Please wait as we load hundreds of rigorously documented facts for you.



What You’ll Find

For example:


Citation Generator
X
APA
MLA
Chicago (for footnotes)
Chicago (for bibliographies)

Overview and Definitions

General

* An immigrant is “a person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.”[1]

* In the context of immigration, the legal terms “foreign national” and “alien” refer to people who are not citizens of the nations where they are residing or visiting.[2] [3] [4] [5]

* In the United States, immigrants can be classified into three broad categories:

  1. Citizens[6]
  2. Non-citizens who live in the U.S. legally[7]
  3. Non-citizens who live in the U.S. illegally[8]

* The U.S. allows visitors and temporary residents from other nations to stay in the United States for certain periods, but they are not immigrants because their stay in the U.S. is temporary.[9] [10]

* Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the federal agency that “enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.”[11] [12]

* U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the federal agency that “oversees lawful immigration to the United States.”[13]

* ICE and USCIS are divisions of the Department of Homeland Security, which is under the authority of the U.S. President.[14] [15] [16]

* Before 2002, the Immigration and Naturalization Service carried out the functions of both ICE and USCIS.[17]


Citizens

* Immigrants who have become citizens of the United States are known as “naturalized citizens.”[18] [19]

* Per U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, some of the benefits of becoming a naturalized citizen include the ability to:

  • “vote in federal elections.”
  • “travel with a U.S. Passport.”
  • “run for elective office where citizenship is required.”
  • “participate on a jury.”
  • “become eligible for federal and certain law enforcement jobs.”
  • “obtain certain state and federal benefits not available to noncitizens.”
  • “obtain citizenship for minor children born abroad.”
  • “expand and expedite their ability to bring family members to the United States.”[20]

* Non-citizen immigrants who legally live in the U.S. are known as “legal permanent residents” or “lawful permanent residents.” These people are authorized to permanently live, work, and study in the United States.[21] [22]

* The federal government issues green-colored identification cards to legal permanent residents, and thus, they are also known as “green card holders.”[23] [24]

* At certain points in time, “green cards” have been colors other than green, but the front of the cards issued since 2010 are green:

Current U.S. Legal Permanent Resident or Green Card

[25]


Illegal Non-Citizens

* Immigrants who illegally live in the U.S. are known as “unauthorized,” “illegal,” or “undocumented” immigrants.[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

* Unauthorized immigrants include people who enter the United States through:

  • illegal means like crossing the border without inspection.
  • legal means with a tourist, student, or work visa but overstay the timeframe allowed by the visa.[32] [33] [34]

* Under federal law:

  • illegally entering the U.S. is generally a criminal offense and also carries civil penalties.[35] [36] [37]
  • unlawful presence in the U.S. is generally a civil violation and can result in deportation but not a prison sentence.[38] [39] [40] [41]

Visitors & Temporary Residents

* Foreigners are generally permitted to visit the U.S. if they:

  • obtain a travel visa, which is “an official document or mark in your passport that allows you to enter or leave a country for a specific purpose or period of time,” or
  • meet certain criteria and are from nations that have visa-free travel agreements with the U.S.[42] [43] [44]

* Some foreigners can legally reside in the U.S. for extended but temporary periods through mechanisms like student or work visas.[45] [46]

* The U.S. government issues many different types of visas, such as those for tourists, athletes, students, businesspeople, agricultural workers, nannies, journalists, nurses, missionaries, and cultural exchange visitors.[47] [48]

* Under federal law, foreigners are generally ineligible for visas and entry to the U.S. if they pose various risks to the health, safety, or finances of others.[49] Examples include people who:

  • have been convicted of or admit to committing certain crimes “that involve moral turpitude, whether under U.S. law or foreign law….”[50]
  • are “likely at any time to become a public charge,” a “person unable to take care of himself or herself.”[51] [52] [53]
  • have “a communicable disease of public health significance.”[54]
  • are drug abusers or addicts.[55]
  • have physical or mental disorders that “may” endanger “the property, safety, or welfare of the individual or others.”[56]
  • apply for student visas and don’t “possess sufficient funds to cover educational expenses….”[57]
  • do not “make a credible showing” that “all” of the activities they will engage in “while in the United States are consistent” with their visa applications.[58]
  • have “inadequate documentation” to prove that they meet the criteria above or other requirements of federal law.[59]

Numbers and Demographics

Data Caveats

* The Census Bureau, which is tasked to measure the U.S. population and its demographics, is a core source of data for the numbers and types of immigrants in the U.S.[60] [61]

* Census Bureau data on immigration is obtained via surveys, and the answers provided by respondents are “not validated against other sources.”[62] [63] [64]

* The Census Bureau has difficulty obtaining accurate counts of immigrants. With regard to this, the academic book American Immigration states that:

  • “many” unauthorized immigrants “speak English poorly and may be illiterate as well, so they have trouble filling out the [Census] forms.”
  • “in 2010, the Census Bureau offered forms in roughly fifty languages.”
  • some immigrants are “isolated and suspicious of the government.”
  • “illegal immigrants may fear deportation, despite laws ensuring the confidentiality of their responses.”
  • census takers “follow up nonresponses with personal visits,” but “the immigrant population remains hard to find.”
  • “the Census Bureau has formed partnerships with many organizations and churches in the immigrant community to encourage responses to the census.”
  • “questions about sensitive matters such as legal status no longer appear on the Census form.”
  • “no one directly measures who leaves the country [United States].”[65] [66] [67]

* Per the Congressional Budget Office, estimates for the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. “are subject to considerable uncertainty.”[68] This is because:

  • millions of immigrants use fraudulent Social Security numbers, fake birth certificates, or other forms of identity fraud to conceal that they are in the U.S. illegally.[69] [70]
  • surveys generally require random, unbiased samples in order to be accurate,[71] [72] and some immigrants, especially unauthorized ones, avoid surveys out of fear of exposing their immigration status.[73] [74]
  • surveys are dependent upon respondent honesty, and certain groups of non-citizens often misrepresent themselves as citizens on surveys.[75]

All Immigrants

* According to the Census Bureau:

  • 45.3 million immigrants were living in the U.S. as of 2021.[76] [77] [78]
  • immigrants comprised 13.6% of the U.S. population in 2021.[79]
  • from 1850 to 2021, the portion of the U.S. population comprised of immigrants ranged from 5% to 15%, with a median of 13% and an average of 11%:
Immigrants in the United States

[80]

Nations of Origin

* The Census Bureau estimates that the immigrants living in the U.S. during 2021 came from the following regions:

Regional Birthplaces of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States

[81]

* The Census Bureau estimates that immigrants from the following 10 nations comprised 24.9 million or 55% of the foreign-born population living in the U.S. during 2021:

Top 10 National Birthplaces of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States

[82]

* Per a 2015 article from Pew Research:

  • From 1890 to 1919, “Germany dominated as the country sending the most immigrants to many of the U.S. states, although the United Kingdom, Canada and Italy were also strongly represented.”
  • “Since 1965, when Congress passed legislation to open the nation’s borders, immigrants have largely hailed from Latin America and Asia.”
  • “Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the United States since 1965, making the nation the top destination in the world for those moving from one country to another.”
  • “Mexico, which shares a nearly 2,000-mile border with the U.S., is the source of the largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States.”[83]

* In a scientific bilingual survey of Hispanics living in the U.S. during 2013, 59% said they were not born in the United States or Puerto Rico.[84]

Education

* Per the academic encyclopedia Immigration in America Today, “the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act dramatically changed the immigrant composition in America” from “almost entirely working-class” to a mixture of “highly educated and trained workers” and “a large group” of “low-skilled and under-educated immigrants” that “rose in numbers and in percentages in the 1980s and 1990s.”[85]

* In 2022, 63% of Asian immigrants aged 25–64 had a bachelor’s degree or higher, as compared to 39% of people born in the U.S. in the same age group. The rates for other groups were as follows:

U.S. Residents Aged 25–64 With a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

[86] [87]

* In 2022, 43% of Mexican and Central American immigrants aged 25–64 did not have a high school diploma or GED, as compared to 5% of people born in the U.S. in the same age group. The rates for other groups were as follows:

U.S. Residents Aged 25–64 Without a HS Diploma or GED

[88] [89]

States

* Per the Congressional Budget Office:

Foreign-born people represent a substantial fraction of the population in some states. In 2012, about 1 in 4 people in California and about 1 in 5 people in New York and in New Jersey were born in another country. However, in another 31 states, taken together, only about 1 person in 20 was foreign born.[90]

* In 2021, 27% of California residents were foreign-born, and this varied by state as follows:

Foreign-Born Population by State

[91]

* From 1995 to 2022, the foreign-born U.S. population rose by 53%, and the native-born population fell by 5%.[92]

* Per various academic texts that address the geographic locations of immigrants in the United States:

[N]ew immigrants and ethnic groups have become segregated across neighborhoods or between central cities and suburbs. Recent trends see the emergence of entire metropolitan areas or labor market regions that are distinct from the rest of the country in their race, ethnic, and demographic composition. (2006)[93]
In many countries, immigration has led to increasingly diverse student populations, who are often concentrated in city centers or in the suburbs immediately surrounding. The dramatic increase in immigration (and, therefore, in the mix of racial/ethnic groups, cultures, and languages) has occurred in only a few decades. Even a country like the United States, with its long tradition of immigration and diversity, continues to have a significant increase in the proportion of students from minority populations. Indeed, in many parts of the country, the term minority is a misnomer. (2010)[94]
The United States is moving from a nation constituted by a majority population and a number of minority populations to a nation of minorities. Multiple cultures, races, and language groups will be the norm in our classrooms…. (2005)[95]

Citizens

* According to Census data, 22.9 million immigrants who were U.S. citizens lived in the United States during 2022. This equates to 7.0% of the U.S. population.[96]

* From 1907 to 2020, the U.S. awarded citizenship to 31.9 million people, with a median of 164,700 per year and an average of 280,000 per year:

Number of Immigrants Awarded U.S. Citizenship

[97]

* In 2021, more immigrants from Latin America were U.S. citizens than from any other area of the world. Since 2004, the portions of immigrants from all areas who were U.S. citizens varied as follows:

Naturalized U.S. Citizens by Region of Birth

[98] [99]

* Since 2004, the portion of the foreign-born population that attained citizenship varied by region of birth as follows:

Citizen Portion of Total Immigrant Population by Region of Birth

[100]

* In a scientific bilingual survey of Hispanics living in the U.S. during 2013, 67% said they were U.S. citizens.[101]


Non-Citizens

* Non-citizen immigrants living in the U.S. are comprised of both legal and illegal immigrants.[102]

* According to Census data, 24.0 million immigrants who were not U.S. citizens lived in the United States during 2022. This equates to 7.3% of the U.S. population.[103]

* In 2021, more immigrants from Latin America were not U.S. citizens than from any other area of the world. Since 2004, the specific number from all areas were as follows:

Non-Citizen Immigrants by Region of Birth

[104] [105]

* In 2021, roughly 30% of all Hispanics and Asians aged 18 and older in the U.S. labor force were not U.S. citizens. Since 2004, the portion of non-citizens in the labor force varied by race and ethnicity as follows:

Portion of U.S. Labor Force Comprised of Non-Citizens

[106]

* In a scientific bilingual survey of Hispanics living in the U.S. during 2013, 33% said they were not U.S. citizens.[107]


* According to estimates from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 13.1 million lawful permanent residents were living in the U.S. as of January 2021.[108] This equates to 4.0% of the U.S. population.[109] Among these lawful permanent residents:

  • 70% were eligible to become U.S. citizens.
  • 27% of those eligible to become citizens were from Mexico, the leading country of origin.[110]

* The U.S. government granted legal permanent resident status to:

  • 87 million people from 1820 to 2020, or an average of 431,331 people per year.
  • 11 million people from 2011 to 2020, or an average of 1.1 million people per year.[111]
People Granted Lawful Permanent Resident Status

[112]

* From 2010 to 2020, more immigrants from Latin America were granted legal permanent resident status than from any other area of the world. The specific numbers from all areas were as follows:

2010–2020 Legal Permanent Residence Grants

Region

Number

Portion of Total

Latin America and the Caribbean

4,514,089

40%

Asia

4,323,483

38%

Europe and Canada

1,171,878

10%

Africa and Oceania

1,178,874

10%

Other and Not Specified

152,484

1%

Total

11,340,808

100%

[113]

* In 2020, 63% of the people who became lawful permanent residents were granted this status based on being a relative of someone in the U.S. Since 1986, these portions have varied as follows:

Permanent Residents Admitted as Relatives of U.S. Residents

[114] [115]


Illegal Non-Citizens

* Using methods detailed in the accompanying footnotes, the following sources have estimated the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. to be:

Year

Source

Number (Millions)

1980

Demography (Academic Journal)[116]

2–4

1986 Amnesty Legalizes 2.7 Million Unauthorized Immigrants[117]

1990

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service[118]

3.5

1995

Pew Research[119]

5.7

2000

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service[120]

7.0

2000

Department of Homeland Security[121]

8.5

2005

Bear Stearns[122]

≤ 20

2007

Former Associate General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service[123]

38

2007

Ph.D. Demographer[124]

Unknowable

2012

U.S. Department of Homeland Security[125]

11.4

2013

Pew Research[126]

11.3

2014

Center for Migration Studies[127] [128]

10.9

2018

PLOS One (Academic Journal)[129]

16.2–29.5

2018

Pew Research[130]

10.7

2019

Pew Research[131]

10.5

2020

Center for Migration Studies[132] [133]

10.6

2021

Department of Homeland Security[134]

11.4

NOTE: Some of the studies above from different organizations were authored by some of the same people.

* Based on Department of Homeland Security estimates, immigrants from Mexico comprised 48% of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. during 2018. The portions from all nations were as follows:

Origins of Illegal Immigrants Living in the U.S.

[135]

* Based on Department of Homeland Security estimates, 23% of illegal immigrants in the U.S. during 2018 were living in California. The portions in all states were as follows:

Locations of Illegal Immigrants Living in the U.S.

[136]

* Per the academic book American Immigration, unauthorized immigrants “tend to be located in primarily Democratic regions of the country—urban areas and states such as California and New York….”[137]

* Based upon population estimates from the United Nations, the International Organization for Migration, and Pew Research, in 2015, 4% of the world’s population and 36% to 55% of the world’s illegal immigrants lived in the United States.[138] [139]


Nonimmigrant Admissions

* During 2019, the U.S. granted more than 186 million admissions to nonimmigrant visitors.[140] These admissions equate to 57% of the U.S. population.[141]

* Based on estimates by the Department of Homeland Security:

  • an average of 3.2 million nonimmigrants lived in the U.S. during 2019.
  • 50% were temporary workers and their families.
  • 35% were students and their families.
  • about 60% were from Asia.[142] [143] [144]

* Amid the Covid-19 pandemic and government-mandated travel restrictions,[145] [146] the U.S. granted admissions to:

  • more than 86 million nonimmigrant visitors in 2020, equating to 26% of the U.S. population.[147] [148]
  • more than 35 million nonimmigrant visitors in 2021, equating to 10% of the U.S. population.[149] [150]

Drivers

Survey Data

* In 2021, Pew Research commissioned a nationally representative survey of 1,623 Latino immigrants in the U.S. It found that 87% said it was easier to get ahead in the U.S. than in the country from which they came.[151] [152]

* In 2014, NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Harvard School of Public Health commissioned a nationally representative survey of 1,478 Latinos in the U.S., 58% of which were immigrants. The following portions of these immigrants said that they came to the U.S. for these major reasons:

  • to have a “better life” – 81%
  • to find a better job or other economic motives – 70%
  • to live in a safer community – 62%
  • to join family members – 50%
  • to get better healthcare – 32%[153] [154]

* Mexico, which shares a 2,000 mile border with the U.S., is the largest single source of immigration to the United States.[155] [156] In 2009, Pew Research conducted a nationally representative poll of 1,000 adults in Mexico. It found that:

  • 17% of Mexicans considered crime to be a “moderately big problem,” and 81% considered it to be a “very big problem.”
  • 26% of Mexicans considered “corrupt political leaders” to be a “moderately big problem,” and 68% considered them to be a “very big problem.”
  • 51% of Mexicans had in the past year done a favor, given a gift, or paid a bribe to a “government official in order to get services or a document that the government is supposed to provide.”
  • 33% of Mexicans said they would “go to live in the United States” at “this moment” if they “had the means and opportunity.”
  • among the 33% of Mexicans who said they would move to the U.S. immediately if they could, 55% said they would do so “without authorization.”[157]

International

NOTE: The following graphs show correlations between migration and factors that may spur people to migrate, but it is important to realize that correlation does not prove causation.[158] [159] [160] However, the graphs are consistent with surveys of immigrants about their motives for migrating.

