, but would limit such practices to the enforcement of the

criminal provisions of the INA.

Among its other provisions, H.R. 4437 would require the Secretary of DHS to create a training

manual to aid state and local law enforcement officers in carrying out immigration-related

enforcement duties (§221). It would authorize the Secretary to make grants to state and local

police agencies for the procurement of equipment, technology, facilities, and other products that

are directly related to the enforcement of immigration law (§222). H.R. 4437 would allow a state

to reimburse itself with certain DHS grants for activities related to the enforcement of federal

laws aimed at preventing the unlawful entry of persons or things into the United States that are

carried out under agreement with the federal government (§305). The bill would further require

designated sheriffs within 25 miles of the southern international border of the United States to be

reimbursed or provided an advance for costs associated with the transfer of aliens detained or in

the custody of the sheriff (§607).

In the Senate, S. 2611 would create a border relief grant program for eligible law enforcement

agencies to address criminal activity that occurs near the border (§153). Under the program, the

Secretary of DHS would be authorized to provide grants to law enforcement agencies located

within 100 miles of the northern or southern border or to agencies outside 100 miles that are

located in areas certified as “high impact areas” by the Secretary. Two-thirds of the funds would

be allocated to the six states with the largest number of unauthorized alien apprehensions, and

one-third would be set aside for High Impact Areas. Title IX of the Senate-passed version of H.R.

5441, the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, would have created the

same program. The House-passed version of H.R. 5441 did not contain such a grant program, and

it is not included in the enacted measure (P.L. 109-295). S. 2454 (§§220, 229) and S. 2611

(§§224, 229) would also authorize DHS to reimburse state and local authorities for certain

training, transportation, and equipment costs related to immigration enforcement, and certain

costs associated with processing criminal illegal aliens through the criminal justice system.

Employment Eligibility Verification and Worksite

Enforcement

Under the INA, it is unlawful for an employer to knowingly hire, recruit or refer for a fee, or

continue to employ an alien who is not authorized to be so employed. Employers are required to

participate in a paper-based employment eligibility verification system, commonly referred to as

the I-9 system, in which they examine documents presented by new hires to verify identity and

work eligibility, and complete and retain I-9 verification forms. In addition, employers may elect

to participate in an electronic employment eligibility verification system, established under a

1996 law. Participants in the Basic Pilot program electronically verify new hires’ employment

authorization through Social Security Administration (SSA) and, if necessary, DHS databases.

Employers violating prohibitions on unlawful employment may be subject to civil and/or criminal

penalties.18 Enforcement of these provisions is termed worksite enforcement.

INA §274A, 8 U.S.C. §1324a. For further discussion of these legal provisions, see CRS Report RS22180,

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement are current areas of congressional

interest. Chief among the reasons for this is the large and growing number of unauthorized aliens

in the United States, the majority of whom are in the labor force. According to estimates by the

Pew Hispanic Center, in 2005, the unauthorized alien population totaled about 11.1 million and

the unauthorized alien working population totaled about 7.2 million. 19 Particularly since the 2001

terrorist attacks, many have raised security concerns about having such a large unauthorized

population. In addition, the issue of worksite enforcement has gained attention recently in

connection with guest worker proposals. President Bush has expressed support for a new

temporary worker program and has called for increased worksite enforcement as part of the

program. Immigration reform bills containing guest worker and worksite enforcement-related

provisions have been introduced in the 109th Congress.

A number of bills related to employment eligibility verification and worksite enforcement are

before the 109th Congress. Title VII of H.R. 4437, as passed by the House, would direct DHS to

establish an employment eligibility verification system (modeled on the Basic Pilot program),

which would be mandatory for all employers. Employers would be required to query the system

to verify the identity and employment eligibility of an individual after hiring or, in a change from

Basic Pilot program requirements, before commencing recruitment or referral. These verification

requirements would take effect two years after enactment. The current I-9 system would remain

in place with some modifications. H.R. 4437 also would require employers to verify the identity

and employment eligibility of previously hired workers by six years after enactment. In addition,

H.R. 4437 would increase existing monetary penalties for employer violations. At the same time,

it would provide for the reduction of civil monetary penalties for employers with 250 or fewer

employees.

Like H.R. 4437, Title III of S. 2454 would direct DHS to establish an employment eligibility

verification system (modeled on the Basic Pilot program), which would be mandatory for all

employers. Employers would be required to query the system to verify the identity and

employment eligibility of an individual after hiring or recruiting or referring for a fee. These

verification requirements would be phased in for different groups of employers over a period of

up to five years. Under S. 2454, some, but not all, employers would be required to verify the

identity and employment eligibility of previously hired workers. Employers subject to this

requirement, which would be effective 180 days after enactment, would be those who are part of

the critical infrastructure of the United States or who are directly related to U.S. national or

homeland security. S. 2454 also would increase existing monetary penalties for employer

violations, although to a lesser extent than H.R. 4437. In addition, the Senate bill would establish

a new penalty for employees who falsely represent on the I-9 form that they are authorized to

work.

Title III of S. 2611, as passed by the Senate, like H.R. 4437 and S. 2454, would direct DHS to

implement an employment eligibility verification system (modeled on the Basic Pilot program),

which would be mandatory for all employers. Employers would be required to participate in the

system with respect to all employees hired on or after the date that is 18 months after at least

(...continued)

Unauthorized Employment of Aliens: Basics of Employer Sanctions, by (name redacted).

Jeffrey S. Passel, The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.; Estimates Based

on the March 2005 Current Population Survey, Pew Hispanic Center Research Report, March 7, 2006, at

http://www.pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=61.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

$400 million is appropriated and made available for implementation. Under S. 2611, employers

would be required to query the system to verify the identity and employment eligibility of an

individual after hiring or recruiting or referring for a fee. In addition, DHS could require any

employer or class of employers to participate in the system with respect to individuals employed

as of the date of enactment or hired after the date of enactment, if DHS designates such employer

or class as a critical employer based on homeland security or national security needs or if DHS

has reasonable cause to believe that the employer has materially violated the prohibitions on

unauthorized employment. Under S. 2611, individuals who are terminated from employment

based on a determination by the verification system that they are not work eligible could obtain

administrative and judicial review. If they are determined to, in fact, be work eligible and prevail,

they would be entitled to compensation for lost wages. The current I-9 system would remain in

place with some modifications. In addition, S. 2611 would increase monetary penalties for

employer violations, and, like S. 2454, would establish a new penalty for employees who falsely

represent on the I-9 form that they are authorized to work.

Other pending bills, a selection of which are discussed below, would similarly require all

employers to conduct employment eligibility verification through the Basic Pilot program or a

similar system. As detailed in the following paragraphs, some would maintain the Basic Pilot

program’s separation of the DHS and SSA databases as part of the verification system; others call

for the creation of a new unified database by DHS or SSA. Most of the measures would increase

existing monetary penalties for employer violations. Among their other provisions, the bills

variously would authorize appropriations at such sums as necessary to implement their

provisions, and subject to the availability of appropriations, would authorize an increase in

personnel to conduct worksite enforcement.

H.R. 98, which was the subject of a May 2005 hearing by the House Judiciary Committee’s

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, would require Social Security cards

to include an encrypted machine-readable electronic identification strip unique to the bearer and a

digitized photograph. Under the bill, new hires would have to present a Social Security card of

this type to their employers, who would use them to verify the worker’s identity and work

authorization. Employment eligibility verification would be conducted by accessing a database to

be established by DHS that would contain DHS and SSA data. H.R. 98 would raise maximum

penalties for employers who violate prohibitions on unlawful employment.

Section 402 of S. 1033/H.R. 2330 would direct SSA to establish a new employment eligibility

confirmation system through which employers would verify new hires’ identity and work

authorization. The new system is to utilize machine-readable documents containing encrypted

electronic information as a central feature. SSA also would be tasked with designing and

maintaining an employment eligibility database, which would include specified information about

work-authorized noncitizens. As described below in the section on guest workers, S. 1033/H.R.

2330 would establish a new H-5A temporary worker visa. Employers of these workers would be

required to verify their identity and work authorization through the new database. S. 1033/H.R.

2330 would further direct SSA to develop a plan to phase out the current I-9 system and place all

workers into the new database.

Title III of S. 1438 would make various changes to current verification requirements. It would

require SSA to issue machine-readable, tamper-resistant Social Security cards. These cards would

become the only acceptable documents for evidencing employment authorization. To establish

identity, an individual would have to provide either a U.S. government-issued identification

document containing a biometric identifier or a state-issued driver’s license or identification

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

document that conforms with REAL ID Act guidelines. Under S. 1438, participation in the Basic

Pilot program, which would be renamed, would be mandatory, and there would be sanctions for

noncompliance. In addition, S. 1438 would increase monetary penalties for employer violations.

S. 1917 would rename the Basic Pilot program and make participation mandatory. Participants in

the verification system would be deemed to be in compliance with the I-9 requirements. S. 1917

would direct DHS to fully integrate all databases and data systems used in the verification system.