* Per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is defined as the value of all market and some nonmarket goods and services produced within a country’s geographic borders.
GDP per capita [person], when converted to U.S. dollars using purchasing power parities, is the most widely used income measure for international comparisons of living standards.[161]

* Per the textbook Microeconomics for Today (and other academic sources):

GDP per capita provides a general index of a country’s standard of living. Countries with low GDP per capita and slow growth in GDP per capita are less able to satisfy basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, and health.[162] [163] [164]

* Based on data from more than 175 countries, people tend to migrate away from nations with lower GDPs per person to those with higher GDPs per person:

Immigration and Gross Domestic Product Per Person

[165]

* Based on data from more than 175 countries, people tend to migrate away from nations with worse public-sector corruption to those with less public-sector corruption and “higher degrees of press freedom, access to information about public expenditure, stronger standards of integrity for public officials, and independent judicial systems”:

Immigration and Public-Sector Transparency & Accountability

[166] [167] [168] [169]

* Based on data from more than 175 countries, people tend to migrate to nations with regulations that are more business-friendly:

Immigration and Business-Friendly Regulations

[170]

* Based on data from more than 175 countries, people tend to migrate away from nations with higher murder rates to those with lower murder rates:

Immigration and Murder

[171]

* Per the textbook Introduction to Air Pollution Science:

The availability of affordable electric power is essential for public health and economic prosperity.[172]

* Based on data from over 150 countries, people tend to migrate away from nations with lower electricity consumption per person to those with higher electricity consumption per person:

Immigration and Electricity Consumption

[173]

* Based on data from over 175 countries, people tend to migrate away from nations with lower health spending per person to those with higher health spending per person:

Immigration and Health Spending

[174]


United States

NOTE: The following graphs show correlations between migration and factors that may spur people to migrate, but it is important to realize that correlation does not prove causation.[175] [176] [177] However, the graphs are consistent with surveys of immigrants about their motives for migrating.

* The top 10 birthplaces of immigrants in the U.S. have the following GDPs per person relative to the United States:

Immigration to the U.S. and Gross Domestic Product Per Person

[178] [179]

* The top 10 birthplaces of immigrants in the U.S. have the following levels of business regulation relative to the United States:

Immigration to the U.S. and Business-Friendly Regulations

[180] [181]

* The top 10 birthplaces of immigrants in the U.S. have the following levels of public-sector transparency and accountability relative to the United States:

Immigration to the U.S. and Public-Sector Transparency and Accountability

[182] [183] [184] [185] [186]

* The top 10 birthplaces of immigrants in the U.S. have the following murder rates relative to the United States:

Immigration to the U.S. and Murder

[187] [188]

* The top 10 birthplaces of immigrants in the U.S. have the following levels of electricity consumption relative to the United States:

Immigration to the U.S. and Electricity Consumption

[189] [190]

* The top 10 birthplaces of immigrants in the U.S. have the following levels of health spending relative to the United States:

Immigration to the U.S. and Health Spending

[191] [192]


Illegally to the United States

NOTE: The following graphs show correlations between migration and factors that may spur people to migrate, but it is important to realize that correlation does not prove causation.[193] [194] [195] However, the graphs are consistent with surveys of immigrants about their motives for migrating.

* The top 10 birthplaces of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have the following GDPs per person relative to the United States:

Illegal Immigration to the U.S. and Gross Domestic Product Per Person

[196] [197]

* The top 10 birthplaces of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have the following levels of business regulation relative to the United States:

Illegal Immigration to the U.S. and Business-Friendly Regulations

[198] [199]

* The top 10 birthplaces of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have the following levels of public-sector transparency and accountability relative to the United States:

Illegal Immigration to the U.S. and Public-Sector Transparency & Accountability

[200] [201] [202] [203] [204]

* The top 10 birthplaces of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have the following murder rates relative to the United States:

Illegal Immigration to the U.S. and Murder

[205] [206]

* The top 10 birthplaces of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have the following levels of electricity consumption relative to the United States:

Illegal Immigration to the U.S. and Electricity Consumption

[207] [208]

* Since 1986, U.S. law has required most hospitals with emergency departments to provide an “examination” and “stabilizing treatment” for anyone who comes to such a facility and requests care for an emergency medical condition or childbirth, regardless of their ability to pay and immigration status.[209] [210] [211] [212]

* The top 10 birthplaces of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have the following levels of health spending relative to the United States:

Immigration to the U.S. and Health Spending

[213] [214]

* Before the late 1800s, immigration to the United States was largely unregulated.[215]

* In the late 1800s, Congress enacted laws to prohibit the entry of:

  • criminals.
  • people with infectious diseases.
  • any “person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.”
  • most people from China, based on claims that they drove down wages and caused cultural and moral harm to society.[216] [217] [218]

* In 1917, Congress passed legislation that:

  • required all immigrants over the age of 16 to show that they were able to read in a language of each immigrant’s choice.
  • gave immigration officials more discretion to decide if people should be admitted.
  • banned from entry all people from Asia except for Japan and the Philippines.[219]

* In the 1920s, Congress enacted numerical restrictions on immigration from each foreign nation. These laws:

  • created immigration quotas based on the number of people from each country who were already in the United States.
  • did not apply to spouses and children of U.S. citizens.
  • banned from entry all people from Asia except for the Philippines.[220] [221] [222]

* In 1940, near the outset of World War II, the U.S. government took measures to prevent wartime enemies from sabotaging the U.S. by enacting a law that required

immigrants to be fingerprinted, registered, and removed if they were illegally present.[223]

* In the 1940s and early 1950s, Congress repealed the laws that barred Asians from immigrating to the United States. Quotas still limited immigration from Asia to a greater degree than from Western countries.[224] [225] [226]

* In 1965, Congress passed a law that:

  • repealed immigration quotas based on the number of people from each country who were already in the United States.
  • created uniform quotas for immigration from each nation.
  • created preferences for family members, refugees, and employees deemed by the federal government to be in high demand.[227] [228]

* In 1976 and 1978, Congress modified U.S. immigration quotas to limit:

  • total immigration to the U.S. to 290,000 people per year.
  • immigration from any single country to 20,000 people per year.[229]

* In 1986, Congress passed a comprehensive immigration reform as a compromise between political parties, business interests, religious groups, and ethnic organizations.[230] [231] [232] The resulting bill was approved by 58% of the House and 72% of the Senate, and Republican President Ronald Reagan signed it into law.[233] [234] This legislation:

  • legalized most illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. since the beginning of 1982 and gave them a path to citizenship.[235] [236] [237]
  • required these immigrants “to meet certain standards for English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and government” in order to become legal permanent residents.[238] [239]
  • prohibited “newly legalized” immigrants “from receiving most types of federal public welfare, although Cubans and Haitians were exempted.”[240]
  • legalized most “seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986.”[241]
  • made it illegal to discriminate in employment because of a person’s national origin or immigration status, as long as they were legally authorized to work in the U.S.[242] [243]
  • increased border enforcement.[244] [245]
  • “imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens” in order to “remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.”[246] [247] [248]
  • required new employees to fill out a form and present documents to their employers that show they are U.S. citizens or are otherwise authorized to work in the United States.[249] [250] [251]
  • required employers to review the documents presented by employees and certify “that the documents reasonably appear genuine and relate to the individual presenting them.”[252]
  • “was meant as a one-time resolution of a longstanding problem.”[253]

* In 1990, Congress enacted a law to increase the number of immigrants admitted to the United States and make other changes to the immigration system.[254] The bill passed with 72% of Democrats and 60% of Republicans voting for it.[255] Republican President George H. Bush signed it into law.[256] This legislation:

  • increased the annual immigration limit from 290,000 people to 675,000 people, plus another 125,000 for refugees.
  • “established the Diversity Visa Program, making immigrant visas available to randomly selected noncitizens coming from countries with historically low rates of immigration.”
  • narrowed the list of medical issues that prohibit people from gaining entry to the U.S.[257] [258] [259]

* In 2010, the Obama administration issued a regulation declaring that HIV was not a “communicable disease of public health significance.” This decision allowed immigrants with HIV to enter the United States and become legal permanent residents.[260] [261] [262]


* Under federal law, there are more than 40 pathways for immigrants to become a legal permanent resident of the United States.[263] Some of these paths have no numerical limits, and some are based on being:

  • a relative or fiancé of a U.S. citizen.[264] [265] [266] [267]
  • an entrepreneur or worker with a job offer or special skills.[268] [269]
  • a Violence Against Women Act petitioner.[270]
  • a crime or human trafficking victim.[271]
  • a refugee or asylum seeker.[272]
  • a Diversity Visa recipient.[273]
  • a religious worker or someone who falls into numerous other specialized categories.[274]
  • a foreign resident who enlisted in the U.S. military under special circumstances.[275]

* When the demand to become a legal permanent resident under certain pathways exceeds the yearly limits allowed by law, the federal government places people on waiting lists. The rules of these waiting lists are outlined in this footnote:[276]

* Federal law generally requires immigrants to pass a criminal background check before becoming legal permanent residents of the United States.[277]

* Under federal law, certain people who are currently residing in the U.S. are generally not eligible to become legal permanent residents, although there are exceptions to these rules.[278] Some of the ineligible people include those who:

* Under federal law, certain people are not allowed to reside in the U.S. or become legal permanent residents, although there are exceptions to these rules.[285] Some of the ineligible people include those who:

  • have engaged in “fraud or willful misrepresentation” to obtain benefits under U.S. immigration law.[286] [287] [288]
  • have medical issues like:
    • a “communicable disease of public health significance.”
    • a “failure to show proof of required vaccinations.”
    • a “physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior.”
    • “drug abuse or addiction.”[289] [290] [291]
  • are members of Communist, Nazi, or other totalitarian parties.[292]

Public Charge

* Federal law prohibits foreigners from immigrating to the U.S. if they are “likely at any time to become a public charge,” meaning a burden to taxpayers.[293] [294] Federal law also states:

Any alien who, within five years after the date of entry, has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable.[295]

* The public charge law doesn’t exclude immigrants who are poor but those who cannot or will not work and those who are likely to rely on taxpayers to provide for their personal needs.[296]

* Under guidelines issued by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1999, the federal government construed the “public charge” law in the following manner until February of 2020:

Non-cash or special-purpose cash benefits are generally supplemental in nature and do not make a person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Therefore, past, current, or future receipt of these benefits do not impact a public charge determination.[297] [298] [299] [300] [301] [302]

* Under Clinton’s guidelines:

  • the federal government did not consider the following welfare benefits when determining if people were likely to become a burden to taxpayers:
    • Medicaid and other healthcare (except for long-term institutional care)
    • nutrition programs like Food Stamps, School Lunch, and School Breakfast
    • housing benefits
    • energy assistance
    • educational programs like Head Start[303]
  • an immigrant could not be deported under the public charge law unless all of the following applied:
    • He or she received cash welfare within five years of entering the U.S.
    • The government agency that provided the welfare demanded the money back.
    • The immigrant didn’t pay it back.[304]

* In 2019, Republican President Donald Trump issued a regulation that rescinded some of Clinton’s guidelines and defined a public charge as someone who is likely to receive one or more of the following federal welfare benefits for a total of more 12 months over a period of three years:[305]

  • Supplemental Security Income
  • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamps)
  • most forms of Medicaid
  • some forms of housing assistance[306]

* Following the issuance of Trump’s regulation:

* Trump’s regulation did not change Clinton’s guidelines on deporting immigrants who later become public charges.[332] [333]

* Following the implementation of Trump’s regulation:

  • the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals affirmed prior injunctions against the rule.[334] [335] [336] [337]
  • a U.S. District Court judge appointed by Barack Obama reversed the rule, and a higher court set that decision aside pending appeal.[338] [339] [340] [341] [342]
  • the Biden administration decided to not defend the rule, and the Clinton guidelines took effect again in 2021.[343] [344] [345] [346] [347]

* In 2022, the Biden administration formally reinstated the Clinton guidelines. It also restricted the federal government from considering the following factors when determining if a person is likely to become a burden on taxpayers:

  • Applying for or being approved for future welfare benefits.
  • Benefits received by other members of the same household.[348] [349]

* As of 2017, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services was not recording how many:

  • people are denied residency or citizenship under the public charge law.
  • immigrants become public charges after they are granted U.S. residency.[350] [351]

Citizenship

History

* In 1790, the first U.S. Congress passed a law that allowed immigrants to become U.S. citizens if they:

  • were “free white” persons.
  • lived in the U.S. for at least two years.
  • proved to a court that they were “of good character.”
  • took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.[352] [353]

* In 1795, the third U.S. Congress changed the law so that immigrants could not become U.S. citizens unless they:

  • lived in the U.S. for at least five years.
  • renounced “forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty….”
  • proved to a court that they were “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.”[354]

* In 1798, the U.S. Congress changed the law so that immigrants could not become U.S. citizens unless they:

  • lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.
  • were not from a nation that was at war with the United States.[355]

* In 1868, shortly after the U.S. Civil War ended and slavery was abolished,[356] [357] the federal government ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which reads in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.[358]

* In 1870, Congress passed a law that allowed people who were born in Africa to become U.S. citizens.[359]

* In 1882, Congress passed a law that barred the Chinese from becoming U.S. citizens, based on claims that they drove down wages and caused cultural and moral harm to society.[360] [361] [362]

* Before 1906, “any court of record” could award U.S. citizenship, and the federal government gave the courts limited guidance on this process. In 1906, Congress created the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and placed it in “charge of all matters concerning the naturalization of aliens.” The purpose of this was to create uniform national standards for immigration and citizenship.[363]

* In 1940, Congress passed a law requiring that immigrants pass a test showing they can read and write in English in order to become U.S. citizens.[364]

* In the 1940s and early 1950s, Congress repealed laws that barred the Chinese and other Asians from becoming U.S. citizens.[365] [366]

* In 1986, Congress passed a comprehensive immigration reform as a compromise between political parties, business interests, religious groups, and ethnic organizations.[367] [368] [369] The resulting bill was approved by 58% of the House and 72% of the Senate, and Republican President Ronald Reagan signed it into law.[370] [371] This legislation:

  • legalized most illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. since the beginning of 1982 and gave them a path to citizenship.[372] [373] [374]
  • “imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens” in order to “remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.”[375] [376] [377]
  • “was meant as a one-time resolution of a longstanding problem.”[378]

Current Requirements

* Immigrants can become citizens of the United States through varying pathways.[379] In order to do so, federal law generally requires immigrants to:

  • be a legal permanent resident of the U.S. for at least five years.[380]
  • pass a full FBI criminal background check.[381] [382] [383]
  • pass a test showing they can read and write in English.[384] [385] [386]
  • pass a test showing they have a basic knowledge of U.S. history and civics.[387] [388] [389]
  • pass an interview process in which they are placed under oath and questioned about their qualifications for citizenship.[390] [391]
  • have good moral character, which generally excludes people who have engaged in polygamy, adultery, failure to support their children, failure to pay taxes, habitual drunkenness, or illegal drug usage.[392] [393] [394] [395]
  • be dedicated to the principles of the U.S. Constitution.[396]
  • publicly renounce all foreign allegiances and titles of nobility.[397]
  • take an oath of allegiance to the U.S Constitution in a public ceremony.[398] [399] [400]

* Under federal law, certain people are not generally eligible to become citizens of the United States, although there are exceptions to these rules. Some of the ineligible people include those who:

  • are members of the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, “any other totalitarian party,” or a terrorist organization.[401]
  • have engaged in persecution, genocide, torture, or severe violations of religious freedom.[402] [403]
  • have given false oral testimony in order to obtain an immigration benefit, such as legal permanent resident status.[404]
  • misrepresented themselves as a citizen in order to vote.[405]

* Per the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, some of the benefits of becoming a United States citizen include the ability to:

  • “vote in federal elections.”
  • “travel with a U.S. Passport.”
  • “run for elective office where citizenship is required.”
  • “participate on a jury.”
  • “become eligible for federal and certain law enforcement jobs.”
  • “obtain certain state and federal benefits not available to noncitizens.”
  • “obtain citizenship for minor children born abroad.”
  • “expand and expedite their ability to bring family members to the United States.”[406]

Birthright Citizenship

* In 1866, shortly after the Civil War ended and slavery was abolished,[407] [408] a bloc of Congressmen called the “Radical Republicans” passed a civil rights law that states:

all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens….[409] [410] [411]

* To guarantee that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was constitutional, the Radical Republicans fought for and secured passage of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in 1868,[412] [413] which reads in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.[414]

* Under the current prevailing interpretation of the sentence above, children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants, temporary residents, visitors, and tourists automatically become U.S. citizens.[415] [416] Hence, they:

  • are eligible for all state and federal welfare benefits, such as food stamps, housing, home energy, child care, and health insurance. These benefits are generally awarded based on the reported incomes of their households or families.[417] [418] [419] [420] [421] [422] [423]
  • can sometimes serve as shields to prevent their parents from being deported.[424] [425] [426]
  • can sponsor their relatives to become legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens.[427] [428] [429]

* The birthright citizenship clause was added to the 14th Amendment by a vote of the U.S. Senate on May 30, 1866.[430] Jacob Howard, a Republican senator from Michigan who introduced the 14th Amendment,[431] [432] proposed the clause by stating:

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.[433]

* The senators then discussed the meaning of the proposed language and voiced conflicting views about it.[434] With regard to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction,” Howard stated that:

the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction.[435]

* Click here to read the full proceedings summarized above.

* As ratified, the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment contains the exact words proposed by Howard.[436] [437]

* In 2018, Pew Research estimated that 88% of the children of illegal immigrants were U.S. citizens.[438]

Illegal Entry and Residency

Current Law

* Federal law generally prohibits employers from hiring unauthorized immigrants, and it imposes civil and criminal penalties (including jail time) on employers who knowingly do so.[439] [440] [441] [442]

* Under federal law:

  • unlawfully entering the U.S. is generally a criminal offense and also carries civil penalties.[443] [444] [445]
  • unlawful presence in the U.S. is generally a civil violation and can result in deportation but not a prison sentence or criminal conviction.[446] [447] [448] [449] Other examples of federal civil violations include:
    • breaking certain environmental laws.[450]
    • creating a disturbance by spreading a non-toxic powder in a federal building.[451]

* Except under special circumstances, immigrants who are illegally present in the U.S. can be deported under federal law.[452] [453] [454] [455]

* Except in cases like child abuse and custody battles, deported immigrants are free to bring any children born to them in the U.S. back with them to their country of origin.[456]

* Federal law requires the U.S. attorney general to begin removal proceedings “as expeditiously as possible” when a non-citizen is convicted of a “deportable” offense.[457] Such offenses include but are not limited to:

  • a “crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.”
  • “an aggravated felony.”
  • possessing a firearm.
  • drug crimes “other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana.”
  • domestic violence.
  • stalking.
  • identity fraud.
  • falsely claiming to be a citizen to get a job or receive welfare benefits.
  • voting in U.S. elections.[458] [459]

Employers

* Some businesses hire illegal immigrants because such immigrants have limited employment options and will often work:

  • for less compensation than U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. In 2006, typical workers in Mexico earned one-tenth what their counterparts earned in the United States.[460] [461] [462] [463] [464]
  • more flexible hours and with fewer demands.[465]
  • under hazardous conditions and without any recourse to labor laws.[466] [467] [468]
  • “under the table” or “off the books,” which enables employers to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, and workers’ compensation insurance premiums.[469] [470] [471] [472] [473]

* In 1986, Congress passed a compromise between political parties, business interests, religious groups, and ethnic organizations that granted legal residency to millions of illegal immigrants.[474] [475] [476] [477] As part of the exchange for this amnesty, the law:

  • required new employees to fill out an “I-9” employment eligibility verification form and present documents to their employers that show they are U.S. citizens or are otherwise authorized to work in the United States.[478] [479] [480] [481]
  • required employers to review the documents presented by employees and certify “that the documents reasonably appear genuine and relate to the individual presenting them.”[482]
  • “imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens.”[483] [484] [485]

* In the signing ceremony for the 1986 amnesty, President Reagan stated that the law’s punishment of employers who hire illegal immigrants is its “keystone and major element” because this “will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.”[486]

* Per the 2006 academic encyclopedia Immigration in America Today, employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants “are seldom punished” because the U.S. “lacks a viable system to verify the eligibility of new workers.”[487]

* In 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services launched a program called “E-Verify.” This was an upgraded version of an earlier program designed to help employers ensure that illegal immigrants don’t use fraudulent documents to obtain employment.[488] [489]

* In 2008, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that E-Verify had a challenge with misidentifying people who were authorized to work. In June 2004 through March 2007, 8% of the people who were initially determined by E-Verify and its predecessor to be unauthorized to work in the U.S. were later found to be authorized.[490]

* In 2021, 0.13% of the people who were initially determined by E-Verify to be unauthorized to work in the U.S. were later found to be authorized.[491]

* In 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that E-Verify was unable to detect certain forms of identity fraud.[492]

* In 2013, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a security enhancement to E-Verify to “help combat identity fraud by identifying and deterring fraudulent use of Social Security numbers (SSNs) for employment eligibility verification.”[493]

* In 2021, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, introduced a bill to:

  • permanently implement the E-Verify program.
  • change E-Verify from a largely voluntary program to a mandatory one for all employers.
  • increase “penalties for employers who illegally hire undocumented workers.”[494]

* This is the sixth time the bill has been introduced. The Senate has never voted on it.[495] [496] [497] [498] [499] [500]


Overstays

* Foreigners are generally permitted to visit the U.S. if they obtain a travel visa or meet certain criteria and are from nations that have visa-free travel agreements with the U.S.[501] [502] [503] Some foreigners can also legally reside in the U.S. for extended periods through mechanisms like student or work visas.[504] [505]

* Under federal law, foreigners are generally ineligible for visas or entry to the U.S. if they pose various risks to the health, safety, or finances of others.[506] [507]

* “Overstays” are foreigners who are legally admitted to the United States for a temporary period but don’t leave by their lawfully required time.[508]

* About 56 million foreigners who were lawfully admitted to the U.S. through air and sea ports of entry were legally required to leave during 2019. Among these people, 497,272 were still in the U.S. three months past the end of the year.[509]

* Amid government-mandated travel restrictions during the Covid-19 outbreak, during 2020 about 46 million foreigners who were lawfully admitted to the U.S. through air and sea ports of entry were legally required to leave. Among these people, 566,993 were still in the U.S. three months past the end of the year.[510] [511] [512]

* About 55 million foreigners who were lawfully admitted to the U.S. for business or pleasure through air and sea ports of entry were legally required to leave during 2018. Among these people, 324,593 were still in the U.S. 12 months past the end of the year.[513]

* The figures above do not include foreigners who were legally admitted through land ports of entry, including those who arrived via cars, trains, buses, ferries, bicycles, trucks, and foot. The Department of Homeland Security is currently unable to determine how many of these people overstay their legal limits.[514] [515]


Border Crossings

* The border between Mexico and the United States is about 2,000 miles long.[516] [517]

* People who illegally cross the U.S./Mexico border generally fall into four broad categories:

  1. Apprehensions, who are caught and detained by Border Patrol.
  2. Got aways, who Border Patrol detects but does not catch.
  3. Turn backs, who return to Mexico prior to apprehension.
  4. Undetected entries, who cross the border without Border Patrol’s knowledge.[518]

* Federal law requires the Department of Homeland Security to report “metrics developed to measure the effectiveness” of border security.[519] [520] The government typically reports these metrics based on the federal fiscal year, which begins and ends three months before the calendar year.[521]

* Apprehensions are a rough proxy for total illegal entries, which are impossible to fully measure.[522] [523] [524] From 1960 to 2022, U.S. Border Patrol apprehended about 47 million people at the Southwest border, or an average of 711,000 per year. In 2022, U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 2.2 million people, a record high:

Illegal Immigrant Apprehensions at the Southwest Border

[525]

* From 2014 to 2023, U.S. Border Patrol detected 2.6 million got aways at the Southwest Border, or an average of 264,000 per year. In 2023, U.S. Border Patrol detected at least 769,000 got aways, a record high:

Got Aways Detected at the Southwest Border

[526] [527] [528]

* From 1998 to 2022, about 9,463 people died while illegally crossing the U.S./Mexico border, or an average of 379 people per year. In 2022, 856 people died, a record high:

U.S./Mexico Illegal Border Crossing Deaths

[529]

* In 2021, 27% of people apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol were caught crossing the border at least two times that year:[530]

Portion of Apprehended Illegal Border Crossers Caught Multiple Times in the Same Year

[531]


Border Barriers

* From 2007 to 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection spent about $303 million per year on tactical infrastructure (like fencing, gates, roads, bridges, lighting, and drainage) to prevent or slow the flow of illegal immigrants, terrorists, drugs, and other contraband across the U.S./Mexico border.[532] [533] This amounted to less than 0.01% of federal government spending over these years.[534]

* In June 2020, the U.S. had:

  • 401 miles of pedestrian barriers covering 21% of its border with Mexico.[535] Such barriers are designed to:
    • divert illegal border crossers from urban areas (where they can easily escape by blending in with numerous people and buildings) to rural areas (where Border Patrol can more easily apprehend them).
    • delay illegal border crossers so that Border Patrol has more time to apprehend them.[536]
  • 299 miles of vehicle barriers covering 15% of its border with Mexico.[537] Such barriers:
    • are typically deployed in rural areas and are designed to stop and delay people who use motorized vehicles for drug trafficking and human smuggling.
    • do not stop pedestrians.[538]
    • contributed to a 73% decline in trafficking and human smuggling in rural areas near Tucson, Arizona.[539]

* Modern post-style pedestrian fences give Border Patrol agents an unobstructed view into Mexico, which:

  • reduces the ability of illegal border crossers to hide.
  • “makes it more difficult for illegal entrants to ambush agents.”
  • “reduces illegal entrants’ ability to stage mass crossings, which can overwhelm agents and jeopardize agents’ safety.”[540]

* In 2015, about 82% of the pedestrian fences and 75% of the vehicle fences along the Mexican border consisted of modern designs implemented since 2006,[541] like these:

Post-Style Pedestrian Fence

Modern Post-Style Pedestrian Fence

[542]

Post-Style Vehicle Fence

Modern Post-Style Vehicle Fence

[543]

Double Steel Mesh Pedestrian Fence

Modern Double Steel Mesh Pedestrian Fence

[544]

* In 2015, about 18% of the pedestrian fences and 25% of the vehicle fences along the Mexican border consisted of older designs implemented before 2006,[545] like these:

Steel Wall Pedestrian Fence

Legacy Steel Wall Pedestrian Fence

[546]

Chain Link Pedestrian Fence

Legacy Chain Link Pedestrian Fence

[547]

* Some border fencing is located more than half a mile into U.S. territory. In combination with certain U.S. policies, this fencing placement allows non-Mexican foreigners under the age of 18 to:

  • illegally enter the U.S. without evading a fence,
  • deliberately turn themselves over to the U.S. Border Patrol,
  • be transported at taxpayer expense to live with relatives in the U.S., and
  • avoid deportation indefinitely.[548] [549] [550] [551]

* In 2017 and 2018, some of the U.S./Mexico border fencing was in disrepair and being replaced. For example, about a quarter mile from the U.S. city of Sunland Park, New Mexico, debris that had collected on the Mexico side of the fence made the fence effectively two feet high. In the same area, a falling fence was held up with cables:

Border Fencing in Sunland Park, New Mexico

[552] [553]

* From 2019 to 2021, illegal border crossers created an average of 1,091 holes per year in “new segments” of border barriers along the Mexican border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection repaired these holes at an average cost of $795 per breach.[554] [555] [556]

* Between 2010 and 2015, older barrier designs were breached at a rate of 82 per mile, while newer designs were breached at a rate of 14 per mile.[557]

* In addition to cutting holes, illegal border crossers also attempt to evade border barriers by:

  • jumping over sections where the fencing is low.
  • scaling taller fences.
  • creating tunnels.
  • building ramps to drive over vehicle fencing.
  • using small aircraft to transport drugs.[558] [559]

* Beyond barriers, other factors that impact the ability of the U.S. Border Patrol to prevent illegal border crossings include “terrain, geography, demographics, Border Patrol agent manpower, and surveillance technology.”[560]

* Click here for an article from Just Facts about the effectiveness of border barriers in various nations.

Donald Trump

* In February of 2019, Republican President Donald Trump declared a national emergency to deal with a “border security and humanitarian crisis” at the southern border “that threatens core national security interests.” With this, he announced plans to build new border barriers by using a combination of $8.1 billion in congressional funds explicitly designated for border security, general military construction funds, and other resources.[561] [562]
 

* After Trump’s announcement, various groups filed legal challenges against his plans, including the U.S. House of Representatives, 16 states, a county in Texas, and several special interest groups.[563] [564] [565] [566] Various courts issued, denied, upheld, and set aside injunctions to prevent Trump from using military funds for border barrier construction.[567] [568] [569] [570] [571] [572]

* In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that border barrier construction could proceed while the issue is litigated in lower courts.[573]

* In June 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled (2–1) that Trump could not legally transfer funds from the military to border barrier construction projects. It further ordered that border wall construction cease immediately.[574] The Biden administration withdrew the federal government’s appeal to the Supreme Court.[575] [576]

* In 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that:

  • it had “received approximately $9.8 billion to construct approximately 509 miles of new border wall system….”
  • the money came from “a combination of the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense funding and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.”
  • it “expects to have completed a total of 450 miles of new border wall system” by the end of 2020.[577]

* As of the end of 2020, work on new border barriers had yielded:

  • 423 completed miles.
  • 228 miles under construction.
  • 87 miles in pre-construction.[578] [579] [580] [581]

* Some of the new barrier construction entailed replacing old vehicle barriers (shown on the left) with modern pedestrian barriers (shown on the right):

Old Vehicle and Modern Pedestrian Barriers

[582]

* On his first day in office,[583] Democrat President Joe Biden signed an executive order halting all border wall construction.[584]


Apprehensions, Returns & Removals

* From 1925 to 2020, U.S. immigration officials apprehended 59 million immigrants suspected of being illegally present in the United States. The median over this period was 524,000 per year, and the average was 614,000 per year:

Apprehensions of Illegal Immigrants in the U.S.

[585] [586]

* When immigrants are apprehended on suspicion of unlawful presence, they generally are either:

  • asked or ordered to “voluntarily” return to their home country.
  • forcibly removed or deported.
  • issued a notice to appear before an immigration court.[587] [588] [589]

* From 1927 to 2020, 57 million immigrants were returned or removed to their country of origin. The median over this period was 550,000 per year, and the average was 608,000 per year:

Immigrants Removed or Returned to Their Country of Origin

[590]


Illicit Drugs

* The U.S. Centers for Disease Control defines “illicit drugs” as those that are “prohibited by law” and used for “non-medical” purposes. These can include:

  • amphetamine-type stimulants, like meth and ephedrine.
  • marijuana or cannabis.
  • cocaine.
  • heroin and other opioids.
  • synthetic drugs, like ecstasy and fentanyl.[591] [592]

* In the U.S. during 2021, roughly:

  • 108,886 people were killed by drug overdoses.[593]
  • 99,086 people were killed by accidental drug overdoses.[594]
  • 91,246 people were killed by illicit drug overdoses.[595]
  • 83,034 people were killed by accidental overdoses from illicit drugs.[596]

* Mexico is the primary source of fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine in the United States.[597] [598] [599]

* The chemicals used to manufacture fentanyl in Mexico mainly come from China.[600] [601]

* In the U.S. from 2010 to 2020, the age-adjusted overdose death rates for the drugs above grew by 4.1 to 17.8 times:

Illicit Drug Overdose Death Rates

[602]

* In 2016, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimated that:

the number of heroin deaths is undercounted by as much as 30 percent. This is due both to variations in state reporting procedures, and because heroin metabolizes into morphine very quickly in the body, making it difficult to determine the presence of heroin.[603]

* Since 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Protection have seized 2.1 million pounds of illegal drugs at the U.S./Mexico border:

Year

Southwest Border Drug Seizures (Thousands of Pounds)

Marijuana

Meth

Cocaine

Fentanyl

Heroin

All

2019

517

131

24

3

6

681

2020

502

170

19

5

5

701

2021

213

183

27

11

5

438

2022
(1/1–10/14)

86

160

25

14

2

287

Total

1,318

644

95

32

17

2,106

[604]

* Since 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Protection have seized enough illegal drugs at the U.S./Mexico border to kill 9.4 billion people, or 28 times the entire population of the United States:

Year

Southwest Border Drug Seizures (Millions of Lethal Doses)

Meth

Cocaine

Fentanyl

Heroin

All

2019

397

9

597

50

1,053

2020

514

7

1,034

47

1,602

2021

552

10

2,401

45

3,008

2022
(1/1–10/14)

485

10

3,199

14

3,707

Total

1,948

36

7,231

156

9,370

[605]


1940s & 1950s Enforcement

* During the presidencies of Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Dwight Eisenhower,[606] the federal government increased the number of illegal immigrants that it returned and removed to their home countries from 41,000 in 1944 to 1.1 million in 1954:

Immigrants Removed or Returned to Their Country of Origin

[607]

* The immigration enforcement efforts of the 1950s culminated in “Operation Wetback.” This was an initiative to remove Mexican immigrants who had illegally entered the U.S. in large numbers after the U.S. enacted a policy to allow many Mexican citizens to temporarily work in the United States.[608] [609] [610]


1986 Amnesty

* In 1986, Congress passed a comprehensive immigration reform as a compromise between political parties, business interests, religious groups, and ethnic organizations.[611] [612] [613] The resulting bill was approved by 58% of the House and 72% of the Senate, and Republican President Ronald Reagan signed it into law.[614] [615] This legislation:

  • legalized most illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. since the beginning of 1982 and gave them a path to citizenship.[616] [617] [618]
  • required these immigrants “to meet certain standards for English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and government” in order to become legal permanent residents.[619] [620]
  • prohibited “newly legalized” immigrants “from receiving most types of federal public welfare, although Cubans and Haitians were exempted.”[621]
  • legalized most “seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986.”[622]
  • made it illegal to discriminate in employment because of a person’s national origin or immigration status, as long as they were legally authorized to work in the U.S.[623] [624]
  • increased border patrols.[625]
  • “imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens” in order to “remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.”[626] [627] [628]
  • required new employees to fill out a form and present documents to their employers that show they are U.S. citizens or are otherwise authorized to work in the United States.[629] [630] [631]
  • required employers to review the documents presented by employees and certify “that the documents reasonably appear genuine and relate to the individual presenting them.”[632]
  • “was meant as a one-time resolution of a longstanding problem.”[633]

* Under this law, the U.S. government granted legal permanent resident status to 2.7 million people:[634]

People Granted Lawful Permanent Resident Status

[635]

* Under this law, the U.S. government granted citizenship to 1.1 million people.[636]

* While Congress negotiated the 1986 amnesty bill, illegal immigration to the U.S. increased substantially,[637] and Southwest border patrol apprehensions reached a record high that has been exceeded in three years since then:

Illegal Immigrant Apprehensions at the Southwest Border

[638]

* The immigrants who were granted amnesty under the 1986 law were eligible to become U.S. citizens after five years of lawful permanent residency.[639] [640] This created a surge of citizenship applications beginning in 1993 during the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton. In 1995, the Clinton administration launched an initiative called “Citizenship USA” to speed the processing of these applications.[641] [642] [643] In 2000, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice published an investigation of this program that found:

  • the amnesty and citizenship applications for agricultural workers were “rife with fraud” and allowed ineligible immigrants to obtain amnesty and citizenship.[644]
  • the Clinton administration Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] was aware of this fraud “at the highest level” and promised to address it, but:
    • “evidence of fraud was not adequately explored and, in some instances, was completely disregarded.”
    • “many” INS employees “believed that they were prohibited from reviewing documents in an applicant’s file” that would reveal such fraud and “could not consider it in the determination of citizenship.”[645]
  • the INS did not perform “a complete criminal history background check” for 18% of the people who were granted citizenship.[646]
  • the INS “did not properly enforce the English-language requirement” for U.S. citizenship.[647]
  • the INS gave “superficially trained, inexperienced” employees five minutes to conduct citizenship interviews. During these interviews, the employees had to determine if applicants had good moral character, had accurately answered all of the questions on their applications, and met other legal qualifications for citizenship.[648]

* In the signing ceremony for the 1986 amnesty, President Reagan stated that the law would “humanely regain control of our borders.”[649]

* In the years surrounding the 1986 amnesty, the following sources estimated the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. to be:

Year

Source

Number (Millions)

1980

Demography (Academic Journal)[650]

2–4

1986 Amnesty Legalizes 2.7 Million Unauthorized Immigrants[651]

1990

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service[652]

3.5

1995

Pew Research[653]

5.7

2000

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service[654]

7.0

2000

Department of Homeland Security[655]

8.5

2005

Bear Stearns[656]

≤ 20

2007

Former Associate General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service[657]

38

2007

Ph.D. Demographer[658]

Unknowable

2012

U.S. Department of Homeland Security[659]

11.4

2013

Pew Research[660]

11.3

2014

Center for Migration Studies[661] [662]

10.9

2018

PLOS One (Academic Journal)[663]

16.2–29.5

2018

Pew Research[664]

10.7

2019

Pew Research[665]

10.5

2020

Center for Migration Studies[666] [667]

10.6

2021

Department of Homeland Security[668]

11.4

NOTE: Some of the studies above from different organizations were authored by some of the same people.


1990s to 2000s

* In 1994, Congress and Democratic President Bill Clinton passed an amnesty that gave certain illegal immigrants a temporary pathway to legalize without leaving the United States.[669]

* Congress and Clinton extended the 1994 amnesty four times from 1997 to 2000.[670] [671] [672] [673]


Asylum

* U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services defines a person seeking asylum as:

An alien in the United States or at a port of entry who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality, or to seek the protection of that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. Persecution or the fear thereof must be based on religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.[674]

* Asylees differ from other refugees by being present in the U.S. or at a U.S. port of entry before seeking protection.[675] [676] [677]

* The “credible fear” provision of U.S. immigration law allows people who are otherwise not legally present in the U.S. to stay if they can convince an immigration judge that they “have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution” because of their “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if returned” to their homelands.[678] [679]

* In 2019, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official testified before Congress that the “credible fear” standard had “proved to be ineffective in screening out those with meritless claims” and created:

  • an incentive to file false claims.
  • a strain on the system that inhibited “the government’s ability to timely address meritorious asylum claims….”
  • a situation where delayed administrative justice encourages more illegal immigration.[680]

* From 2016 to 2020, the number of immigrants who used the “credible fear” provision to apply for asylum increased 132%. The portion who were granted asylum varied as follows:

Defensive Asylum 2016–2020

Year

Applications

Applications Granted

Portion Granted

2016

81,730

8,693

11%

2017

142,971

10,565

7%

2018

164,062

13,194

8%

2019

213,307

18,904

9%

2020

189,838

14,565

8%

[681]


Political Party Platforms

* The 2020 Democratic Party Platform supports:

  • increasing legal immigration.
  • opening access to government-funded healthcare programs for “low-income, lawfully present immigrants” regardless of whether they are citizens.
  • ensuring that “every child, everywhere, is able to receive a world-class education” regardless of “immigration or citizenship status….”
  • “a roadmap to citizenship for the millions of undocumented workers, caregivers, students, and children….”[682] [683]

* The Republicans didn’t adopt a new platform in 2020.[684]

* The 2016 Republican Party Platform opposes “any form of amnesty” for illegal immigrants and supports:

  • helping legal immigrants to become U.S. citizens.
  • “building a wall along our southern border and protecting all ports of entry.”
  • vetting all refugees before allowing them into the U.S., “especially those whose homelands have been the breeding grounds for terrorism.”
  • defunding sanctuary cities.
  • making E-Verify mandatory to ensure that illegal immigrants don’t use fraudulent documents to obtain employment.[685]

* The 2022 Libertarian Party Platform supports “unrestricted” immigration.”[686] [687] [688]

* The 2020 Green Party Platform supports:

  • legalizing and providing a path to citizenship for all unauthorized immigrants except those who “present a clear and present danger.”
  • “immediate dismantling” of the border wall.
  • welcoming “all persons fleeing political, racial, religious, or other types of persecution.”
  • forcing “courts, social service agencies, and all government agencies dealing with the public” to “provide trained and certified translators.”[689] [690]

Barack Obama

* The U.S. Constitution gives the president the responsibility and power to ensure that federal laws are “faithfully executed” and to select people who will carry out this work.[691] [692]

* Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the agency that “enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.” It is a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is under the authority of the president.[693] [694]

* In June of 2010, the administration of Democratic President Barack Obama announced:

  • ICE “only has resources to remove approximately 400,000 aliens per year, less than 4 percent of the estimated illegal alien population in the United States.”
  • “Absent extraordinary circumstances or the requirements of mandatory detention,” ICE will “not expend detention resources on aliens”:
    • who “demonstrate that they are primary caretakers of children or an infirm person.”
    • who “are disabled, elderly, pregnant, or nursing.”
    • who “are known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness.”
    • “whose detention is otherwise not in the public interest.”
  • ICE officers will be prohibited from detaining aliens “who are not subject to mandatory detention” unless they get “approval from the field office director.”[695]

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

* In 2012, Obama announced that his administration would not deport illegal immigrants for two years if they:

  • were currently under the age of 31.
  • arrived in the U.S. before 2007.
  • were under the age of 16 when they arrived.
  • applied for this program and passed a criminal background check.[696] [697] [698]

* This “guideline,” called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” or DACA, was applicable to 1.2 million people. At least 636,000 illegal immigrants applied for and were approved for it.[699]

* Beyond protection from deportation, this directive also gave these individuals:

  • Social Security numbers
  • authorization to legally work in the United States.
  • eligibility for various government social programs.[700]

* In 2014, the Obama administration expanded this “guideline” to:

  • remove the age limit of 31 years old.
  • extend the latest arrival date from 2007 to 2010.
  • allow immigrants to renew (in 3-year increments) their relief from deportation and ability to work.[701]

* A federal law to combat human trafficking forbids the U.S. government from immediately returning “unaccompanied alien children” to nations that don’t directly border the United States. This law requires that when immigrants “apprehended at the border” are under the age of 18 and from anywhere but Mexico or Canada, they must be:

  • “promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child….”
  • provided access to legal counsel.
  • “placed in removal proceedings.”[702] [703] [704]

* From 2012 to 2014, the number of unaccompanied children from Central America apprehended crossing the border increased by roughly 10 times.[705] [706] This overwhelmed the ability of U.S. officials to care for the children and created what the White House called an “urgent humanitarian situation.”[707] [708] [709]

* By mid-2014:

  • the Obama administration had placed 85% of these children—who were mostly male and over the age of 14—with their relatives in the United States.[710]
  • 87% of people admitted to the U.S. under this “guideline” over the previous five years had not been ordered to leave the United States.[711]

* NBC News, CNN, Washington Post, and the Center for American Progress published articles that blamed this surge of immigration on violence and poverty in the children’s homelands.[712] [713] [714] [715]

* In the three nations that were the primary sources of these unaccompanied child immigrants (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador[716]), the murder rates were lower during all years of the 2012–2014 border surge than in 2011:

Murder Rates in Homelands of Unaccompanied Minors

[717]

* In 2014, Breitbart News obtained a leaked report from a federal government center that provides “tactical, operational, and strategic intelligence support” to law enforcement agencies.[718] The report examined “the probable drivers” of the “recent surge of Central American children to the U.S. Southwest border” and found:

In late May, the U.S. Border Patrol interviewed unaccompanied children (UAC) and migrant families apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley. Of the 230 total migrants interviewed, 219 [95%] cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC and adult female OTMs [other than Mexicans] traveling with minors.
“Permisos” are the Notice to Appear documents issued to undocumented aliens, when they are released on their own recognizance, pending a hearing before a U.S. immigration judge.
Migrants indicated that knowledge of permisos was widespread across Central America due to word of mouth, local, and international media messaging—prompting many to depart for the United States within 30 days of becoming aware of these perceived benefits, according to the same reporting.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also notes that a large number of migrants interviewed claimed family members in the United States encouraged their travel because the U.S. government would cease issuing permisos after June 2014. Migrants cited Univision, Primer Impacto, Al Rojo Vivo and several Honduran television news outlets for helping shape their perception of U.S. immigration policy.
Homicide trends and migrant interviews suggest violence is likely not the principal factor driving the increase in UAC migration.[719] [720]

* In 2021, a U.S. District Court judge declared the DACA program illegal and issued a permanent injunction that:

  • set aside the DACA “guidelines” and sent them back to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to address legal defects.
  • allowed current DACA recipients to keep their status until DHS completes their review and a court evaluates it.
  • prevented DHS from granting DACA status to new applicants.
  • permitted DHS to continue receiving DACA applications.[721] [722] [723]

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans

* During Obama’s presidency, Democratic politicians and Latino activists repeatedly called on him to shield more illegal immigrants from deportation. Obama publicly replied:

  • “The problem is, is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”
  • “If we start broadening that, then essentially I’ll be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally.”[724]

* In June of 2014, Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez, a vocal supporter of amnesty for unauthorized immigrants, declared there was no possibility that Congress would pass an amnesty during Obama’s presidency. He then called on Obama to act on his own.[725]

* In November of 2014, the Obama administration announced that it would not deport illegal immigrants for three years and would allow them to legally work in the U.S. if they:

  • were in the U.S. since January 1, 2010,
  • had a child who was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident,
  • were “not an enforcement priority,” and
  • applied to this program and were not “threats to national security, border security, and public safety.”[726] [727]

* This directive, called “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans”:

  • was applicable to roughly four-to-five million unauthorized immigrants.[728] [729] [730]
  • required federal agencies to issue them work authorizations and Social Security numbers.[731]
  • required Texas and possibly other states to issue them driver’s licenses.[732]
  • required government agencies to make them eligible for an array of benefit programs.[733] [734]

* After Obama announced this directive, 26 states sued the federal government to stop it from taking effect. In February of 2015, a federal judge agreed with the states and issued a temporary order to halt it.[735] [736]

* In November of 2015, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court agreed with the federal judge and ruled (2–1) that Obama’s directive was “beyond the scope” of what federal law “can reasonably be interpreted to authorize.”[737] [738]

* In June of 2016, the Supreme Court deadlocked on taking up this case, which left the appeals court ruling in place.[739]

Convicted Felons

* In November of 2014 on the same day that Obama announced his policy of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans,[740] his Secretary of Homeland Security instructed all federal immigration and border security personnel to:

  • never pursue the “removal of an alien not identified as a priority” unless an ICE Field Office Director concludes that “removing such an alien would serve an important federal interest.”
  • apply “prosecutorial discretion” as to “whom to stop, question, and arrest; whom to detain or release; whether to settle, dismiss, appeal, or join in a motion on a case; and whether to grant deferred action, parole, or a stay of removal instead of pursuing removal.”[741]

* The policies above:

  • were summarized by the Obama administration as “more refined civil immigration enforcement priorities” that “placed increased emphasis and focus on the removal of convicted felons and other public safety threats over non-criminals.”[742]
  • became effective on January 5, 2015 with “training and guidance … provided to the workforce prior to the effective date.”[743]

* In the federal government’s 2015 and 2016 fiscal years (October 2014 through September 2016[744]), ICE removed 21% fewer convicted criminals per year than in its 2014 fiscal year:

Convicted Criminal Immigrants Removed From U.S.

[745]

* In 2014, the Obama administration “released from its custody 30,558 criminal aliens with a total of 79,059 convictions instead of deporting them.”[746]

* From October 1, 2009 to July 21, 2015, the Obama administration released 124 criminal aliens who were later charged with murder-related crimes committed in the U.S. after their release and before February 2016.[747] [748] [749]

* For additional facts and context about Obama’s actions on immigration and crime, see the crime and politics section of this research.

Deportations & Returns

* With regard to President Obama’s record on immigration enforcement, the following media outlets reported that he:

  • “deported a record 1.5 million” illegal immigrants during “his first term.”
    – NPR, 2012[750]
  • deported “more people than any other president in U.S. history.”
    – WNYC New York Public Radio, 2017[751]
  • “has carried out many more deportations than previous presidents, setting a record of more than 2.4 million formal removals.”
    – New York Times, 2016[752]
  • “has deported more people than any other president’s administration in history. In fact, they have deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century. … and Obama’s numbers don’t reflect his last year in office, for which data is not yet available.”
    – ABC News, 2016[753]

* During a 2011 meeting with Hispanic media outlets, a reporter from AOL Latino asked Obama why he has “been deporting much more immigrants than the previous administration did in eight years.” Obama replied that:

the statistics are actually a little deceptive because what we’ve been doing is with the stronger border enforcement we’ve been apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back. That is counted as a deportation, even though they may have only been held for a day or 48 hours, sent back—that’s counted as a deportation.[754] [755]

* The federal government expels illegal immigrants from the U.S. through processes known as “returns” and “removals.” “Removals” are also called “deportations.”[756] [757] [758]

* Under a process change that began during the presidency of George W. Bush and expanded under Obama, the federal government began issuing orders of “removal” when it caught illegal immigrants near the Mexican border. Before this, it typically returned these people to Mexico without issuing formal orders of removal. This procedural change altered the classification of such immigrants from “returns” to “removals.”[759] [760]

* Under the Obama administration, combined returns and removals of illegal immigrants declined from 1.2 million in 2008 to 460,000 in 2015:

Immigrants Removed or Returned to Their Country of Origin

[761]


Donald Trump

* The U.S. Constitution gives the president the responsibility and power to ensure that federal laws are “faithfully executed” and to select people who will carry out this work.[762] [763]

* Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the agency that “enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.” It is a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is under the authority of the president.[764] [765]

* Within days of taking office in January of 2017,[766] Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order to ensure:

  • “the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States.”
  • “that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable federal law do not receive federal funds, except as mandated by law.”
  • that federal resources are prioritized to remove non-citizens who:
    • “have been convicted of any criminal offense.”
    • “have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved.”
    • “have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense.”
    • “have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency.”
    • “have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits.”
    • “are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States.”
    • “in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.”[767]

NOTE: In accord with this executive order, Trump took actions detailed in the sections of this research on border barriers, sanctuary cities, and welfare benefits.