Under the bill, the only acceptable documents for evidencing employment authorization would be

a social security card or a machine-readable, tamper resistant card issued by the U.S. government

that explicitly authorizes employment. Among its other provisions, S. 1917 would increase

monetary penalties for employer violations.

H.R. 3333 would rename the Basic Pilot program and make participation mandatory, and sanction

employers for noncompliance. As under House-passed H.R. 4437, employers would be required

to verify that current employees, as well as new hires, are authorized to work. H.R. 3333 would

increase monetary penalties for employer violations. In addition, it contains a number of

provisions related to Social Security accounts and cards.

H.R. 3938 would rename the Basic Pilot program, make participation mandatory, and sanction

employers for noncompliance. At the same time, it proposes to create a new employment

eligibility verification system, essentially identical to that proposed in H.R. 98, to replace the

renamed Basic Pilot program. The new verification system would be based on an employment

eligibility database, to be established by DHS, containing DHS and SSA data. As explained in the

above discussion of H.R. 98, individuals commencing new employment would be required to

present a Social Security card with an encrypted machine-readable electronic identification strip

and a digitized photograph, which the employer would use to verify identity and work

authorization through the new database. H.R. 3938 also would increase monetary penalties for

employer violations.

Alien Smuggling

Many contend that the smuggling of aliens into the United States constitutes a significant risk to

national security and public safety. Since smugglers facilitate the illegal entry of persons into the

United States, some maintain that terrorists may use existing smuggling routes and organizations

to enter undetected. In addition to generating billions of dollars in revenues for criminal

enterprises, alien smuggling can lead to collateral crimes including kidnaping, homicide, assault,

rape, robbery, auto theft, high speed flight, vehicle accidents, identity theft, and the

manufacturing and distribution of fraudulent documents. The main alien smuggling statute (INA

§274) delineates the criminal penalties, asset seizure rules, and prima facie evidentiary

requirements for smuggling offenses.

Several bills in the 109th Congress have provisions concerning alien smuggling. Among them is

H.R. 2744, the FY2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill, which was signed into law as P.L. 10997. Section 796 of this law specifies circumstances under which religious organizations are

exempt from criminal penalties related to the smuggling and harboring of certain aliens, and

states that it is not a violation of INA §274 for a bona fide, nonprofit, religious organization to

encourage or allow an unauthorized alien to work for the religious organization as a volunteer

minister or missionary. Under the provision, the alien must have been a member of the religious

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

denomination for at least one year and may not be compensated as an employee, but may be

provided room, board, travel, medical assistance, and other basic living expenses.

H.R. 4437, as passed by the House, and S. 2611, as passed by the Senate, would rewrite INA

§274. Although the bills are similar, they are not identical in language or in scope. Both bills

would broaden the types of acts that are considered alien smuggling. For example, they would

make it a smuggling offense to transport a person outside the United States knowing or in

reckless disregard of the fact that the person is in unlawful transit from one country to another, or

on the high-seas, and is seeking to illegally enter the United States. S. 2611 would also provide

new exemptions from criminal liability for persons or organizations providing assistance to

unauthorized aliens on humanitarian grounds (such exemptions are not contained in current law).

H.R. 4437, in contrast, contains no such exemptions, and would also remove the current

exemption contained in P.L. 109-97 for religious organizations that encourage certain

unauthorized aliens to work for the organizations as volunteer ministers or missionaries.

In addition, H.R. 4437 and S. 2611 would establish mandatory minimum sentences for those

convicted of alien smuggling, and would enhance penalties for persons carrying firearms during

smuggling offenses. Furthermore, as recommended in a recent Government Accountability Office

(GAO) report on alien smuggling, both proposals would amend the law to allow for the seizure

and forfeiture of any property used to commit or facilitate alien smuggling.20

Other pending bills would variously increase penalties or establish minimum penalties for alien

smuggling (H.R. 255, H.R. 688, H.R. 1320, H.R. 3938, S. 1916, S. 2061); increase the personnel

devoted solely to combating alien smuggling (H.R. 688); and grant S visas21 to aliens outside the

United States who have information on alien smuggling operations (H.R. 255, H.R. 2092).

Detention

Under the INA, there is broad authority to detain aliens while awaiting a determination about

whether the aliens should be removed from the United States. The law mandates that certain

categories of aliens be subject to mandatory detention (i.e., the aliens must be detained). Aliens

subject to mandatory detention include those arriving without documentation or with fraudulent

documentation, those who are inadmissible or deportable on criminal or national security

grounds, those certified as terrorist suspects, and those who have final orders of deportation.

Aliens not subject to mandatory detention may be detained, paroled, or released on bond. The

priorities for detention of these aliens are specified in statute and regulations.22

There are many policy issues surrounding the detention of aliens. Among them are concerns

about the number of aliens subject to mandatory detention and the justness of mandatory

detention, especially as it is applied to asylum seekers arriving without proper documentation.

Some have raised concerns about the length of time spent in detention by aliens who have been

See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Combating Alien Smuggling: Opportunities Exist to Improve the

Federal Response, GAO-05-305, May 27, 2005.

For more information on S visas see, CRS Report RS21043, Immigration: S Visas for Criminal and Terrorist

Informants, by (name redacted).

For more information on the detention of aliens see, CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention:

Current Legislative Issues, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

ordered removed. Additionally, the amount of detention space available to house DHS detainees

is a constant issue, especially since many nondetained aliens fail to appear for their removal

hearings or to depart from the United States after receiving final orders of deportation.

Several bills in the 109th Congress, including House-passed H.R. 4437 and H.R. 6094 and Senatepassed S. 2611, contain provisions concerning the detention of aliens in the United States. H.R.

4437, H.R. 6094, and S. 2611 would codify and modify the regulations governing the review of

post-removal order detention cases for aliens who were lawfully admitted. In addition, H.R. 4437

would require that as of October 1, 2006, all aliens attempting to illegally enter the United States

who do not withdraw their applications for admission and depart immediately or who are not

granted parole, be subject to mandatory detention until the alien is either removed or granted

admission; S. 2611 contains similar provisions. H.R. 4437 also would authorize and establish the

selection criteria for the Secretary of DHS to contract with private entities to provide

transportation to detention facilities and other locations for aliens apprehended along the border

by CBP, and would require mandatory detention for aliens of street gangs. (H.R. 6094, as passed

by the House, would also require the mandatory detention of aliens who are street gang

members.) S. 2611 would direct DHS to acquire or construct 20 additional detention facilities for

aliens with a combined capacity of at least 10,000 aliens at any time, and would direct DHS to

consider utilizing military installations approved for closure for this purpose. A detention-related

provision added as a Senate floor amendment to S. 2611 would give the Border Patrol exclusive

administrative and operational control over all assets utilized in carrying out its mission, which

would include detention space.

Illegal Presence, Removal, and Exclusion

H.R. 4437, as passed by the House, and S. 2611, as passed by the Senate, would variously build

on past legislative efforts, most recently the REAL ID Act, to tighten current law in the areas of

illegal presence and illegal entry; alien voluntary departure and removal from the United States;

alien exclusion from, or inadmissibility to, the United States; and judicial review. Some H.R.

4437- or S. 2611-like provisions in these areas have been passed by one or both houses in other

bills.

Unlawful Presence

Section 203 of H.R. 4437 would upgrade the consequences of illegal presence from a civil

offense to a criminal offense. Presently, unlawful presence is a criminal offense only when an

alien has previously been removed or excluded, or had departed the United States while a

removal order was outstanding. Under H.R. 4437, both unlawful entry and presence would be

made into felonies (a first offense of the unlawful entry statute is currently a misdemeanor, while

subsequent offenses are felonies). The bill would further heighten the criminal and civil penalties

for unlawful entry, reentry, and presence when an alien had previously been convicted of certain

crimes. Section 206 of S. 2611 would largely do the same, with the notable exception that it

would not criminalize unlawful presence or impose heightened penalties on such presence if the

alien had previously been convicted of certain crimes (unless the alien was unlawfully present in

the United States after having been removed).

Under §209 of H.R. 4437 and §206 of S. 2611, unlawful reentry and presence after voluntary

departure would be subject to increased criminal penalties. H.R. 4437 would also establish

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

mandatory minimum sentence requirements for the crime of reentering the United States after

either having been removed or having departed under a removal order (§204). In addition, it

would enhance the penalties for certain violent crimes and drug trafficking offenses when

committed by an unlawfully present alien (§618).