Joseph Biden

* The U.S. Constitution gives the president the responsibility and power to ensure that federal laws are “faithfully executed” and to select people who will carry out this work.[768] [769]

* Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the agency that “enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.” It is a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is under the authority of the president.[770] [771]

* On his first day in office in January 2021,[772] Democratic President Joseph Biden issued multiple executive orders terminating prior presidential directives that:[773] [774] [775]

  • ensured “the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States….”
  • denied federal funding to “jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable federal law….”
  • prioritized federal resources to deport non-citizens who engaged in criminal behavior.[776]
  • improved visa screening procedures to prevent the entry of foreign nationals who posed a public safety threat.[777] [778] [779] [780]
  • funded 317 miles of new border barrier construction in 2020.[781] [782] [783] [784]

* In March 2021, the Biden administration ended the federal government’s effort to prevent immigration by people who are likely to become a burden to taxpayers.[785] [786] [787] [788] [789] [790] [791]

* In September 2022, the Biden administration decided that federal government can no longer consider the following factors when determining if a person is likely to become a burden on taxpayers:

  • Applying for or being approved for future welfare benefits.
  • Benefits received by other members of the same household.[792] [793]

Economic Issues

Income

* In 2021, the reported average cash income of families living in the U.S. was $109,299.[794] [795] [796] This varied by immigration status and Hispanic origin as follows:

Reported Average Family Cash Income by Citizenship & Hispanic Origin

[797] [798] [799]

* In 2017, the median reported cash income of families living in the U.S. was $67,123. This varied by immigration status and Hispanic origin as follows:

Reported Median Family Cash Income by Immigration Status & Hispanic Origin

[800] [801]

* In 2021, the median reported cash income of families living in the U.S. was $91,162. This varied by citizenship status as follows:

Reported Median Family Cash Income by Citizenship

[802]

* In 2021, full-time, year-round male workers earned a median reported cash income of $60,428, and females earned $49,263. This varied by immigration status as follows:

Immigration Status

Median Cash Earnings

Male

Female

Native-born

$61,346

$50,042

Foreign-born U.S. citizen

$64,035

$51,628

Foreign-born non-citizen

$44,643

$36,098

[803] [804]

Wage Assimilation Trends

* Male immigrants who arrived in the U.S. during:

  • 1965–69 earned an average of 24% less than native-born workers of the same age. Ten years later, they were earning 12% less. Twenty years later, they were earning 2% less. Forty years later, they were earning 18% more.
  • 1985–89 earned an average of 33% less than native-born workers of the same age. Ten years later, they were earning 27% less. Twenty years later, they were earning 25% less.
  • 1995–99 earned an average of 27% less than native-born workers of the same age. Ten years later, they were earning 27% less.[805]
Wage Assimilation of Male Immigrants By Year of Entry

[806]

Education Trends

* One of the primary factors associated with immigration-related income disparities is education.[807]

* Per the academic encyclopedia Immigration in America Today:

The liberalization of immigration policy following the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act dramatically changed the immigrant composition in America. … Whereas immigrants before the Great Depression were almost entirely working-class, all the immigrants of the 1970s through the 1990s can be divided into two economic classes, either highly skilled or poorly skilled.[808] [809]

* In 2022, 43% of Mexican and Central American immigrants aged 25–64 did not have a high school diploma or GED, as compared to 5% of people born in the U.S. in the same age group. The rates for other groups were as follows:

U.S. Residents Aged 25–64 Without a HS Diploma or GED

[810] [811] [812] [813]

* In 2022, 63% of Asian immigrants aged 25–64 had a bachelor’s degree or higher, as compared to 39% of people born in the U.S. in the same age group. The rates for other groups were as follows:

U.S. Residents Aged 25–64 With a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

[814] [815]

English Proficiency Trends

* One of the primary factors associated with immigration-related income disparities is the ability to speak English proficiently.[816]

* A 2014 study by the Brookings Institution found that:

  • workers with limited English proficiency “earn 25 to 40 percent less than their English proficient counterparts.”
  • “high-skilled immigrants who are not proficient in English are twice as likely to work in ‘unskilled’ jobs (i.e. those requiring low levels of education or training) as those who are proficient in English.”[817]

* In 2021, 8% of people living in the U.S. did not speak English “very well.” This varied by immigration status as follows:

Immigration Status

Not Fluent in English

Native-born

2%

Foreign-born U.S. citizen

37%

Foreign-born non-citizen

56%

[818]

* Immigrants who entered the U.S. in 1975–79 made more progress learning to speak English than those who entered in 1985–89 and 1995–99:

English Proficiency of Male Immigrants By Year of Entry

[819]

* Click here for an article from Just Facts about how media outlets and activists mislead the public about the English proficiency of immigrants.


Price Effects

* Increased numbers of workers vying for the same jobs creates increased competition, which generally leads to lower consumer prices.[820] [821] [822]

* In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences published a 495-page analysis of the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. With regard to the effect of immigration on the prices of goods and services, the report states:

Increases in the share of low-skilled immigrants in the labor force appear to have reduced, over time, the prices of immigrant-intensive services such as child care, eating out, house cleaning and repair, landscaping and gardening, taxi rides, and construction.
[H]igh-income households … are more likely than low-income households to consume products such as child care, landscaping, and restaurant meals that are immigrant-intensive in production.
The decrease in prices is found to be driven by lower wages paid by those hiring in labor markets populated by low-skilled workers of Hispanic origin, particularly those with relatively low English proficiency and/or who are not legally authorized to work….
Housing is a specific sector in which immigrants play an important role. On the supply side, immigrants are disproportionately represented in construction…. Their addition to the labor force may reduce the cost of construction and maintenance services. However, new arrivals also provide a major source of housing demand and, by raising both prices and rents, generate a potential windfall for native owners of housing.
[I]mmigration, like any increase in the population, has the potential to drive up an area’s house prices…. This is beneficial for homeowners and those who derive income from renting out accommodations. For natives who do not already own homes, whether they plan to continue renting or aspire to eventually purchase a home, this represents an increase in the cost of living.[823]

* In 2017, the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics at the University of California estimated the effects of immigration on the prices of fresh fruits and vegetables. It found that the cost of farm labor would rise by about 40% if the influx of migrant workers slowed or stopped, and this would cause average annual spending on fresh fruits and vegetables to rise by about $21 per U.S. household. Per the study:

There is little relationship between farm wages and consumer prices for fresh fruits and vegetables for three major reasons. First, Americans do not spend much on fresh fruits and vegetables, an average of $530 a year per household in 2015. Second, farmers receive only a third of what consumers pay for produce, about $165 per household per year. Third, farm labor costs are usually less than a third of farmer revenue, about $55 per household per year.
If farm wages rose 40 percent, and the increase were passed on fully to consumers, average spending on fresh fruits and vegetables would rise by about $21 a year … the cost of two movie tickets.”[824]

Wage Effects

* Increased numbers of workers vying for the same jobs creates increased competition, which generally leads to lower wages for those jobs.[825] [826]

* From 1970 to 2021, the immigrant portion of U.S. workers aged 25 and older increased from:

  • 6% to 17% for the pool of workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher.
  • 6% to 57% for the pool of workers without a high school diploma.[827] [828]

* In 2021, the reported median cash earnings of foreign-born workers aged 25 and older:[829]

  • was 16% lower than native-born workers.[830]
  • without a high school diploma was 9% lower than native-born workers without a high school diploma.[831]
  • with a high school degree and no further education was 11% lower than native-born workers without a high school degree and no further education.[832]
  • with a bachelor’s degree or higher was 6% more than native-born workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher.[833]

* All studies that have attempted to quantify the wage effects of immigration employ assumptions, and they have produced conflicting and uncertain results.[834]

* In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences published a 495-page analysis of the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. This report summarizes 22 results from studies that estimate the effects of immigration on the wages of U.S.-born workers. The studies use differing methods and examine varying groups of workers but mainly those with low incomes. Among these 22 results:

  • 18 indicate that immigration has reduced the wages of some U.S.-born workers.
  • 4 indicate that immigration has increased the wages of some U.S.-born workers.
  • the average result is that each 1% increase in the number of workers in a labor market caused by immigration decreased the wages of U.S.-born workers in that market by 0.5%. The median result is a decrease of 0.4%.[835]

* The National Academies of Sciences summarized the studies above by stating that:

  • the wages of U.S. high school “dropouts tend to be more negatively affected” by immigration “than better-educated” Americans.
  • this “negative effect” on the wages of U.S.-born workers “may be compounded for native minorities.”
  • one of the “largest negative effects” among these studies is on “Hispanic dropouts with poor English….”[836]

* Per the same National Academies of Sciences report:

Finally, immigrants influence the rate of innovation in the economy, which potentially affects long run economic growth. While research in this area is very recent, literature on the topic as a whole indicates that immigrants are more innovative than natives; more specifically, high-skilled immigrants raise patenting per capita, which is likely to boost productivity and per capita economic growth. Immigrants appear to innovate more than natives not because of greater inherent ability but due to their concentration in science and engineering fields.[837]
Immigration confers economic benefits on the native-born population as a whole but, among the native-born, there are likely to be winners and losers. While pre-existing workers most similar to immigrants may experience lower wages or a lower employment rate, preexisting workers who are complementary to immigrants are likely to benefit, as are native-born owners of capital.[838]

Taxes

* Relative to U.S.-born citizens, the average reported cash income of families of:

  • foreign-born U.S. citizens is 2% higher.
  • non-citizens is 22% lower.
  • Hispanic non-citizens is 43% lower.[839] [840] [841]

* In 2019, prior to the Covid-19 pandemic,[842] a comprehensive analysis of federal taxes by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) showed that the average effective federal tax burdens increased with income as follows:

Average Effective Federal Tax Rates by Income of Household

[843] [844] [845]

* In 2020—amid Covid-19 government lockdowns and intensified social spending,[846] [847] [848] CBO’s analysis shows that the average effective federal tax burdens increase with income as follows:

Average Effective Federal Tax Rates by Income of Household

[849] [850] [851]

Tax Fraud

* In 2013, the chief actuary of the U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that in 2010, 3.9 million illegal immigrants worked “in the underground economy.”[852] This allows workers and employers to avoid paying income taxes and social insurance taxes.[853] [854] [855] [856] [857]

* Per the IRS’s Taxpayer Advocate, unpaid taxes represent an effective tax on most taxpayers “to subsidize noncompliance by others,” and:

IRS data show that when taxpayers have a choice about reporting their income, voluntary tax compliance rates are disturbingly low.[858] [859]

Social Security

* In 2010, illegal immigrants using fraudulent/expired Social Security numbers paid about $13 billion in Social Security taxes and received about $1 billion in Social Security benefits.[860] This disparity between taxes and benefits is because:

  • federal law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security benefits, although some receive them through fraud.[861]
  • before reaching the age of 62, workers are not eligible to receive Social Security old-age benefits, and 96% of illegal immigrants were under the age of 55 in 2011 (as compared to 72% of people born in the United States).[862] [863] [864] This relative scarcity of older illegal immigrants is because:
    • the 1986 amnesty transformed most illegal immigrants from that era into legal immigrants.[865]
    • three-quarters of all U.S. immigrants are in their primary working years (as compared to half of the people born in the United States).[866]

Tax Credits

* In 2010, 3.0 million illegal immigrants and foreign investors filed federal tax returns using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). The IRS issues these numbers to people regardless of their immigration status, and it enables them to file federal tax returns without a Social Security number.[867] [868] Among the people who filed such returns in 2010:

  • 72% paid no income tax and received cash payments from the federal government for child tax credits (foreign investors cannot receive these payments). In comparison, 14% of people who filed regular tax returns (with a Social Security number) paid no income tax and received these payments.[869] [870]
  • the entire group paid a total of $0.9 billion in income taxes and received total cash payments of $4.9 billion.[871]

* For facts about how a politician and a “fact-checker” have misled the public about income taxes paid by illegal immigrants, see Just Facts’ article about this issue.


Government Benefits

* Government welfare programs are generally designed to provide more benefits to lower-income people.[872]

* In 2021, 13% of U.S. households had reported income below the poverty line, and 29% had income below twice the poverty line. This varied by immigration status as follows:

Immigration Status

Income Below …

Poverty Line

Twice Poverty Line

Native-born

13%

28%

Foreign-born U.S. citizen

11%

26%

Foreign-born non-citizen

18%

41%

[873]

* In 2011, 31% of U.S.-born citizens were reportedly in or near poverty. This varied for U.S. immigrants (and their children) from various homelands as follows:

Homeland

Portion in or Near Poverty

South Asia

21%

Europe

28%

East Asia

31%

South America

37%

Caribbean

46%

Sub-Saharan Africa

46%

Middle East

48%

El Salvador

57%

Honduras

66%

Guatemala

67%

Mexico

68%

[874]

* The last four nations listed above are the homelands of roughly 73% of the illegal immigrants living in the U.S. in 2012.[875]

* Federal law states:

Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes.
It continues to be the immigration policy of the United States that aliens within the nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations.
It is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.[876]

* Federal laws, court rulings, and administrative decisions provide the following benefits to immigrants, regardless of whether they are in the U.S. legally:

  • Federal taxpayers must provide annual cash payments to low-income immigrants for each dependent child they have.[877] [878]
  • Most hospitals with emergency departments are required to provide an “examination” and “stabilizing treatment” for anyone who comes to such a facility and requests care for an emergency medical condition, a childbirth, routine prenatal care, or routine postpartum care—regardless of their ability to pay or immigration status.[879] [880] [881] [882]
  • Federally funded programs provide job training, adult education, clinic-based healthcare, emergency rent assistance, and emergency food assistance to immigrants.[883]
  • States cannot deny a free public education to anyone based on their immigration status.[884]
  • Everyone who is eligible for free public education is also eligible for the national school lunch and school breakfast programs.[885]
  • Immigrants can enroll their children in federally funded childcare and preschool programs.[886] [887]
  • The federal government grants automatic citizenship to all children born in the United States, whether their parents are illegal immigrants, visitors, or tourists.[888] [889] This entitles their children to all federal welfare benefits, such as food stamps, housing, home energy, and health insurance. These benefits are generally awarded based on the reported incomes of the children’s households or families.[890] [891] [892] [893] [894] [895] [896]

* Due to birthright citizenship, about 88% of the children of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.[897]

* The majority of states and numerous cities and towns offer welfare and other benefits to illegal and/or non-citizen immigrants that extend beyond what the federal government provides.[898] [899] [900] [901] [902]

* Federal law does not provide the following welfare benefits to illegal immigrants and people temporarily living in the U.S. with visas:

  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps)
  • Non-emergency Medicaid
  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Security Income (cash welfare)[903] [904]

* Under federal law, legal non-citizen immigrants are generally ineligible to receive benefits from the federal welfare programs listed directly above for five years or more from when they first enter the United States. One of the exceptions to this rule is that children can receive food stamps without a waiting period.[905] [906]

* Refugees and asylees are generally eligible for all federal welfare programs and for other programs specifically for refugees and asylees.[907] [908]

Food Stamps

* In 2021, 12% of U.S. households received food stamps. This varied by immigration status as follows:

Immigration Status

Receiving Food Stamps

Native-born

12%

Foreign-born U.S. citizen

15%

Foreign-born non-citizen

16%

[909]

* In 2019, 1.1 million or 3% of all food stamps recipients were non-citizens.[910]

* In 2019, 2.5 million or 7% of all food stamps recipients were U.S. citizen children who were living with non-citizens.[911]

Social Security

* Relative to U.S.-born citizens, in 2021 the average reported cash income of families of:

  • foreign-born U.S. citizens is 2% higher.
  • non-citizens is 22% lower.
  • Hispanic non-citizens is 43% lower.[912] [913] [914]

* Social Security’s formula for old-age benefits is structured to provide people with lower incomes higher ratios of annual benefits to taxes.[915] The graph below compares the annual old-age benefits to lifetime payroll taxes for 23-year-olds who will work until the age of 67 while earning constant incomes:

Annual Benefits Compared to Lifetime Payroll Taxes

[916]

* Longer lifespans increase the financial strains on the Social Security program.[917] Workers who are currently 40 years old will receive full Social Security retirement benefits when they turn 67 years old.[918] The following table shows their life expectancies beyond this age:

Race/Sex

Years of Expected Life Beyond the Age of 67

Hispanic females

15.5

White females

13.8

Black females

10.7

Hispanic males

10.3

White males

9.5

Black males

5.0

[919] [920]

Education

* Per academic texts that discuss the impacts of immigration on educational methods:

In many countries, immigration has led to increasingly diverse student populations, who are often concentrated in city centers or in the suburbs immediately surrounding. The dramatic increase in immigration (and, therefore, in the mix of racial/ethnic groups, cultures, and languages) has occurred in only a few decades. Even a country like the United States, with its long tradition of immigration and diversity, continues to have a significant increase in the proportion of students from minority populations. Indeed, in many parts of the country, the term minority is a misnomer.
 
The increasing diversity places new demands on school systems, which are often blamed for educational problems. Many school systems respond by attempting to reverse traditional practices, which are perceived as ineffective in serving new student populations. Thus, countries with highly centralized education systems have sought to relax central control in order to make schools more responsive to the diverse student population. Countries with the tradition of local control, on the other hand, have moved in the opposite direction and have increased central oversight—all in response to the perception the changing demographics require a shift from the status quo, whatever it was.[921]
Today’s high schools serve a more academically diverse student population than at any other time in history, and this diversity will only increase in the decades to come. …
 
1) The United States is moving from a nation constituted by a majority population and a number of minority populations to a nation of minorities. Multiple cultures, races, and language groups will be the norm in our classrooms, and the range of competency or readiness levels within every subject will expand. Yet many teachers are still operating as if diverse backgrounds and readiness levels had no relation to learner success.
 
2. In order to teach culturally and academically diverse populations effectively, schools will have to move from standardized instruction to personalized instruction. Our best knowledge of effective teaching and learning suggest clearly the teacher responsiveness to race, gender, culture, readiness, experience, interest, and learning preferences results in increased student motivation and achievement.[922]

Federal Enforcement & State Prison Costs

* Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal agency that works “to protect America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety.”[923]

* In 2022, ICE employed more than 20,000 people and spent about $8 billion, or about 0.1% of total federal spending.[924] [925]

* From 2010 through 2015, state governments spent about $6.7 billion dollars on “selected annual estimated operating costs—correctional officer salaries, medical care, food service, and utilities” to imprison criminal aliens. This equates to about 0.04% of state and local government spending over this period. The federal government reimbursed the states for about 11% of these incarceration costs.[926] [927]

Crime

Data Caveats

* Government statistics on the crime rates of immigrants are often unclear because:

  • they lump together non-citizens who are lawfully present in the U.S. and were vetted for criminality with those who were not. This includes people who entered the United States:
  • certain state and local governments have enacted sanctuary policies that prohibit law enforcement from examining or recording the immigration status of arrestees.[932] [933] [934]
  • federal, state, and local governments differ in how they define and record the immigration status of people who pass through the criminal justice system.[935]
  • illegal immigrant crime victims may not report crimes committed against them due to fear of deportation.[936]
  • millions of immigrants use fraudulent Social Security numbers, fake birth certificates, or other forms of identity fraud to mask their immigration status.[937] [938] [939]
  • crime statistics are sometimes based on surveys that are dependent upon respondent honesty, and certain groups of immigrants often misrepresent themselves as citizens in surveys.[940]
  • the numbers and types of immigrants in the U.S., which comprise the denominators for determining crimes rates, are uncertain.

General

* Most of the facts below don’t account for crimes that don’t result in arrests.[941] In the United States:

  • one person is arrested for every 2.6 aggravated assaults that are committed.[942] [943] [944] [945]
  • the portion of murders in which a suspect is identified and acted upon by the criminal justice system declined from 92% in 1960 to 54% in 2020.[946] [947] [948]
  • murders committed by racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to be solved than other murders.[949]

* Arrest and incarceration rates of non-citizens who enter the U.S. are higher than those who remain in the U.S. because:

  • in the decade from 2011 to 2020, the federal government deported 1,546,450 non-citizens who were convicted of committing crimes in the U.S.[950] [951] This is 14 times the number of non-citizens in U.S. adult correctional facilities at the end of this period (108,008).[952] [953]
  • convicts released from state prisons have an average of about 4.4 prior convictions in addition to those that led to their imprisonment.[954] [955]
  • after convicts are released from state prisons, roughly 81% of them are arrested within a decade for committing new crimes (not probation or parole violations), with an average of five arrests per released prisoner.[956] [957] [958]

* In 2011, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a study of 249,000 non-citizens in U.S. prisons and jails during 2003–2009. The study:

  • found that these non-citizen inmates had been arrested for the following crimes committed within the U.S.:
    • 213,047 assaults.
    • 115,045 burglaries.
    • 94,492 weapons violations.
    • 69,929 sex offenses.
    • 25,064 homicides.
  • did not count some crimes because it only covered “a portion of the total population of criminal aliens who may be incarcerated at the state and local levels” since there “are no reliable population data on criminal aliens incarcerated in all state prison systems and local jails.”[959]

* In 2018, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a study of non-citizens in U.S. prisons and jails during 2010–2016.[960] The study:

  • found that these non-citizen inmates had been arrested/transferred for the following crimes committed within the U.S. during 1964–2017:
    • 1,097,800 drug offenses.
    • 505,400 assaults.
    • 219,900 burglaries.
    • 169,200 weapons violations.
    • 133,800 sex offenses.
    • 33,300 homicides.
    • 24,200 kidnappings.
    • 1,500 acts of terrorism.
  • double-counted some crimes because the “data did not allow” the study to “distinguish between a new arrest and a transfer from one agency to another.”
  • did not count some crimes because it only covered “a portion of the total population of criminal aliens incarcerated at the state and local level” since there “are no reliable population data on all criminal aliens in every U.S. state prison and local jail.”[961]

* Based on data from the U.S. Department of Justice, the Congressional Research Service determined in 2016 that:

Until recently, the proportion of noncitizens incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails corresponded closely to that of noncitizens in the U.S. population, but unreported incarceration data since 2013 has hindered such comparisons.[962]

* In 2018, non-citizens who remained in the U.S. accounted for:

  • 7% of the U.S. population.
  • 15% of federal arrests for non-immigration crimes.
  • 24% of federal drug arrests.
  • 9% of federal arrests for violent crimes.[963] [964]

* Based on U.S. Census data from 2016 to 2020, immigrants who remain in the U.S. and:

  • are U.S. citizens are 81% less likely than the general U.S. population to be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities.
  • are not U.S. citizens are 4% less likely than the general U.S. population to be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities.
  • are from Latin America are 4.4 times more likely to be incarcerated than immigrants from Europe and 6.0 times more likely than immigrants from Asia.[965] [966]

* Based on U.S. Census data from 2016 to 2020, the numbers and types of immigrants who remain in the U.S. and are incarcerated in adult correctional facilities varied as follows:

Immigrant Type

Portion of …

U.S. Population

Prisoners

All

13.6%

7.7%

U.S. Citizen

6.9%

1.3%

Non-Citizen

6.6%

6.4%

Asian

4.2%

0.7%

European

1.5%

0.3%

Latin American

6.8%

6.3%

[967] [968]


Removable Criminal Aliens

* “Removable criminal aliens” are non-citizens who have been convicted of crimes in the U.S. that warrant immediate deportation hearings. This term can apply to both legal and illegal immigrants, but it does not apply to immigrants who:

  • are living in the U.S. illegally but have not been convicted of a crime (unlawful presence in the U.S. is not a criminal offense unless the person was previously deported or fled the nation after a removal order was issued).
  • have only been convicted of minor offenses like public intoxication.
  • have become U.S. citizens.[969] [970]

* Based on data from 2007 to 2009, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated in 2010 that about:

  • “900,000 arrests of aliens for crimes occur every year.”
  • “550,000 criminal aliens convicted of crimes exit law enforcement custody every year.”
  • “1.94 million removable criminal aliens are in the United States today.”[971]

* Federal law requires the U.S. Attorney General to begin removal proceedings “as expeditiously as possible” when an alien is convicted of a crime that “makes the alien deportable.”[972] [973] The Attorney General is under the authority of the president.[974]


Media & Academia

* In 2016, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president of the U.S., told CNN that Mexican immigrants “are more law-abiding than U.S. citizens, and that is a statistic.”[975] PolitiFact, a group with a mission to “help you find the truth in politics,”[976] reported that this statement is “mostly true.”[977]

Misrepresenting Association as Causation

* In support of its “mostly true” ruling, PolitiFact wrote that “crime involvement among foreign-born residents is lower than that of U.S.-born citizens.” As evidence of this, PolitiFact cited a report from the American Immigration Council written by three Ph.D.’s and accurately paraphrased it as follows:

Between 1990 and 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population increased from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent, and the number of unauthorized immigrants went up from 3.5 million to 11.2 million. At the same time, violent crime rate (murder, rape and aggravated assault) decreased 48 percent and property crime rate fell 41 percent, the report said, citing FBI data.[978] [979]

* Per an academic textbook about analyzing data:

Association is not the same as causation. This issue is a persistent problem in empirical analysis in the social sciences. Often the investigator will plot two variables and use the tight relationship obtained to draw absolutely ridiculous or completely erroneous conclusions. Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.[980] [981] [982] [983] [984]

Cherry-Picking

* In their analyses, PolitiFact and the American Immigration Council did not mention that the foreign-born share of the U.S. population also increased during the 1970s and 1980s, and during this time, the homicide rate rose, fell, and rose again:

Murder and Foreign-Born U.S. Population

[985]

* Per an academic book about analyzing data:

One of the worst abuses of analytics is to cherry pick results. Cherry pickers tout analysis findings when the results serve the purpose at hand. But, they ignore the findings when the results conflict with the original plan.[986]

Mixing Data

* As further support for its “mostly true” ruling, PolitiFact wrote that the same American Immigration Council report:

analyzed data from the Census’ 2010 American Community Survey and found that about 1.6 percent of all immigrant males (Census does not specify legal status) between 18 and 39 years old were incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born population.[987] [988]

* The Census does specify citizenship status,[989] and all immigrants who have become U.S. citizens are, by definition, legally present in the United States.[990] This Census data shows that non-citizen immigrants were 5.2 times more likely to be incarcerated in correctional facilities than citizen immigrants during 2011–2015.[991] [992]

Obscuring Data

* The documentation provided by the American Immigration Council to support its claim about the rate of immigrant incarceration consists of one footnote that states “2010 American Community Survey.”[993] Just Facts repeatedly requested data to verify this claim from the American Immigration Council, and they did not provide it.[994]

* Per an academic book about research integrity:

  • “An important goal in the social sciences is that results, and therefore the data, be reproducible.”
  • “When data are not available, researchers must either trust past published results, or they must recreate the data as best they can based on descriptions in the published works, which often turn out to be too cryptic.”
  • “Descriptions are no substitute for the data itself.”[995]

* Per an academic work about data analysis and the “importance of transparency”:

The techniques of analysis should be sufficiently transparent that other researchers familiar with the area can recognize how the data are being collected and tested, and can replicate the outcomes of the analysis procedure.[996] [997] [998] [999]

Bait & Switch

* As evidence that Mexican immigrants are “less likely to commit crimes than the native-born,” PolitiFact cited the same American Immigration Council report and wrote that:

2010 Census data that shows incarceration rates of young, less educated Mexican, Salvadoran and Guatemalan men—which comprise the bulk of the unauthorized population—are “significantly lower” than incarceration rates of native-born young men without a high-school diploma.[1000] [1001]

* If the claim above is accurate, it would not show that Mexican immigrants are “less likely to commit crimes than the native-born.” It would show that young, male Mexican immigrants with low education who remain in the U.S. are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born young men without a high-school diploma. With regard to:

  • education:
    • In 2012, 54% of Mexican and Central American immigrants aged 25–64 did not have a high school diploma or equivalent, as compared to 7% of people born in the U.S. in the same age group.[1002]
    • In 2009, 65% of male prison inmates did not have a high school diploma, as compared to 19% of adults in the general population.[1003]
  • remaining in the U.S.:
    • In the decade from 2006 to 2015, the federal government deported 1,504,934 non-citizens who were convicted of committing crimes in the U.S.[1004] [1005] This was 10 times the number of non-citizens in U.S. adult correctional facilities at the end of this period (151,324).[1006] [1007]
    • After convicts are released from state prisons, roughly 81% of them are arrested within a decade for committing completely new crimes (not probation or parole violations), with an average of five arrests per released prisoner.[1008] [1009] [1010]
  • age:
    • In 2016, people aged 17–34 comprised 24% of the U.S. population and committed about 67% of the murders.[1011] [1012]
    • In 2016, non-citizens comprised about 7.2% of the U.S. population and about 10.2% of the population aged 17–34.[1013] [1014]

Bait & Switch 2

* As further evidence that Mexican immigrants are “less likely to commit crimes than the native-born,” PolitiFact wrote:

Bianca E. Bersani, an assistant professor and director of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Program at the University of Massachusetts Boston, says her research also shows that crime involvement among foreign-born residents is lower than that of U.S.-born citizens.
 
It holds true for Mexican immigrants, she said.
 
“When ethnicity can be distinguished and Mexican immigrants isolated from the group of first-generation immigrants, research continues to find that Mexican immigrants have lower rates of involvement in crime compared to their U.S-born peers,” Bersani said.[1015] [1016]

* The statement above is based on a paper authored by Bersani that was published by the journal Justice Quarterly in 2014. This study is based on the self-reported criminal activities of a group of youth born in 1980 to 1984.[1017]

* Bersani’s paper does not compare the nationally representative crime rates of foreign-born residents to U.S.-born citizens. It compares the crime rates of foreign-born residents to U.S.-born citizens using “an over-sample of Hispanic and African-American youth.”[1018] [1019] With regard to such samples:

  • In cases where law enforcement identified the race or ethnicity of murder perpetrators in 2014, black people were 7.2 more times likely to commit murder than white people, and Hispanics were 2.6 times more likely to commit murder than whites.[1020]
  • Surveys of crime victims conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice from 2012 to 2014 show that black people are about 2.4 more times likely to commit non-homicidal violent crimes than white people, and Hispanics are 5% less likely to commit such crimes than whites.[1021] [1022] [1023] [1024] [1025]

Statistical Strategies

* Bersani’s paper does not provide a straightforward accounting of crimes committed by Mexican immigrants.[1026] [1027] Instead, it uses an “analytic strategy” called “group-based trajectory modeling” to identify “clusters of individuals who display similar behavioral trajectories over a period of time.” Using this strategy, Bersani found that:

  • “violent crime is virtually non-existent among first generation immigrants.”
  • “drug crime” is “virtually non-existent among first generation immigrants….”[1028]

* In 2011, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a study of 249,000 non-citizens in U.S. prisons and jails during 2003–2009. The study covered “a portion of the total population of criminal aliens who may be incarcerated at the state and local levels” and found that they had been arrested for the following violent and drug crimes committed within the U.S.:

  • 25,064 homicides.
  • 69,929 sex offenses.
  • 94,492 weapons violations.
  • 213,047 assaults.
  • 504,043 drug crimes.[1029]

* In 2018, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a study of non-citizens in U.S. prisons and jails during 2010–2016.[1030] The study covered “a portion of the total population of criminal aliens incarcerated at the state and local level” and found that they had been arrested/transferred for the following violent and drug crimes committed in the U.S. during 1964–2017:

  • 1,500 acts of terrorism
  • 24,200 kidnappings.
  • 33,300 homicides.
  • 133,800 sex offenses.
  • 505,400 assaults.
  • 1,097,800 drug offenses.[1031]

* Using the same analytic strategy, Bersani found that:

in no case was Mexican immigrant ethnicity found to be a risk factor for trajectory group membership. Mexican, Central American, Caribbean, and Asian immigrants were no more likely to be in a high-rate offender group than the low rate or non-offender groups.[1032]

* Based on U.S. Census data from 2011 to 2015, Latin American immigrants who remain in the U.S. are 5.1 times more likely to be incarcerated than European immigrants and 6.3 times more likely than Asian immigrants:

Immigrant Type

Portion of …

U.S. Population

Prisoners

Asian

3.9%

0.7%

European

1.5%

0.3%

Latin American

6.8%

7.5%

[1033] [1034]