Voluntary Departure and Removal

In an effort to ensure that aliens granted voluntary departure leave the United States, H.R. 4437

and S. 2611 would amend the requirements for an alien to receive voluntary departure. Among

other things, voluntary departure would be granted only as part of an agreement by the alien. As

part of the agreement, the alien would have to waive any rights to appeal, but could receive a

discretionary reduction of the period of inadmissibility before the alien could apply to reenter the

United States. A subsequent decision to file an appeal would nullify the agreement. The

maximum validity period for permission to depart voluntarily prior to the conclusion of removal

proceedings that have already been initiated would be reduced from 120 days to 60 days, and

bond would be required in such cases unless waived as a serious financial hardship and

unnecessary to guarantee departure. The maximum validity period for permission to depart

voluntarily granted upon the conclusion of removal proceedings would be reduced from 60 days

to 45 days. Any failure to depart voluntarily would result in increased civil penalties and

ineligibility for immigration benefits and certain relief.

In addition, under the bills, aliens under a final order of removal who evade arrest and removal

would be barred from seeking admission prior to removal, and aliens who fail to comply with, or

otherwise obstruct, a removal order would be barred from discretionary relief.

Expedited Removal

H.R. 4437 and S. 2611 would expand expedited removal. More specifically, these bills would

require the DHS Secretary to place any alien who has not been admitted or paroled, with minor

exceptions, into expedited removal if the alien is apprehended within 100 miles of the land border

and 14 days of unauthorized entry. Canadians, Cubans, and Mexicans would be notable

exceptions to the expansion of this provision.

Denying Entry

Under current law (INA §243(d)), the Secretary of State is required to deny visas to nationals of

countries, when informed by the Attorney General that the country has denied or delayed

accepting its citizens, nationals, or residents whom the United States ordered removed. H.R. 4437

would rewrite this provision to authorize the Secretary of DHS, after consultation with the

Secretary of State, to deny the admission of nationals of countries that deny or delay accepting

their citizens, nationals, or residents whom the United States ordered removed. In other words, it

would shift implementation from visa issuances at consulates abroad—where reportedly the

Attorney General has never invoked §243(d)—to alien admissions at U.S. ports of entry. If

enacted, foreign nationals who have visas but are from uncooperative countries would be denied

admission when they arrive at ports of entry if the Secretary of DHS so deemed. S. 2611 would

authorize the Secretary of DHS to instruct the Secretary of State to deny a visa to any citizen,

subject, national, or resident of a country that has denied or delayed accepting its citizens whom

the United States ordered removed, until the country accepts its citizens.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Documentary Requirements for Western Hemisphere Travelers

The INA requires all U.S. citizens to bear a valid passport when entering and departing the United

States, but gives the President the authority to waive this requirement. U.S. citizens are excepted

from this requirement under several circumstances, including when the citizen is traveling

between the United States and any country or territory in North, South, or Central America,

excluding Cuba. P.L. 108-458 included language establishing what is now known as the Western

Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). WHTI requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in

consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a plan as expeditiously as

possible to require a passport or other document(s) “deemed by the Secretary of Homeland

Security to be sufficient to denote identity and citizenship,” for all travelers entering the United

States. The law expressly states that citizens and categories of individuals for whom

documentation requirements have previously been waived fall under this new requirement.23 The

deadline for fully implementing WHTI in P.L. 108-458 was January 1, 2008. This deadline has

been eased by §546 of P.L. 109-295, which requires implementation not later than three months

after the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security certify that specified requirements have been

met, or June 1, 2009, whichever is earlier.

Consequences for Terrorist and Criminal Activity

Beyond the REAL ID Act, a number of bills have been introduced in the 109th Congress to

expand the terrorism-related and criminal grounds for inadmissibility and deportation and to deny

certain immigration benefits to aliens covered by such grounds. The House has passed one of

these bills, H.R. 4437. Provisions in Titles II and VI of H.R. 4437 would modify immigration law

relating to aliens involved in criminal or terrorism-related activity in a number of ways. Among

other things, H.R. 4437 would prohibit persons described in the terrorism-related grounds for

inadmissibility and deportation from being naturalized and restrict their eligibility for certain

immigration benefits, including relief from removal. 24 H.R. 4437 would also expand the criminal

grounds for inadmissibility and deportation (including for alien gang members), prohibit the

adjustment of status of refugees and asylees who have committed aggravated felonies, and

expand the immigration-related and criminal penalties for certain types of document and

immigration fraud.25 H.R. 6094, as passed by the House, contains largely the same gang-related

provisions as H.R. 4437.

Title II of S. 2611 contains provisions generally covering the same matters as H.R. 4437. In

addition, §764 of S. 2611 would expand the terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility (and by

Under §7209(c)(2) of P.L. 108-458, however, the President does retain some discretion, as specified, to waive

documentary requirements for U.S. citizens.

For background on the current terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and deportation, along with more

detailed discussion of how H.R. 4437 would alter the terrorism-related provisions of the INA, see CRS Report

RL32564, Immigration: Terrorist Grounds for Exclusion and Removal of Aliens, by (name redacted) and (name

redacted).

For background on the present immigration consequences of criminal activity, as well as the changes that H.R. 4437

would make to such consequences, see CRS Report RL32480, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity, by

Yule Kim and (name redacted). For more particular information on laws concerning immigration-related document

fraud, and the effects that H.R. 4437 would have in this area, see CRS Report RL32657, Immigration-Related

Document Fraud: Overview of Civil, Criminal, and Immigration Consequences, by Yule Kim and (name redacte

d).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

reference, the terrorism-related grounds for removal) to cover any incitement or advocacy of

terrorist activity (current law only expressly covers incitement in certain circumstances).

Reduction of Appellate Review

Title VIII of H.R. 4437, as passed by the House, and parts of Titles IV and VII of S. 2611, as

passed by the Senate, would continue the trend of streamlining and limiting certain administrative

and judicial review procedures.26 These bills are not identical but share certain similar provisions.

The proposed changes generally fall into a few categories: increasing resources; establishing

administrative adjudication procedures statutorily, rather than merely in regulations; establishing

major procedural changes in judicial review to handle the increased litigation; and procedural

clarifications in response to procedural interpretations in various federal appellate court decisions.

Proposals in the latter two categories include provisions that would amend the judicial review

statute (INA §242) in various ways. H.R. 4437 would provide a screening process under which a

single federal appellate judge or circuit justice would review a case within 60 days of assignment,

and a petition for review would be denied absent the issuance of a certificate of reviewability by

the federal appellate judge. The House-passed bill also includes provisions responding to certain

federal appellate holdings regarding immigration procedures. S. 2454 would likewise establish a

screening procedure with a certificate of reviewability, and would respond to some federal

appellate holdings regarding immigration procedures. In addition, S. 2454 includes a

controversial proposal to consolidate immigration appeals in one circuit of the federal appellate

courts. None of these proposals have been included in S. 2611. Instead, the Senate-passed bill

would provide for a related GAO study. It seems likely that, even if these consolidation and other

proposals are not ultimately included in any immigration legislation enacted this Congress, they

would be reintroduced in the future.

H.R. 4437 would amend INA §242 to clarify that the restrictions on judicial review of denials of

discretionary relief would apply to individual determinations made by the Attorney General or

Secretary of Homeland Security under the immigration laws regardless of whether such

determinations were made in removal proceedings and regardless of whether such decisions or

actions were guided by regulatory or other standards. H.R. 4437 would also make issuance of a

nonimmigrant visa subject to a waiver of any right to review of an inadmissibility determination

at a port of entry or to contest removal except for asylum.

S. 2611 would increase the number of litigation and adjudication personnel in DHS, the

Department of Justice, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; and establish procedural

guidelines for the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). It would also provide for the

appointment, qualifications, terms, and removal of immigration judges and members of BIA and

the continuation and expansion of a legal orientation program providing information about

immigration court procedures to detainees on a nationwide basis. It would further provide for the

participation of senior district court judges in the selection of magistrates.

S. 2611 includes the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act (§§421-423), which would limit

injunctive relief in immigration-related civil actions against the federal government. This

proposal is reportedly in response to permanent injunctive relief concerning certain rights for El

For additional information, see CRS Report RL33410, Immigration Litigation Reform, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Salvadorans in deportation/removal proceedings under Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, 919

F.2d 549 (1990), which the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have filed a motion to

terminate; the agencies assert that the circumstances giving rise to the injunction no longer exist.

The injunction impedes the application to El Salvadorans of expedited removal procedures

enacted since the issuance of the injunction, and some of the procedures mandated by the

injunction have become part of the standard operating procedures for all aliens. These Fairness in

Immigration Litigation provisions are also included in H.R. 6095, as passed by the House, under

the new title, “Ending Catch and Release Act of 2006.” Another similar House bill on

immigration litigation is H.R. 5541. Unlike S. 2611 and H.R. 6095, however, H.R. 5541 would

prohibit a court from certifying a class action in any civil action that pertains to the administration

and enforcement of immigration laws and is filed after the date of enactment.