* Per various academic publications that address the topic of statistical analytic strategies:

  • “Statistical analysis is very easy to misuse and misinterpret. Any method of analysis used, whenever applied to data, will provide a result, and all statistical results look authoritative.”[1035]
  • “Manipulation of data involves subjecting data to multiple statistical techniques until one achieves the desired outcome.”[1036]
  • “A general principle of data analysis recommends using the most appropriate, yet simplest, statistical techniques in research so findings can be better understood, interpreted, and communicated.”[1037] [1038]
  • Statistical “malpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. … Indeed, as a general rule, the better the science, the less the need for complex analysis….”[1039]

Other Media Outlets

* Citing the same or similar studies as PolitiFact, various media outlets have reported that:

  • “immigrants are far more law-abiding than natives, regardless of race, class or education.”
    – New York Times[1040]
  • “immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated.”
    – Wall Street Journal[1041]
  • in 2010, “1.6 percent of immigrant males 18 to 39 years old were incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of native-born males. … The trend holds when comparing less educated Mexican, Salvadoran and Guatemalan men—who make up the bulk of the undocumented immigrant population—to their native-born counterparts….”
    – Washington Post[1042]

Federal Politics

* The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to pass laws regarding citizenship with the approval of the president or by overriding a presidential veto. A veto override requires the votes of two-thirds of both houses of Congress.[1043] [1044]

* The U.S. Constitution gives the president the responsibility and power to ensure that federal laws are “faithfully executed” and to select people who will carry out this work.[1045] [1046]

* Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the agency that “enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.” It is a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is under the authority of the president.[1047] [1048]

Party Platforms

* The 2020 Democratic Party Platform is silent about the issue of immigration and crime and promises to:

  • use detention of illegal immigrants only as a “last resort.”
  • end all funding “to construct an unnecessary, wasteful, and ineffective wall on the southern border.”
  • “terminate the Trump Administration’s discriminatory travel and immigration bans that disproportionately impact Muslim, Arab, and African people” from nations with high levels of terrorist activity.[1049] [1050] [1051] [1052] [1053]
  • “end workplace and community raids.”
  • “end programs that force state and local law enforcement to also be responsible for immigration enforcement.”
  • hold immigration agencies “accountable for any inappropriate, unlawful, or inhumane treatment.”[1054] [1055]

* The Republicans didn’t adopt a new platform in 2020.[1056]

* With regard to immigration and crime, the 2016 Republican Party Platform states:

In a time of terrorism, drug cartels, human trafficking, and criminal gangs, the presence of millions of unidentified individuals in this country poses grave risks to the safety and sovereignty of the United States. Our highest priority, therefore, must be to secure our borders and all ports of entry and to enforce our immigration laws.
The Department of Homeland Security must use its authority to keep dangerous aliens off our streets and to expedite expulsion of criminal aliens. Gang membership should be a deportable offense.
To ensure our national security, refugees who cannot be carefully vetted cannot be admitted to the country, especially those whose homelands have been the breeding grounds for terrorism.[1057]

Releasing Convicts

* Federal law requires the U.S. Attorney General begin removal proceedings “as expeditiously as possible” when a non-citizen is convicted of a “deportable” offense.[1058] The Attorney General is under the authority of the president,[1059] and deportable offenses include but are not limited to:

  • a “crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.”
  • “an aggravated felony.”
  • possessing a firearm.
  • drug crimes “other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana.”
  • domestic violence.
  • stalking.
  • identity fraud.
  • falsely claiming to be a citizen to get a job or receive welfare benefits.
  • voting in U.S. elections.[1060] [1061]

* In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5 to 4) in Zadvydas v. Davis that the government must release illegal immigrants who are ex-convicts into the U.S. population if their home countries refuse to take them back.[1062] In this case:

  • both of the justices appointed by Democrats and three justices appointed by Republicans ruled that the government must release them.
  • four justices appointed by Republicans ruled that the government is not required to release them.[1063]

* U.S. law specifies penalties for foreign nations that refuse to take back people who are slated for deportation:

On being notified by the Attorney General that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after the Attorney General asks whether the government will accept the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country until the Attorney General notifies the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien.[1064]

* During a July 2016 congressional hearing, Obama administration officials from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security stated that:

  • the federal law above that requires the Secretary of State to stop granting visas to nations that won’t take back their people is a “very, very powerful tool” to remove criminal immigrants from the U.S.
  • the Obama administration has never “used” this law.
  • “Tens of thousands” of convicts who were slated for deportation have been released onto U.S. streets because their home countries refused to take them back.[1065] [1066]

* In 2014, the Obama administration “released from its custody 30,558 criminal aliens with a total of 79,059 convictions instead of deporting them.”[1067] [1068]

* Between October 1, 2010 and July 21, 2015, the Obama administration released 124 criminal aliens who were later charged with murder-related crimes committed in the U.S. after their release and before February 2016.[1069] [1070] [1071]

* In 2015, the Boston Globe published an investigation of immigrants convicted of sex crimes who were released since 2008 by the Bush and Obama administrations. It found that:

  • “hundreds of immigrants convicted of sex crimes who should have been deported” were instead “released in the United States because their homelands refused to take them back.”
  • “immigration officials have released them without making sure they register with local authorities as sex offenders.”
  • the Obama administration refused to reveal the names of these convicted sex offenders “to protect their privacy,” but the Boston Globe filed a federal lawsuit to force the release of these names by “arguing that the privacy policy endangered Americans and immigrants alike.”
  • the Globe won this lawsuit, but the Obama administration “provided complete records only for the criminals freed from 2008 to 2012, the year the Globe filed the lawsuit.” The Globe “demanded a more current list,” but the administration would not supply it.
  • “using the 2008 to 2012 list with names of more than 6,800 criminals, the Globe identified 424 released immigrants who had previously been convicted of sex-related crimes, including 209 who had appeared in the national public sex offender registry.”
  • “at least 34 of the 424 released sex offenders—including some who did register with local police—were back in jail as of last month, state records show, some for heinous crimes committed after ICE released them.”[1072] [1073]

Removing Convicts

* In November of 2014, the Obama administration formally changed its immigration enforcement policies to “focus on the removal of convicted felons and other public safety threats.” It did this by directing all immigration and border security personnel to:

  • apply “prosecutorial discretion” as to “whom to stop, question, and arrest; whom to detain or release; whether to settle, dismiss, appeal, or join in a motion on a case; and whether to grant deferred action, parole, or a stay of removal instead of pursuing removal” for all illegal immigrants.
  • never pursue the “removal of an alien not identified as a priority” unless an ICE Field Office Director concludes that “removing such an alien would serve an important federal interest.”[1074] [1075] [1076]

* Obama’s policy officially became effective on January 5, 2015 with “training and guidance … provided to the workforce prior to the effective date.”[1077]

* In the federal government’s 2015 and 2016 fiscal years (October 2014 through September 2016[1078]), ICE removed 21% fewer convicted criminals per year than in its 2014 fiscal year:

Convicted Criminal Immigrants Removed From the United States

[1079]

Detaining Convicts

* An immigration “detainer” or “hold” is a request from ICE to a local law enforcement agency to detain a non-citizen convicted of a criminal offense who has been taken into custody by local law enforcement. ICE typically asks the agency to hold the individual for 48 hours, so that ICE can decide whether or not the person should be deported and take appropriate action before the criminal is released.[1080] [1081]

* The Bush administration began issuing tens of thousands of detainers in the last three years of his presidency, reaching a peak of 186,978 in 2008. The Obama administration continued to increase this up to 309,697 detainers in 2011. Thereafter, the Obama administration issued fewer detainers every year though the end of his presidency, reaching a low of 85,720 in 2016:

Immigration Detainers Issued by ICE

[1082]

* From 2012 to 2015, the Obama administration deported less than half of the people that ICE took into custody under immigration detainers.[1083]

* The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University is an organization that provides the public with “information about staffing, spending, and enforcement activities of the federal government.”[1084] Per a February 2017 report by this organization about immigration detainers:

  • “A recent and dramatic change” in ICE policies “occurred in the waning months of the Obama Administration.”
  • “Fields of information that ICE had routinely provided” in response to Freedom of Information Act requests “started getting left off the files … without explanation.”
  • These missing fields make the information “largely unusable.”
  • “Omitted, for example, from the files were … what actions ICE took to deport individuals once they were in ICE custody, along with many other data fields.”
  • “All of this information … are essential to the public’s understanding of what the agency is actually doing to enforce immigration laws.”
  • “Thus far, administrative appeals within the agency have been unavailing,” and a lawsuit “appears to be needed to challenge these new unlawful practices.[1085]

* In January 2017, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order to ensure “that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable federal” immigration laws or refuse to cooperate with efforts to enforce them “do not receive federal funds, except as mandated by law.”[1086]

* In February 2020, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court ruled that the federal government can deny federal grants to states and localities that fail to comply with federal immigration laws or refuse to cooperate with efforts to enforce them.[1087]


Sanctuary Policies

* Sanctuary cities, counties, and states are those that shield certain illegal immigrants from deportation by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Some of these governments have officially enacted sanctuary policies into law, and others implement them through less formal means.[1088] [1089]

* One of the primary ways that sanctuary jurisdictions shelter illegal immigrants is by releasing them from jail (and other forms of custody) before Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can detain them under the following circumstances:

  • After state and local law enforcement agencies arrest people, they typically conduct criminal background checks by sending their fingerprints to the FBI. In accord with federal law, the FBI shares these fingerprints with ICE. In turn, ICE checks to see if the fingerprints match people who have been previously fingerprinted by immigration authorities.[1090] [1091] [1092] [1093] [1094] [1095]
  • When fingerprints match, ICE investigates to determine if the arrestee is a priority for deportation. Priorities generally include people with convictions or arrests for terrorism, aggravated assault, gang activity, drug distribution, firearm offenses, DUIs, repeated immigration violations, domestic violence, sexual abuse, and other crimes.[1096] [1097] [1098]
  • If ICE determines that an arrestee may be a priority for deportation, it issues a “detainer” or “hold” for him. This is an official request to the law enforcement agency asking it to notify ICE before releasing the suspect and/or to maintain custody of him for up to 48 hours. This allows ICE time to decide if the suspect should be deported and take appropriate action before he is released.[1099] [1100] [1101] [1102] [1103]
  • Sanctuary jurisdictions often flout these detainers and release the illegal immigrants before ICE can detain them.[1104] [1105]

* State and local law enforcement agencies declined to honor about:

  • 21,205 detainers from January 2014 to September 2016. These agencies were located in 567 counties in 48 states, including the District of Columbia.[1106] [1107]
  • 19,162 detainers from October 2014 to September 2017.[1108]

* Per U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement:

Declined detainers result in convicted criminals being released back into U.S. communities with the potential to re-offend, notwithstanding ICE’s requests for transfer of those individuals. Moreover, these releases constrain ICE’s civil immigration enforcement efforts because they required ICE to expend additional resources to locate and arrest convicted criminals who were at-large rather than transferred directly from jails into ICE custody, drawing resources away from other ICE enforcement efforts.[1109]

* Per the American Civil Liberties Union, “more than 300 jurisdictions across the country” have adopted “community trust policies,” and:

Far from being “sanctuary” zones, these localities recognize that immigrant victims and witnesses will not report crime if they fear that police are collaborating with immigration enforcement authorities—and thus, in order to combat crime, local police need to win and maintain the trust of immigrant communities.[1110]

* The following illegal immigrants have killed people after they were arrested and released by sanctuary jurisdictions that flouted ICE detainers for these individuals:

  • Josue Rafael Fuentes-Ponce, Joel Ernesto Escobar, and two other MS-13 gang members murdered Ariana Funes-Diaz, a 14-year-old Maryland girl, with a machete and baseball bat. Ponce and Escobar carried out this crime after they were arrested and released by Prince George’s County, MD for “attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, participation in gang activity, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted robbery, and other related charges.”[1111] [1112] [1113] [1114]
  • Nery Estrada Margos beat Veronica Cabrera Ramirez to death two weeks after Sonoma County, California Sheriff Rob Giordano released him following an arrest for beating the same woman. In this case, Giordano and his team:
    • blamed ICE for this murder by stating that they notified ICE of the pending release but ICE failed to pick up Margos.
    • released Margos 16 minutes after they notified ICE—while knowing that the nearest ICE office was 50 miles away—thus ensuring that ICE could not detain him.
    • had released numerous other illegal immigrants in the same manner by not notifying ICE until shortly beforehand.[1115] [1116] [1117] [1118] [1119]
  • Edwin Ramos murdered Tony Bologna and two of his sons, Michael and Matthew. Ramos mistook one of the sons for a rival gang member and gunned down his family as they drove by in their car.[1120] [1121]
  • Victor Aureliano Martinez broke into the home of 64-year-old Marilyn Pharis, raped her, and beat her with a hammer. Jose Fernando Villagomez, a U.S. citizen, also participated in this crime.[1122] [1123] [1124]
  • Ever Valles fatally shot 32-year-old Tim Cruz during a robbery. Valles was a known gang member.[1125] [1126]
  • Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez shot and killed 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle while she was out for a walk with her father and a family friend. Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times.[1127] [1128]
  • Kendel Anthony Felix kidnapped and murdered New York real estate developer Menachem Stark. Felix was previously arrested and released on six occasions.[1129] [1130] [1131]
  • Luis Rodrigo Perez shot and killed Steven Marler, Aaron Hampton, and Sabrina Starr in Springfield, Missouri. In this case, government officials of Middlesex County, NJ:
    • disregarded an ICE detainer and released Perez less than a year before the killings.
    • claimed that “all responsibility” for Perez’s actions rest “squarely upon ICE” because ICE didn’t obey their county policy of getting “an order of deportation from a federal judge.”
    • disregarded the fact that federal law gives all immigration officers “power without warrant to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien” is violating any immigration law.[1132] [1133] [1134] [1135] [1136]

* The following illegal immigrants have been arrested for allegedly killing people after they were arrested and released by sanctuary jurisdictions that flouted ICE detainers for these individuals. The outcomes of their criminal cases were still pending as of October 2022:

  • Reeaz Khan allegedly raped and murdered Maria Fuertes, a 92-year old woman, in New York City. In this case:
    • the administration of Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio claimed the city never received an ICE detainer and that the city honors detainers for people convicted of violent crimes committed within five years prior to their arrest.
    • ICE released a fax verification report proving that the city had received the detainer.
    • the city honored a total of 25 detainers in 2019 among 7,526 detainers issued for people with criminal histories that include “more than 3,500 assaults, 1,500 DUIs, 1,000 sex crimes, 1,000 weapon offenses, 500 robberies, and 200 homicide offenses.”[1137] [1138] [1139] [1140] [1141]
  • Carlos Eduardo Arevalo-Carranza allegedly stalked, beat, and stabbed to death Bambi Larson, a 59-year-old medical testing company manager who lived in San Jose, California. In this case, the accused was a gang member who had been previously arrested and convicted of burglary, battery of an officer, false imprisonment, and other crimes. ICE had filed at least nine detainers for him, all of which were ignored.[1142] [1143] [1144]
  • Carlos Iraheta-Vega allegedly murdered 16-year-old Juan Carlos Con Guzman by beating him with a baseball bat and chopping his neck with a machete. This case occurred in King County, Washington, which encompasses Seattle and surrounding areas.[1145] [1146] [1147]

* A California sanctuary law prohibits local law enforcement agencies from honoring ICE detainers under certain circumstances. During 2019, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department was forced by this law to release 1,015 inmates with ICE detainers without notifying ICE. In February 2020, the county sheriff reported:

Of those inmates, 238 individuals were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County including on charges of assault and battery, rape, and robbery, among others. These numbers only reflect individuals arrested on new charges and who were returned back to the Orange County Jail. It does not include individuals who may have committed crimes in Orange County and were released on citation, booked into a city jail or committed offenses in another county’s jurisdiction.[1148]

Donald Trump

* In January 2017, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order to ensure “that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable federal” immigration laws or refuse to cooperate with efforts to enforce them “do not receive federal funds, except as mandated by law.”[1149]

* In May 2019:

  • U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D–NV) sponsored a bill to rescind Trump’s executive order.[1150] During that congressional session:
    • 23 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 0 Republicans cosponsored this bill.[1151]
    • the full Senate never voted on it.[1152]
  • U.S. Congressman Tom McClintock (R–CA) sponsored a bill that would limit federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions.[1153] U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R–PA) sponsored the same bill in the Senate.[1154] During that congressional session:
    • 60 Republicans and 0 Democrats cosponsored these bills.[1155]
    • neither the full House nor full Senate voted on them.[1156] [1157]