Temporary Immigration

The INA provides for the temporary admission of various categories of foreign nationals, who are

known as nonimmigrants. Nonimmigrants are admitted for a temporary period of time and a

specific purpose. They include a wide range of visitors, including tourists, foreign students,

diplomats, and temporary workers. The latter group is the subject of major legislation and

considerable interest in the 109th Congress. The main nonimmigrant category for temporary

workers is the H visa. Among the visa classifications in the H visa category are the H-1B visa for

professional specialty workers, the H-2A visa for agricultural workers, and the H-2B visa for

nonagricultural workers. Foreign nationals also may be temporarily admitted to the United States

for work- or business-related purposes under other nonimmigrant categories, including the B-1

visa for business visitors, the E visa for treaty traders and investors, and the L-1 visa for

intracompany transfers.27

Guest Workers

The H-2A and the H-2B visa programs mentioned above are the two main programs for

temporarily importing low-skilled workers, sometimes referred to as guest workers. The 109th

Congress revised the H-2B program for nonagricultural workers as part of P.L. 109-13. The H-2B

language, added as a Senate floor amendment and retained, as modified, in the final conference

agreement as Title IV of Division B, was based on S. 352/H.R. 793. These provisions cap at

33,000, the number of H-2B slots available during the first six months of a fiscal year. They also

require DHS to submit specified information to Congress on the H-2B program on a regular

basis; impose a new fraud-prevention and detection fee on H-2B employers; and authorize DHS

to impose additional penalties on H-2B employers in certain circumstances. In addition, for

FY2005 and FY2006, these provisions exempt “returning workers” who have been counted

toward the 66,000 annual H-2B cap in any of the past three years from being counted again. P.L.

109-364 contains a provision to extend the H-2B returning worker exemption through FY2007. In

addition, S. 2611, as passed by the Senate, would extend the exemption through FY2009.

Among the proposals to revise the H-2A program for agricultural workers are bills known as

AgJOBS (S. 359/H.R. 884). Among other provisions, these bills would streamline the process of

For an overview of nonimmigrant admissions, see CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary

Admissions, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

importing H-2A workers and make changes to existing H-2A requirements regarding minimum

benefits, wages, and working conditions. S. 2611, as passed by the Senate, includes H-2A reform

provisions like those in Ag JOBS. (Provisions to legalize the status of certain agricultural workers

are discussed below in the “LPR Status for Unauthorized Aliens” section.)

Title I of H.R. 3333 would eliminate all the current H visa subcategories, including the H-2A and

H-2B visas, and replace them with a single H visa covering aliens coming temporarily to the

United States to perform skilled or unskilled work. H visa holders could not change to another

nonimmigrant status or adjust to LPR status in the United States. Under H.R. 3333, the new H

visa program could not be implemented until the Secretary of Homeland Security makes certain

certifications to Congress, including that a congressionally mandated automated entry-exit system

is fully operational. 28

Proposals to create new temporary worker visas have also been introduced in the 109th Congress.

Title IV of S. 2611, as passed by the Senate, would establish a new H-2C guest worker visa for

aliens coming temporarily to the United States to perform temporary labor or services other than

the labor or services covered under the H-2A visa or other specified visa categories. As

introduced, S. 2611 would have capped the proposed H-2C visa at 325,000 the first fiscal year

and would have established a process for adjusting the cap in subsequent fiscal years based on

demand for the visas. A Senate floor amendment (S.Amdt. 3981) that was agreed to by voice vote

replaced these provisions with a provision placing an annual cap of 200,000 on the H-2C visa.

Under Title IV of S. 2611, an H-2C worker’s initial authorized period of stay would be three

years, and could be extended for an additional three years. H-2C nonimmigrants in the United

States could adjust to LPR status. Petitions for employment-based immigrant visas could be filed

by an H-2C worker’s employer or, if the H-2C worker had maintained H-2C status for a total of

four years, by the worker.

Among the other pending bills to establish new temporary workers visas are S. 1033/H.R. 2330

and S. 1438. Titles III and VII of S. 1033/H.R. 2330, respectively, would establish new H-5A and

H-5B visas. The H-5A visa would cover aliens coming temporarily to the United States initially

to perform labor or services “other than those occupational classifications” covered under the H2A or specified high-skilled visa categories. The H-5B visa would cover certain aliens present

and employed in the United States since before May 12, 2005. S. 1033/H.R. 2330 includes special

provisions for H-5A and H-5B workers to apply to adjust to LPR status.

Title V of S. 1438 would establish a new W temporary worker visa under the INA. The W visa

would cover aliens coming temporarily to the United States to perform temporary labor or service

other than that covered under the H-2A or specified high-skilled visa categories. (S. 1438 would

repeal the H-2B category.) In addition, Title VI of S. 1438 would authorize DHS to grant a new

status—Deferred Mandatory Departure (DMD) status—to certain aliens present in the United

States since July 20, 2004, and employed since before July 20, 2005. Aliens could be granted

DMD status for up to five years. S. 1438 would not provide aliens in W status or DMD status

with any special pathway to LPR status.29

For information on the entry-exit system issue, see CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status

Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by Lisa M. Seghetti and (name redacted).

For further information and analysis, see CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to

Guest Worker Programs, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Professional and Managerial Workers

Much of the recent legislative action on foreign temporary workers in professional and

managerial jobs has focused on fees. 30 Title IV of P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Appropriations

Act for FY2005, requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to impose a fraud prevention and

detection fee of $500 on H-1B (professional specialty workers) and L (intracompany business

personnel) petitioners. Section 426(b) of the act requires that the H-1B and L fraud prevention

and detection fee be divided equally among DHS, the Department of State (DOS), and the

Department of Labor (DOL) for use in combating fraud in H-1B and L visa applications filed

with DOS, investigating H-1B and L petitions filed with DHS, and carrying out DOL labor

attestation activities.

L Intracompany Visas

H.R. 3648, as ordered reported by the House Judiciary Committee, would place new requirements

on the L nonimmigrant visa category, which permits multinational firms to transfer top-level

personnel to their locations in the United States for five to seven years. The bill would require the

Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to each charge fees of $1,500 to employers filing

certain visa applications and nonimmigrant petitions for L visas. These provisions were included

in Title V of H.R. 4241, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, as passed by the House. The

conference report (H.Rept. 109-362) on S. 1932 (P.L. 109-171), which was renamed the Deficit

Reduction Act of 2005, did not include these L visa provisions. S. 2611 would revise the INA

provisions on the L visa to address certain perceived abuses.

H-1B Visas

On October 20, 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved compromise language to

recapture up to 30,000 H-1B visas that had not been issued in prior years. An additional fee of

$500 would be charged to obtain these recaptured visas. Also under this compromise, an

additional fee of $750 would be charged for L-1 visas. This language was forwarded to the Senate

Budget Committee for inclusion in the budget reconciliation legislation. S. 1932, as passed by the

Senate, included these provisions in Title VIII. Neither the House-passed budget reconciliation

bill (H.R. 4241) nor the conference report on S. 1932 (P.L. 109-171), however, contained these H1B or fee provisions.

S. 2611 would raise the numerical limit on H-1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 and would

establish a formula by which to calculate future admissions. Like S. 1918, and S. 2454, S. 2611

would add a new exemption from the H-1B annual numerical limit for H-1Bs who have earned an

advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math from an accredited university in the

United States. On a related issue, S. 2454 and S. 2611 would extend foreign students’ practical

training from 12 to 24 months and would expand the F student and J exchange visas for aliens

who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math, options that

could become attractive alternatives to the H-1B visa for some employers.

See CRS Report RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty (H-1B)

Workers; and CRS Report RL32030, Immigration Policy for Intracompany Transfers (L Visa): Issues and Legislation,

both by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

H-1C Visas

P.L. 106-95 established a new H-1C nonimmigrant classification for nurses coming to the United

States to work in health professional shortage areas. That law provided that H-1C petitions could

be filed only during a specified four-year period, which has since expired. H.R. 1285, as passed

by the House and the Senate, would amend P.L. 106-95 to allow for the filing of H-1C petitions

for an additional three years. It would not otherwise change the H-1C program.

Permanent Immigration

In addition to the admission of temporary workers and other temporary visitors, the INA provides

for the admission of foreign nationals to the United States as LPRs. Four elements underlie U.S.

policy on permanent immigration: the reunification of families, the admission of immigrants with

needed skills, the protection of refugees, and the diversity of admissions by country of origin.

Various measures to revise permanent admissions have been introduced, but only one has been

enacted thus far in the 109th Congress. Some, such as the enacted measure on visas for nurses, are

narrowly targeted at particular aspects of the permanent immigration system. Others, including S.

2611, S. 1033/H.R. 2330, S. 1438, S. 2454, and H.R. 3700 would broadly change permanent

admissions.31

Recaptured Visa Numbers for Nurses

During Senate floor consideration of the FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill,

an amendment was added to make up to 50,000 permanent employment-based visas available for

foreign nationals coming to work as nurses. This provision was accepted by the conferees and

enacted as §502 of P.L. 109-13, Division B, Title V.

Recaptured Employment-Based Visa Numbers

On October 20, 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved compromise language that

would, among other things, “recapture” up to 90,000 employment-based visas that had not been

issued to employment-based immigrants in prior years (when the statutory ceiling of 140,000

visas was not met). An additional fee of $500 would be charged to obtain these recaptured visas.

Like the H-1B and fee provisions discussed above, this language was forwarded to the Senate

Budget Committee; it was included in Title VIII of S. 1932, as passed by the Senate. These

provisions were not included in House-passed H.R. 4241 or in the conference report on S. 1932

(P.L. 109-171).

Elimination of Diversity Visas

The Security and Fairness Enhancement for America Act of 2005 (H.R. 1219) would amend the

INA to eliminate the diversity visa lottery. The purpose of the diversity visa lottery is, as the name

suggests, to encourage legal immigration from countries other than the major sending countries of

For additional background and analysis, see CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on

Permanent Admissions, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

current immigration to the United States. H.R. 1219 has been marked up by the House

Immigration subcommittee. The provisions of H.R. 1219 have been incorporated into H.R. 4437,

as passed by the House. 32 Various Senate bills, notably S. 1438 and S. 2377, would also eliminate

the diversity visa.

S. 1033/H.R. 2330

S. 1033/H.R. 2330 would make significant revisions to the permanent legal admissions sections

of the INA. Specifically, Title VI of the legislation would remove immediate relatives of U.S.

citizens from the calculation of the 480,000 annual cap on family-based visas for LPR status,

thereby providing additional visas to the family preference categories. It also would lower the

income requirements for sponsoring a family member for LPR status from 125% of the federal

poverty guidelines to 100%, and recapture for future allocations those LPR visas that were

unused due to processing delays from FY2001 through FY2005. In addition, it would increase the

annual limit on employment-based LPR visa categories from 140,000 to 290,000 visas, and raise

the current per-country limit on LPR visas from an allocation of 7% of the total preference

allocation to 10% of the total preference allocation (which would be 480,000 for family-based

and 290,000 for employment-based under this bill).

S. 1438

Title X of S. 1438 would make significant changes to the INA provisions on the diversity visa and

permanent employment-based admissions. It would eliminate the diversity visa. It would reduce

the allocation of visas to persons of “extraordinary” and “exceptional” abilities and persons

having advanced professional degrees (i.e., first and second preferences), and increase the number

of visas to unskilled workers from a statutory cap of 10,000 annually to a level of 36% of the

140,000 ceiling for employment-based admissions (plus any other unused employment-based

visas). Also with respect to employment-based immigration, it would recapture for future

allocations those employment-based visa numbers that were unused from FY2001 through

FY2005.

H.R. 3700

Title I of H.R. 3700 would substantially overhaul permanent admissions to the United States.

Among other provisions, it would reduce the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants

from 140,000 to 5,200 annually, and would limit the 5,200 employment-based visas to persons of

“extraordinary” and “exceptional” abilities and persons having advanced professional degrees. In

addition, it would eliminate the family preference visa categories and the diversity visa.

S. 2454

Title IV of S. 2454 would substantially increase the number of visas issued to LPRs. Foremost,

this bill would no longer deduct immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the overall familysponsored numerical limit of 480,000. It also would no longer count the derivative family

For more information, see CRS Report RS21342, Immigration: Diversity Visa Lottery, by (name redacted) and

(name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

members of employment-based LPRs as part of the numerical ceiling. S. 2454 would further

recapture visa numbers from FY2001 through FY2005 in those cases when the family-based and

employment-based ceilings were not reached.

Similar to S. 1033/H.R. 2330, Title IV of S. 2454 would increase the annual limit on

employment-based LPR visa categories from 140,000 to 290,000 visas, and raise the current percountry limit on LPR visas from an allocation of 7% of the total preference allocation to 10% of

the total preference allocation (which would be 480,000 for family-based and 290,000 for

employment-based under these bills). These proposed increases to the worldwide ceilings and to

the per-country limits would ease the visa wait times that oversubscribed countries (i.e., China,

India, Mexico, and the Philippines) currently face by substantially increasing their share of the

overall ceiling.

S. 2454 also would reallocate family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visas. With

respect to employment-based visas, it would shift the allocation of visas from persons of

“extraordinary” and “exceptional” abilities and persons having advanced professional degrees

(i.e., first and second preferences) toward unskilled workers, whose visa allocation would

increase from 10,000 to 87,000, plus any unused visas that would roll down from the other

employment-based preference categories. Employment-based visas for certain special immigrants

would no longer be numerically limited.

S. 2611

Title V of S. 2611 would substantially increase legal immigration and would restructure the

allocation of these visas. The Senate-passed bill would no longer deduct immediate relatives of

U.S. citizens from the overall family-sponsored numerical limit of 480,000. It would increase the

annual number of employment-based LPRs from 140,000 to 450,000 for FY2007 through

FY2016, and set the limit at 290,000 thereafter. Although derivative family members of

employment-based LPRs would no longer count under the 450,000/290,000 numerical ceiling, S.

2611 would establish a total cap of 650,000 employment-based LPRs and their accompanying

families.

Similar to other Senate bills, S. 2611 would further increase overall levels of immigration by

reclaiming family and employment-based LPR visas when the annual ceilings were not met,

FY2001-FY2005. Title V of S. 2611 would raise the current per-country limit on LPR visas from

an allocation of 7% of the total preference allocation to 10% of the total preference allocation

(which would be 480,000 for family-based and 450,000/290,000 for employment-based under

this bill).33 The bill also would eliminate the exceptions to the per-country ceilings for certain

family-based and employment-based LPRs.34

The per-country ceiling for dependent states is raised from 2% to 7%.

For an analysis of per-country limits and actual admissions by country, see CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration

Policy on Permanent Admissions, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

LPR Status for Unauthorized Aliens

Some immigration reform bills before the 109th Congress contain highly controversial provisions

to enable certain unauthorized aliens in the United States to adjust to LPR status. In the case of S.

1033/H.R. 2330, as discussed in the section on guest workers above, a separate guest worker visa

would be established for unauthorized aliens, who would then be able to adjust to LPR status

through the permanent employment-based immigration system. Other bills, such as Senate-passed

S. 2611, would establish legalization mechanisms separate from guest worker programs. Under

Title VI, Subtitle A of S. 2611, the Secretary of DHS would adjust the status of an alien and the

alien’s spouse and minor children to LPR status if the alien meets specified requirements. The

alien would have to establish that he or she was physically present in the United States on or

before April 5, 2001; did not depart during the April 5, 2001-April 5, 2006 period except for brief

departures; and was not legally present as a nonimmigrant on April 5, 2006. Among the other

requirements, the alien would have to establish employment for at least three years during the

April 5, 2001-April 5, 2006 period and for at least six years after enactment, and would have to

establish payment of income taxes during that required employment period. Such adjustments of

status would not be subject to numerical limits.

Also under Title VI, Subtitle A of S. 2611, aliens who are unable to meet the presence and

employment requirements for adjustment to LPR status but who have been present and employed

in the United States since January 7, 2004, and meet other requirements, could apply to DHS for

Deferred Mandatory Departure (DMD) status.35 Eligible aliens would be granted DMD status for

up to three years. An alien in DMD status could apply for immigrant or nonimmigrant status

while in the United States, but would have to depart the country in order to be admitted under

such status. The alien could exit the United States and immediately re-enter at certain land points

of entry. Aliens granted DMD status who are subsequently admitted to the country as H-2C aliens

could apply to adjust to LPR status, as described above in the “Guest Workers” section.

Title VI, Subtitles B and C of S. 2611 contain additional provisions that would enable certain

unauthorized aliens in the United States to apply for LPR status. Subtitle B would establish a

“blue card” program for certain agricultural workers in the United States. Under the program,

aliens who had performed requisite agricultural employment and meet other requirements would

be able to obtain “blue card” status. Not more than 1.5 million blue cards could be issued during

the five years beginning on the date of enactment. After meeting additional requirements, blue

card holders would be able to adjust to LPR status outside the INA’s numerical limits.

Subtitle C, known as the DREAM Act, would enable aliens who first entered the United States

before age 16, have a high school diploma or the equivalent or have been admitted to an

institution of higher education, and meet other requirement to apply for LPR status. Individuals

who qualify would be granted LPR status on a conditional basis. No numerical limitations would

apply. The conditional LPR status would be valid for six years, after which the alien could apply

to have the condition removed subject to specified requirements.

During Senate consideration of S. 2611, several amendments to eliminate or modify legalization

provisions in the bill were debated. These included two unsuccessful amendments to delete the

The DMD provisions in S. 2611 differ from those in S. 1438; the S. 1438 provisions are discussed in the “Guest

Workers” section above.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Subtitle A and Subtitle B legalization provisions for aliens who had been in the United States

since April 5, 2001, and for agricultural workers (S.Amdt. 3963), and to expand the Subtitle A

legalization program for those in the United States since April 5, 2001, to cover aliens in the

country since January 1, 2006 (S.Amdt. 4087).

House-passed H.R. 4437 does not contain provisions to legalize the status of unauthorized aliens

in the United States.

Immigrant Victims

The INA includes a variety of provisions to assist aliens who have been victims of specified types

of illegal activities, including domestic violence and trafficking. Many of these provisions were

enacted as part of the (1) Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103322), which included the original Violence Against Women Act (VAWA); (2) Victims of

Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA; P.L. 106-386), which included VAWA

2000; and (3) Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-193).

Battered Aliens

Special INA provisions benefit aliens who have been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by

their U.S. citizen or LPR spouses or parents. For example, these provisions establish special

procedures and rules for battered aliens with respect to: petitioning to obtain LPR status;

adjusting to LPR status in the United States; and obtaining relief from removal or deportation.

P.L. 109-162 amends and broadens existing protections for battered immigrants. It represents a

compromise between provisions included in House-passed H.R. 3402 and Senate-passed S. 1197.

Under current law, battered spouses and children of citizens or LPRs who meet specified criteria

are treated differently than most other prospective family-based immigrants, who must be the

beneficiaries of immigrant visa petitions filed by their family members. Battered aliens are

allowed to file immigrant visa petitions on their own behalf, which is known as VAWA selfpetitioning. P.L. 109-162 makes self-petitioning available to the battered parents of citizens. It

also makes VAWA self-petitioners whose petitions are approved eligible for employment

authorization, and more generally, allows the Secretary of DHS to grant work authorization to

battered spouses of certain nonimmigrants. Among its other provisions, P.L. 109-162 places new

requirements on the K visa, and establishes rules and associated penalties for international

marriage brokers. P.L. 109-271 makes various technical changes to the INA’s battered alien

provisions.

Trafficking Victims

The 109th Congress has enacted two bills with provisions on victims of trafficking. P.L. 109-164,

the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 972), authorizes

appropriations for existing grant programs under VTVPA. It also creates several new grant

programs, including grants to develop, expand, or strengthen trafficking victims assistance

programs for U.S. citizens and LPRs, and grants to strengthen law enforcement programs to

investigate and prosecute domestic trafficking involving U.S. citizens and LPRs. In addition, P.L.

109-164 creates a pilot program to establish three residential treatment facilities for trafficking

victims who are minors.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

The INA includes a nonimmigrant category, known as T status or the T visa, for aliens who are

victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons. P.L. 109-162 makes various changes to the T

visa to expand existing protections. Although under current law there is no time limit on the

duration of T status, under regulation it is limited to three years. P.L. 109-162 authorizes T status

for four years, and allows for additional year-by-year extensions upon certification from selected

officials, including state and local law enforcement, that the alien’s continued presence in the

United States is required to assist in a criminal investigation or prosecution. P.L. 109-162

removes the requirement that there must be a finding of hardship for family members of the

trafficking victim (T visa recipient) to be given T visas, and allows aliens with T status to adjust

to LPR status, after the shorter of three years or the conclusion of the investigation or prosecution

of the trafficking crime. The act also allows an alien to change from another nonimmigrant

classification to T status, and removes illegal presence as a reason to deny the change in status.

Other Legislation and Issues

Refugees

President Bush has proposed a worldwide refugee ceiling for FY2007 of 70,000, with 50,000 of

these numbers allocated among the regions of the world and the remaining 20,000 comprising an

“unallocated reserve” to be used if, and where, additional refugee slots are needed. The

worldwide refugee ceiling for FY2006 was 70,000, with 60,000 allocated numbers and 10,000

unallocated numbers. As of September 30, 2006, actual FY2006 refugee admissions totaled

41,277. Refugee admissions for FY2005 totaled 53,813. Refugee numbers that are unused in a

fiscal year are lost; they do not carry over into the following year.

The “Lautenberg amendment,” first enacted in 1989, requires the Attorney General (now the

Secretary of DHS) to designate categories of former Soviet and Indochinese nationals for whom

less evidence is needed to prove refugee status, and provides for adjustment to LPR status for

certain former Soviet and Indochinese nationals denied refugee status. P.L. 108-199 amended the

Lautenberg amendment to add a new provision, known as the “Specter amendment,” that directs

the Attorney General to establish categories of Iranian religious minorities who may qualify for

refugee status under the Lautenberg amendment’s reduced evidentiary standard. P.L. 109-102

extends the Lautenberg amendment through FY2006. H.R. 5522, as reported by the Senate

Appropriations Committee, would extend the amendment through FY2007.

The “McCain amendment,” first enacted in 1996, made the adult children of certain Vietnamese

refugees eligible for U.S. refugee resettlement. P.L. 107-185 revised the amendment for FY2002

and FY2003. Among its provisions, this law enabled adult children previously denied

resettlement to have their cases reconsidered. P.L. 109-102 extends the amendments, as revised,

through FY2007.

Resettlement Funding

For FY2006, P.L. 109-149 includes an appropriation of $575.6 million for the refugee

resettlement programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS)

Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). This funding, however, like most other FY2006

discretionary appropriations, is subject to a 1% recision enacted as part of the FY2006 Defense

appropriations bill (P.L. 109-148). For FY2007, the President has requested $614.9 million for

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

refugee assistance. The FY2007 Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill reported by the House

Appropriations Committee (H.R. 5647) would appropriate $604.3 million for ORR programs,

while the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill (S. 3708) includes an appropriation of

$599.9 million for ORR programs.

Citizenship and Naturalization

Legislative proposals have been introduced in the 109th Congress concerning restrictions on U.S.

citizenship at birth, naturalization reform, and naturalization based on military service. A desire to

eliminate incentives for illegal immigration and concern about divided national loyalties have led

to proposals to restrict birthright citizenship either by constitutional amendment or by statutory

interpretation of constitutional language, so that persons born in the United States would only

become citizens at birth if their parents were U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or at least

lawfully present in the United States. Measures containing such provisions include S. 2117,

H.J.Res. 41, H.J.Res. 46, H.R. 698, H.R. 3700, H.R. 3938, and H.R. 4313. These proposals vary

as to where the line would be drawn concerning the parents’ status. Such proposals reportedly

were submitted to the House Rules Committee for consideration as floor amendments to H.R.

4437 and to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration as an amendment to the

Chairman’s mark, but in the former case, no such amendments were included in the final rule and

in the latter case, apparently no such amendment was considered.

Concern about divided national loyalties has also motivated legislation to reform naturalization

by restricting dual nationality. Section 1201 of H.R. 4437, as passed by the House, would codify

the existing oath of allegiance in the INA (currently the exact wording is prescribed in regulations

pursuant to substantive principles established in the INA). Section 643(h) of S. 2611, as passed by

the Senate, would revise and codify language for the oath of allegiance. Both of these provisions

would require DHS, in cooperation with DOS, to inform the country in which the new U.S.

citizen has a pre-existing nationality that the citizen has renounced allegiance to that foreign

country and has sworn allegiance to the United States. Bills containing similar provisions and/or

others intended to restrict dual nationality include S. 1087, S. 1815/H.R. 4168, H.R. 688, H.R.

2513, and H.R. 3938.

In addition to barring terrorists from naturalization as noted in an earlier section, §609 of H.R.

4437 and §204 of S. 2611 would reform the naturalization process by providing that no

application shall be considered while there is any pending proceeding concerning an applicant’s

inadmissibility, deportability, or rescission of lawful permanent resident status; and no petition for

immigrant status for a person shall be approved if there is any criminal or civil administrative or

judicial proceeding pending that could result in the sponsor-petitioner’s denaturalization or loss of

lawful permanent resident status. These provisions would also provide that an alien admitted

under the INA for conditional lawful permanent residence shall only be considered lawfully

admitted to permanent residence and have the conditional period count for naturalization

purposes if the conditionality has been removed; and would restrict judicial jurisdiction over

naturalization delays and judicial review of naturalization denials. Section 612 of H.R. 4437 and

§204 of S. 2611 would bar an alien who had been determined at any time to have been an alien

described in the national security/terrorism/genocide grounds for inadmissibility/ removal from

being considered a person of good moral character for naturalization purposes.

Section 643 of S. 2611 would provide resources and establish programs for naturalization and

naturalization education. Section 643(c)(2) of S. 2611 would reduce the period of required legal

residency for naturalization from five years to four years for lawful permanent residents who

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

demonstrate fluency in English in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by DHS in

consultation with DOS. Section 768 of S. 2611 would, among other things, establish guidelines

for a redesign of the citizenship test of English and civics knowledge.

Section 821 of S. 2611 would amend INA §320, which establishes the conditions for automatic

citizenship of children born outside the United States (who do not otherwise qualify for

citizenship under INA §301). The amendment would take effect retroactively to the original INA

date of enactment. Section 821 would permit the automatic citizenship of a child born outside the

United States to at least one U.S. citizen parent who satisfies certain physical presence

requirements, where the child is under the age of 18 years. It would thereby eliminate the current

requirement that a foreign-born child be residing in the United States as a lawful permanent

resident in order to acquire automatic citizenship. (Changes that §821 of S. 2611 would make to

the automatic citizenship requirements applicable to adopted children are covered below in the

“International Adoption” section.)

Finally, sections in Title VII of S. 2611 would build on the expansion of expedited naturalization

and other citizenship-related benefits for aliens serving in the U.S. military enacted by Title XVII

of P.L. 108-136. Among other things, S. 2611 would waive the fingerprint requirement for

members of the Armed Forces who were fingerprinted by DOD upon enlistment if they submit a

naturalization application within 12 months of enlistment. It would provide that aliens shall not

be denied the opportunity to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, and that aliens may be granted U.S.

citizenship after at least two years of honorable and satisfactory service on active duty and have

other requirements waived, if they file an application, demonstrate English and civics knowledge

and good moral character to their chain of command, and take the oath of allegiance. Similar

legislative proposals include S. 2097, S. 2165, S. 3947, H.R. 661, H.R. 901, H.R. 3018, H.R.

3911, and H.R. 4533. Section 509 of S. 2611 would provide that numerical limits on immigrant

visas shall not apply to the adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens naturalized under a statute

benefitting Filipino World War II veterans.

International Adoption

International adoption begins essentially as a legal matter between a private individual(s) and a

foreign court or government, as the prospective parents must comply with the adoption rules of

that country. 36 No United States government agency is directly involved in the adoption process

in another country or locates children to be adopted. Nonetheless, the prospective parents must

meet the U.S. legal requirements as defined in the INA to bring a child adopted abroad into the

United States. Under U.S. law, petitioning for an orphan requires two distinctive determinations:

(1) whether the prospective adoptive parents are able to care for the child; and (2) whether the

child meets the definition of orphan under the INA.

In 1993, the United States signed the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. In 2000,

Congress passed the International Adoption Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-279; IAA) to implement the

Convention, and the Senate approved ratification. 37 As required by the Convention, among other

things, the implementing legislation establishes the central adoption authority of the United States

For more information on international adoptions, see CRS Report RL31769, Immigration: International Child

Adoption, by (name redacted).

The United States has not formally ratified the Convention.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

in DOS. The Secretary of DHS is responsible for filing applications of prospective adoptive

parents with the central authority.

Title VIII of Senate-passed S. 2611, added to the bill by S.Amdt. 4025, would make changes to

the international adoption process.38 S. 2611 would mandate that DOS establish an Office of

Intercountry Adoptions, to be headed by an Ambassador at Large for Intercountry Adoptions, who

would be responsible for advocating for children, advising the President on intercountry

adoptions, representing the U.S. government in diplomatic matters that arise as part of the

intercountry adoption process, and developing and overseeing policies relating to intercountry

adoptions. In addition, the bill would transfer all the responsibilities for administering

intercountry adoption cases from DHS to DOS.

Currently under INA §320, citizenship is automatically acquired by all foreign-born children who

are under the age of 18; who are residing in the United States as LPRs; and who are in the legal

and physical custody of at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. Adopted children can qualify for

automatic citizenship upon entry to the United States provided that the adoption is finalized

before the child enters the United States. S. 2611 would amend INA §320 so that a child adopted

abroad would automatically become a U.S. citizen upon adoption by at least one U.S. citizen who

has resided in the United States for at least five years, two of these years after the age of 14. The

adoption must be full and final, and the child must be under the age of 16 on the adoption date.

Under this change, the adopted child would no longer have to enter the United States to acquire

citizenship.

Furthermore, S. 2611 would create a new nonimmigrant W visa for an adoptable child who is

coming to the United States to be adopted by a U.S. citizen who has been approved to adopt by

DOS. The visa would be valid for four years, and the W visa holder would have all the rights and

benefits of an LPR.

Immigration Issues in Free Trade Agreements

Immigration issues often raised in the context of the free trade agreements (FTAs) include

whether FTAs should contain provisions that expressly expand immigration between the

countries as well as whether FTAs should require that the immigrant-sending countries restrain

unwanted migration (typically expressed as illegal aliens). The question of whether the movement

of people—especially temporary workers—is subsumed under the broader category of “provision

of services” and thus is an inherent part of any free trade agreement also arises.

The Australian FTA, signed on May 18, 2004, does not contain any explicit immigration

provisions. However, P.L. 109-13 includes a provision that touches on the nexus of H-1B visas

and FTAs. Specifically, Division B, Title V, §501 of the law adds 10,500 visas for Australian

nationals to perform services in specialty occupations under a new E-3 temporary visa.

The U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) was signed

on August 5, 2004, and implementing legislation was sent to the U.S. Congress on June 23, 2005.

These amendments are similar to provisions found in H.R. 3896, S. 1934, and S. 3031 in the 108th Congress. All the

bills were entitled the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act or ICARE Act.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Although DR-CAFTA does not contain any explicit immigration provisions, migration trends

from these nations arise as an issue.39

Document Fraud

H.R. 4437, as passed by the House, and S. 2611, as passed by the Senate, would broaden and

increase penalties for criminal offenses of document fraud and add such offenses to the criminal

grounds for inadmissibility and deportation. Among other things, these bills would provide for

either the establishment of a new DHS Fraudulent Documents Center or increased access to the

existing DHS Forensic Document Laboratory in order to collect and disseminate information

assisting law enforcement officers in identifying fraudulent immigration and travel documents.

Various provisions would amend the existing document fraud statutes generally or individually to:

establish that the distribution of fraudulent documents is a crime; increase the penalties for

document fraud; provide for a uniform statute of limitations for document fraud and other

immigration-related offenses; provide for the forfeiture of any property used to commit an

immigration fraud offense or the proceeds of such an offense; criminalize attempt and conspiracy

to commit immigration fraud; and criminalize schemes to defraud aliens, including

misrepresenting oneself as an attorney in immigration matters. S. 2611 would also provide an

exception for legitimate refugees and asylees who often must use fraudulent documents to escape

persecution in their countries; and increase the number of fraud detection enforcement agents

with regard to worksite enforcement.

Other Legislation Receiving Action

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)

SCAAP provides reimbursement to state and local governments for the direct costs associated

with incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. P.L. 109-162 authorizes appropriations for

SCAAP of $750 million for FY2006, $850 million for FY2007, and $950 million for each fiscal

year from FY2008 through FY2011. It also would require that SCAAP reimbursement funds be

used only for correctional purposes.40

Section 218 of S. 2611, as passed by the Senate, includes changes to SCAAP that would require

the Secretary of DHS to reimburse states and localities for costs associated with detaining and

processing undocumented criminal aliens. The costs covered include indigent defense; criminal

prosecution; autopsies; translators and interpreters; and court costs. S. 2611 would authorize

appropriations for these processing costs at $400 million for each fiscal year from FY2007

through FY2012. Additionally, appropriations for compensation under SCAAP would be

authorized at such sums as necessary for FY2007; $750 million for FY2008; $850 million for

FY2009; and $950 million for FY2010-FY2012.

For complete discussion and legislative tracking of DR-CAFTA, see CRS Report RL31870, The Dominican

Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), by (name redacted); and CRS Report

RL32322, Central America and the Dominican Republic in the Context of the Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA)

with the United States, by (name redacted) et al. For a more general discussion and analysis, see CRS Report RL32982,

Immigration Issues in Trade Agreements, by (name redacted).

See CRS Report RL33431, Immigration: Frequently Asked Questions on the State Criminal Alien Assistance

Program (SCAAP), by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

S Visa

The nonimmigrant S visa is currently available to aliens who are determined to be in possession

of critical reliable information concerning a criminal or terrorist organization, enterprise, or

operation that they are willing to supply to law enforcement authorities or a court. Section 410 of

S. 2611, as passed by the Senate, would expand the S visa to include aliens who: are in possession

of critical reliable information concerning the activities of governments or organizations (or their

agents, representatives, or officials) regarding weapons of mass destruction and related delivery

systems; and are willing to supply that information to U.S. authorities. S. 2611 also would

increase the numerical limit on the S visa from 250 to 1,000 per fiscal year.

Additionally, S. 2611 would require DHS to report to Congress should the number of

nonimmigrants admitted on S visas fall below 25% of the numerical limit. The report is required

to include descriptions of the efforts made by the Secretary of Homeland Security to admit such

nonimmigrants; reasons why fewer than 25% were admitted; and any extenuating circumstances

contributing to the shortfall in admissions.

Unaccompanied Alien Children

S. 119, as passed by the Senate, would create procedures for DHS officers to follow when they

encounter an unaccompanied alien child. It would establish new procedures to make it easier for

unaccompanied alien children to be placed with family members and other individuals and

entities, and would establish conditions for the detention of these children. Among its other

provisions, it would require that unaccompanied alien children have counsel to represent them in

immigration proceedings, and would require the establishment of a pilot program to study

providing guardians ad litem to assist unaccompanied alien children involved in immigration

proceedings.

Foreign Medical Graduates

Unless granted a waiver, foreign medical graduates who are in the United States on J visas to

receive graduate medical education or training must return to their home countries and reside

there for at least two years before they can apply for an immigrant visa, permanent residence, or

an H or L nonimmigrant visa (see “Temporary Immigration,” above). The authority to issue a

waiver of the foreign residence requirement to a foreign medical graduate based on the request of

a state public health department currently applies to aliens who acquired J status before June 1,

2006. H.R. 4997, as passed by the House, would extend this waiver authority to cover aliens who

acquire J status before June 1, 2008.

Special Immigrant Status for Translators

H.R. 2293, as reported by the House Judiciary Committee, would authorize DHS to grant LPR

status as “special immigrants” to certain nationals of Iraq and Afghanistan who worked with the

U.S. Armed Forces as translators, and their spouses and children. The bill would place an annual

cap of 50 on the number of principal aliens who could be granted special immigrant status.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

Nonimmigrant Traders and Investors from Denmark

H.R. 3647, as passed by the House, would make nationals of Denmark eligible to enter the United

States on E nonimmigrant visas as treaty traders or treaty investors.

Legislation

The following are immigration bills or bills with significant immigration provisions that have

received legislative action in the 109th Congress beyond hearings. All of these measures are

discussed earlier in the report.

P.L. 109-13 (H.R. 1268)

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami

Relief, 2005. Includes REAL ID Act. Reported by Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 109-16)

on March 11, 2005. Passed House on March 16, 2005. Reported by Senate Appropriations

Committee (S.Rept. 109-52) on April 6, 2005. Passed Senate, as amended, on April 21, 2005.

House agreed to conference report (H.Rept. 109-72) on May 5, 2005; Senate agreed on May 10,

2005. Signed on May 11, 2005.

P.L. 109-97 (H.R. 2744)

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2006. Includes alien smuggling provision. Reported by Appropriations

Committee (H.Rept. 109-102) on June 2, 2005. Passed House on June 8, 2005. Reported by

Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 109-92) on June 27, 2005. Passed Senate, as amended,

on September 22, 2005. House agreed to conference report (H.Rept. 109-255) on October 26,

2005; Senate agreed on November 10, 2005. Signed on November 3, 2005. Signed on November

10, 2005.

P.L. 109-102 (H.R. 3057)

Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006. Includes

refugee provisions. Reported by Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 109-152) on June 24, 2005.

Passed House on June 28, 2005. Reported by Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 109-96)

on June 30, 2005. Passed Senate, as amended, on July 20, 2005. House agreed to conference

report (H.Rept. 109-265) on November 4, 2005; Senate agreed on November 10, 2005. Signed on

November 14, 2005.

P.L. 109-149 (H.R. 3010)

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2006. Includes provisions on refugee resettlement funding. Reported by

Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 109-143) on June 21, 2005. Passed House on June 24, 2005.

Reported by Senate Judiciary Committee (S.Rept. 109-103) on July 14, 2005. Passed Senate, as

amended, on October 27, 2005. House disagreed to conference report (H.Rept. 109-300) on

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

November 17, 2005. House agreed to conference report (H.Rept. 109-337) on December 14,

2005; Senate agreed on December 21, 2005. Signed on December 30, 2005.

P.L. 109-162 (H.R. 3402)

Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. Includes

provisions on battered aliens, trafficking victims, and SCAAP. Reported by Judiciary Committee

(H.Rept. 109-233) on September 22, 2005. Passed House on September 28, 2005. Passed Senate,

as amended on December 16, 2005. House agrees to Senate amendment on December 17, 2005.

Signed on January 1, 2006.

P.L. 109-163 (H.R. 1815)

National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006. Includes provisions on U.S. Military patrols at

the border. Reported by Armed Services Committee (H.Rept. 109-89) on May 20, 2005. Passed

House on May 25, 2005. Passed Senate, as amended, on November 15, 2005. House agreed to

conference report (H.Rept. 109-360) on December 19, 2005; Senate agreed on December 21,

2005. Signed on January 6, 2006.

P.L. 109-164 (H.R. 972)

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005. Reported by International Relations

Committee (H.Rept. 109-317, Part I) on November 18, 2005, and by Judiciary Committee

(H.Rept. 109-317, Part II) on December 8, 2005. Passed House on December 14, 2005. Passed

Senate on December 22, 2005. Signed on January 10, 2006.

P.L. 109-271 (S. 3693)

Makes technical corrections to P.L. 109-162. Includes provisions on battered aliens. Passed

Senate on July 19, 2006. Passed House on July 29, 2006. Signed on August 12, 2006.

P.L. 109-295 (H.R. 5441)

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007. Reported by Appropriations

Committee (H.Rept. 109-476) on May 22, 2006. Passed House on June 6, 2006. Reported by

Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 109-273) on June 29, 2006. Passed Senate, as

amended, on July 13, 2006. House agreed to conference report (H.Rept. 109-699) on September

29, 2006; Senate agreed on September 29, 2006. Signed on October 4, 2006.

P.L. 109-364 (H.R. 5122)

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007. Includes H-2B visa provisions.

Reported by Armed Services Committee (H.Rept. 109-452) on May 5, 2006. Passed House on

May 11, 2006. Passed Senate, as amended, on June 22, 2006. House agreed to conference report

(H.Rept. 109-702) on September 29, 2006; Senate agreed on September 30, 2006. Signed on

October 17, 2006.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

P.L. 109-367 (H.R. 6061)

Secure Fence Act of 2006. Passed House on September 14, 2006. Passed Senate on September

29, 2006. Signed on October 26, 2006.

H.R. 1285 (Rush)

Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Reauthorization Act of 2005. Passed House on June 20,

2006. Passed Senate on December 6, 2006.

H.R. 1817 (Cox)

Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY2006. Includes provisions on role of

state and local law enforcement in enforcement of immigration law. Reported by Homeland

Security Committee (H.Rept. 109-71, Part I) on May 3, 2005; by Energy and Commerce

Committee (H.Rept. 109-71, Part II) on May 13, 2005; and by Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 10971, Part III) on May 13, 2005. Passed House on May 18, 2005.

H.R. 2293 (Hostettler)

Amends INA to provide special immigrant status for aliens serving as translators with the U.S.

Armed Forces. Reported by Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 109-99) on May 26, 2005.

H.R. 3647 (Sensenbrenner)

Renders nationals of Denmark eligible to enter the United States as nonimmigrant traders and

investors. Reported by Judiciary Committee (H.Rept. 109-251) on October 18, 2006. Passed

House on November 16, 2005.

H.R. 3648 (Sensenbrenner)

Amends INA to impose additional fees on immigration services for intracompany transferees.

Ordered to be reported by Judiciary Committee on September 29, 2005.

H.R. 4312 (King, P.)

Border Security and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005. Reported by Homeland Security

Committee (H.Rept. 109-329, Part I) on December 6, 2005.

H.R. 4437 (Sensenbrenner)

Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. Reported by Judiciary

Committee (H.Rept. 109-345, Part I) on December 13, 2005. Passed House, as amended, on

December 16, 2005.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

H.R. 4830 (Dreier)

Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006. Passed House on September 21, 2006.

H.R. 4997 (Moran, Jerry)

Physicians for Underserved Areas Act. Passed House on December 6, 2006.

H.R. 5522 (Kolbe)

Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2007. Includes

refugee provisions. Reported by Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 109-486) on June 5, 2006.

Passed House on June 9, 2006. Reported by Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 109-277)

on July 10, 2006.

H.R. 5647 (Regula)

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2007. Includes provisions on refugee resettlement funding. Reported by

Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 109-515) on June 20, 2006.

H.R. 6094 (Sensenbrenner)

Community Protection Act of 2006. Passed House on September 21, 2006.

H.R. 6095 (Sensenbrenner)

Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006. Passed House on September 21, 2006.

H.R. 6160 (Rogers, M. [Ala.])

More Border Patrol Agents Now Act of 2006. Passed House on September 26, 2006.

H.R. 6162 (Rogers, M. [Ala.])

Secure Border Initiative Financial Accountability Act of 2006. Passed House on September 28,

2006.

S. 119 (Feinstein)

Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005. Reported by Judiciary Committee (without

written report) on April 14, 2005. Passed Senate, as amended, on December 22, 2005.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress

S. 1197 (Biden)

Violence Against Women Act of 2005. Reported by Judiciary Committee (without written report)

on September 12, 2005. Passed Senate, as amended, on October 4, 2005.

S. 2611 (Specter)

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. Passed Senate, as amended, on May 25, 2006.

S. 3708 (Specter)

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2007. Includes provisions on refugee resettlement funding. Reported by

Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 109-287) on July 20, 2006.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Immigration Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Legislative Attorney

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Immigration Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Stephen R. Viña

(name redacted)

Specialist in Immigration Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Legislative Attorney

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Analyst in Domestic Security

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Information Research Specialist

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.