* In February 2020, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court ruled that the federal government can deny federal grants to states and localities that fail to comply with federal immigration laws or refuse to cooperate with efforts to enforce them.[1158]

Joseph Biden

* On his first day in office in January 2021,[1159] Democratic President Joseph Biden issued an executive order that rescinded Trump’s order.[1160]


Illicit Drugs

* The U.S. Centers for Disease Control defines “illicit drugs” as those that are “prohibited by law” and used for “non-medical” purposes. These can include:

  • amphetamine-type stimulants, like meth and ephedrine.
  • marijuana or cannabis.
  • cocaine.
  • heroin and other opioids.
  • synthetic drugs, like ecstasy and fentanyl.[1161] [1162]

* In the U.S. during 2021, roughly:

  • 108,886 people were killed by drug overdoses.[1163]
  • 99,086 people were killed by accidental drug overdoses.[1164]
  • 91,246 people were killed by illicit drug overdoses.[1165]
  • 83,034 people were killed by accidental overdoses from illicit drugs.[1166]

* Mexico is the primary source of fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine in the United States.[1167] [1168] [1169]

* The chemicals used to manufacture fentanyl in Mexico mainly come from China.[1170] [1171]

* In the U.S. from 2010 to 2020, the age-adjusted overdose death rates for the drugs above grew by 4.1 to 17.8 times:

Illicit Drug Overdose Death Rates

[1172]

* In 2016, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimated that:

the number of heroin deaths is undercounted by as much as 30 percent. This is due both to variations in state reporting procedures, and because heroin metabolizes into morphine very quickly in the body, making it difficult to determine the presence of heroin.[1173]

* Since 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Protection have seized 2.1 million pounds of illegal drugs at the U.S./Mexico border:

Year

Southwest Border Drug Seizures (Thousands of Pounds)

Marijuana

Meth

Cocaine

Fentanyl

Heroin

All

2019

517

131

24

3

6

681

2020

502

170

19

5

5

701

2021

213

183

27

11

5

438

2022
(1/1–10/14)

86

160

25

14

2

287

Total

1,318

644

95

32

17

2,106

[1174]

* Since 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Protection have seized enough illegal drugs at the U.S./Mexico border to kill 9.4 billion people, or 28 times the entire population of the United States:

Year

Southwest Border Drug Seizures (Millions of Lethal Doses)

Meth

Cocaine

Fentanyl

Heroin

All

2019

397

9

597

50

1,053

2020

514

7

1,034

47

1,602

2021

552

10

2,401

45

3,008

2022
(1/1–10/14)

485

10

3,199

14

3,707

Total

1,948

36

7,231

156

9,370

[1175]


Identity, Document & Tax Fraud

* Federal law generally prohibits illegal immigrants from earning income in the United States.[1176] [1177]

* According to the Social Security Administration, roughly 7.0 million or 65% of illegal immigrants worked for income during 2010.[1178]

* According to Pew Research, roughly 8.1 million or 72% of illegal immigrants worked for income or looked for such work during 2012.[1179]

* Illegal immigrants earn income in the U.S. by using fraudulent or expired documentation or working for cash “under the table” or “off the books.”[1180] [1181]

* In 2013, the chief actuary of the U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that in 2010:

  • 0.6 million illegal immigrants “had temporary work authorized at some point in the past and have overstayed the term of their visas.”
  • 0.7 million illegal immigrants worked by using Social Security numbers obtained by using “fraudulent birth certificates.”
  • 1.8 million illegal immigrants worked by using Social Security numbers “that did not match their name.”
  • 3.9 million illegal immigrants worked “in the underground economy.”[1182]

False Documents

* In 2017, California Senate Leader and Democrat Kevin De Leon testified before the Senate’s Public Safety Committee:

I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license … if they got a false green card. And anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.[1183] [1184]

* Federal laws states:

Whoever uses … an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the document is false … shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.[1185]

* The law above was initially enacted in 1986 as part of a comprehensive immigration reform compromise between political parties, business interests, religious groups, and ethnic organizations.[1186] [1187] [1188] [1189] The resulting bill was approved by 58% of the House and 72% of the Senate, and Republican President Ronald Reagan signed it into law.[1190] [1191] This legislation:

  • legalized most illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. since the beginning of 1982 and gave them a path to citizenship.[1192] [1193] [1194]
  • made verification of immigration status a “lasting requirement for all new hires.”[1195] [1196] [1197]
  • “was meant as a one-time resolution of a longstanding problem.”[1198]

* In 2002, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published an investigation of identity fraud by immigrants. It found that:

  • “the use of fraudulent documents by aliens is extensive.”
  • “at ports of entry,” immigration officials “have intercepted tens of thousands of fraudulent documents in each of the last few years.”
  • “the types of false documents most frequently intercepted … include border crossing cards, alien registration cards, nonimmigrant visas, and passports and citizenship documents (both U.S. and foreign).”
  • “significant numbers of aliens unauthorized to work in the United States have used fraudulent documents to circumvent the employment verification process designed to prevent employers from hiring them.”
  • in November 1998, immigration officials in Los Angeles “seized nearly two million counterfeit documents, such as … permanent resident cards and Social Security cards, which were headed for distribution points around the country.”
  • “some aliens use fraudulent documents in connection with more serious illegal activities, such as narcotics trafficking and terrorism.”[1199]

* Per a 2005 article in the New York Times:

Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card.[1200]

Identity Theft

* In 2010, an ABC News affiliate in Utah reported:

  • “As of February, 1,265 Utah children, under the age of 12, are victims of somebody else misusing their [Social Security] number.” This figure accounts only for reported cases.
  • Utah Assistant Attorney General Rich Hamp stated, “In virtually every case we have investigated, with the exception of one, it has come back to an illegal immigrant.”
  • “Hamp says it is just so much easier to use a child’s number versus an adult’s number. ‘Someone on a child’s number is going to get away with years of misuse before anyone discovers it.’
  • “The state estimates around 20,000 Utah children’s numbers are being used. Some, like Ron Mortensen, a child identity expert, believe the number could be closer to 50,000.”[1201]

* In 2016, the IRS Inspector General reported:

  • During “the period February 2011 to December 2015, the IRS identified almost 1.1 million taxpayers who were victims of employment-related identity theft.”
  • “In cases of employment-related identity theft, the discrepancy results from the innocent taxpayer’s stolen identity being used by another individual to gain employment. This can cause significant burden to innocent taxpayers, including the incorrect computation of taxes based on income that does not belong to them.”[1202]

* In 2017, the IRS identified about 556,000 taxpayers who were victims of employment-related identity theft.[1203]

* In 2020, a U.S. Treasury review of tax returns identified 883,000 victims of employment-related identity theft.[1204]

Tax Evasion

* Willfully evading federal taxes is a felony offense punishable by up to five years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations.[1205]

* In 2013, the chief actuary of the U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that 3.9 million or 36% of illegal immigrants worked “in the underground economy” during 2010.[1206]

* Per the IRS’s Taxpayer Advocate, unpaid taxes represent an effective tax on most taxpayers “to subsidize noncompliance by others” and:

IRS data show that when taxpayers have a choice about reporting their income, voluntary tax compliance rates are disturbingly low.[1207] [1208]

* In instances where income was reported to the IRS and withheld by third parties (such as employers), the noncompliance rate was about 1% from 2011 to 2013. In instances where income was not subject to reporting or withholding, the noncompliance rate was 55%.[1209]

Tax Credits

* Tax credits are provisions of tax law that reduce income taxes for people who engage in certain behaviors or meet other criteria. Some tax credits are refundable, and low-income households with tax credits that exceed the income tax they owe receive the difference as cash payments from the federal government.[1210] [1211] [1212] Per the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration, “the risk of fraud for these types of claims is significant.”[1213]

* Federal law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving most federal benefits, but the IRS has concluded that this restriction does not apply to refundable child tax credits.

* In 2022, the maximum refundable child tax credit is $2,000 per child.[1214]

* In 2010, the IRS paid out $4.2 billion in refundable child tax credits to 2.3 million tax filers who were not legally authorized to work in the United States.[1215] [1216]

* In 2012, WTHR, an NBC News affiliate in Indiana, aired a report by investigative journalist Bob Segall about illegal immigrants who were fraudulently obtaining child tax credits by claiming credit for children who live in Mexico. The IRS responded to the report by stating that the agency “has procedures in place specifically for the evaluation of questionable credit claims early in the processing stream and prior to issuance of a refund.”[1217]

* In the wake of the WTHR news report, 11 current and former IRS employees contacted WHTR and made statements such as the following:

  • “I just saw your report and there’s something I need to tell you. I see this stuff every day and there isn’t anything I can do about it.”
  • “Most of these documents are fraudulent and there’s absolutely no system here to catch it.”
  • “We don’t have the resources to follow up on much and we’re not allowed to flag problems.”
  • “We get applications from Mexico, Honduras, China, Japan, Bulgaria, all over the world. … I guarantee 90% of them are phony. We see the same signatures hundreds of times. We see the same docs photocopied and attached to different applications. It’s the same person, same photo, same address. I’ve seen the same birth certificate twelve times now in the past day.”[1218]

* Two months later, the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration published an audit of the IRS department that handles tax returns for illegal immigrants and foreign investors. Since these individuals are ineligible to receive Social Security Numbers, the IRS issues them ITINs (Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers).[1219] The audit found:

  • The IRS had issued 9,909 ITINS to 9,522 people allegedly living at a single address in Tulsa, Oklahoma (more examples in footnote).[1220]
  • The IRS had mailed 23,994 ITIN refunds totaling $46,378,040 to a single address in Atlanta, Georgia (more examples in footnote).[1221]
  • The IRS had deposited 2,706 ITIN refunds totaling $7,319,518 into a single bank account (more examples in footnote).[1222]
  • In 2010, the IRS eliminated a process used to detect fraud in ITIN applications.[1223]
  • “The environment created by [IRS] management discourages tax examiners from identifying questionable ITIN applications.”[1224]

* With regard to fraudulent tax refunds obtained through identity theft, IRS Inspector General J. Russell George stated, “Once the money is out the door, it is almost impossible to get it back.”[1225]

* Various members of Congress have sponsored bills to prevent the IRS from awarding refundable child tax credits to illegal immigrants, none of which have become law. For example:

  • In 2012, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan sponsored a wide-ranging bill with a provision that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1226] [1227] The bill passed the House of Representatives with 90% of Republicans voting for it and 96% of Democrats voting against it.[1228] The Senate never voted on it.[1229]
  • In 2013, Republican Congressman Sam Johnson sponsored a bill that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1230] [1231] The bill was cosponsored by 67 Republicans and no Democrats. It was never voted upon.[1232] [1233]
  • In 2015, Republican Congressman Larry Bucshon sponsored a bill that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1234] [1235] The bill was cosponsored by four Republicans and no Democrats.[1236] The House never voted on it.[1237]
  • In 2017, Republican Congressman Gus Bilirakis sponsored a bill that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1238] [1239] The bill was cosponsored by two Republicans and no Democrats.[1240] The House never voted on it.[1241]
  • In 2019, Republican Congressman Bill Posey sponsored a bill that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1242] [1243] The bill was cosponsored by ten Republicans and no Democrats.[1244] The House never voted on it.[1245]
  • In 2020, Republican Senator Rand Paul proposed an amendment that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1246] [1247] [1248] The amendment failed to pass the Senate with 91% of Republicans, 100% of Democrats, and 100% of Independents voting against it.[1249]
  • In 2021, Republican Congressman Bill Posey sponsored a bill that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1250] [1251] As of October 2022, the House has not voted on it.[1252]

* In 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed a law that forbids parents from receiving child tax credits unless their children are U.S. citizens and have a Social Security number.[1253] Due to birthright citizenship, about 88% of the children of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.[1254]

* President Trump’s 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 budget proposals called for restricting illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1255] [1256] [1257] [1258]

Electoral Issues

Political Patterns

* A 2012 poll of 2,900 immigrants who were U.S. citizens found that 62% identified as Democrats, 25% as Republicans, and 13% as Independents.[1259] [1260]

* A nationally representative bilingual poll of 784 immigrant Latinos commissioned by Pew Research in 2011 found that:

  • 81% would prefer “a bigger government providing more services,” and 12% would prefer “a smaller government with fewer services.” (In comparison, Pew found that 41% of the general U.S. population would prefer a bigger government, and 48% want a smaller one.)
  • 58% said abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, as compared 41% of the general U.S. population.
  • 53% said homosexuality should be accepted by society, as compared to 58% of the general U.S. population.[1261]

* A nationally representative bilingual poll of 800 Hispanic adults conducted by McLaughlin & Associates in 2013 found that:

  • 59% were born outside the U.S.
  • 53% considered themselves to be Democrats.
  • 12% considered themselves to be Republicans.
  • 29% considered themselves to be independents or another party.[1262]

* Based on estimates from Pew Research:

  • 76% of unauthorized immigrants in 2009 were Latinos.[1263]
  • in U.S. presidential elections from 1980 to 2012, Latinos voted for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate by margins ranging from 18 to 51 percentage points.[1264]
  • 71% of Latinos voted for Barack Obama in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, as compared to 27% for Mitt Romney.[1265]

* Eliseo Medina, a former executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, led “the union’s efforts to achieve comprehensive immigration reform….”[1266] In a 2009 speech, Medina stated:

  • Latinos have “voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates” and given Barack Obama “two out of every three” of their votes.
  • the “progressive community” can “expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future” by putting “12 million” unauthorized immigrants “on the path to citizenship and eventually voting.”
  • turning illegal immigrants into citizens will create a progressive “governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”[1267]

* Illegal immigrants typically live in areas of the U.S. where Democrats have greater political power.[1268]

* Per the Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics:

  • Judicial interpretation of the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act “requires states with large minority populations to draw boundaries that will increase the probability that minorities will win seats.”
  • “Hispanics have thus dramatically improved their representation in national political office, from a little more than 3,000 Hispanic public officials in 1985 to nearly 5,200 in 1998.”[1269]

Illegal Registration & Voting Laws

* All U.S. states require people to be U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in federal and state elections.[1270] [1271]

* Federal law forbids non-citizens from falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen in order to register to vote. If convicted, the penalties for:

  • making a false claim to U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote include a fine and up to five years in prison.[1272]
  • illegal voting include a fine and up to one year in prison.[1273]

Illegal Registration & Voting Openings

* Federal law requires all states to accept and use the same form to register voters for federal elections. The form requires people to declare under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens, but it does not require them to provide proof of this.[1274] [1275]

* Some states require people to submit their Social Security numbers when they register to vote. The states then use these numbers to conduct checks to see if the information provided by applicants is valid.[1276]

* In 2013, the chief actuary of the U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that in 2010:

  • 0.7 million illegal immigrants worked by using Social Security numbers obtained by using “fraudulent birth certificates.”
  • 1.8 million illegal immigrants worked by using Social Security numbers “that did not match their name.”[1277]

* Voter registration requirements vary by state, but they generally require some form of identification.[1278] [1279]

* In 2017, California Senate Leader and Democrat Kevin De Leon testified before the Senate’s Public Safety Committee:

I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license … if they got a false green card. And anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.[1280] [1281]

* Per a 2005 article in the New York Times:

Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card.[1282]

* In 2002, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published an investigation of identity fraud by immigrants. It found that:

  • “the use of fraudulent documents by aliens is extensive.”
  • “significant numbers of aliens unauthorized to work in the United States have used fraudulent documents to circumvent the employment verification process designed to prevent employers from hiring them.”
  • in November 1998, immigration officials in Los Angeles “seized nearly two million counterfeit documents, such as … permanent resident cards and Social Security cards, which were headed for distribution points around the country.”[1283]

* Early in 2016, the Obama administration supported a court injunction to prevent Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia from requiring people to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.[1284] In 2020, a federal appeals court panel upheld a permanent injunction against such laws.[1285]

* In 2020, the state of Kansas petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the federal appeals court decision.[1286] The petition was denied.[1287]

* Shortly before the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Barack Obama stated in an interview with actress Gina Rodriguez that voting records are not cross-checked against immigration databases and “there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etcetera.”[1288]


2013 McLaughlin Survey

* In 2013, McLaughlin & Associates conducted a scientific bilingual poll of 800 Hispanic adults living in the U.S.[1289] [1290] [1291] [1292] In this survey, 13% of self-declared non-citizens stated they were registered to vote.[1293] Based on:

  • the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1294] the margin of sampling error is ± 6 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1295] [1296] [1297]
  • these survey results and Census Bureau population estimates, 800,000 to 2.2 million non-citizen Hispanics stated they were registered to vote in 2013.[1298]

* Uncertainties in the data above that could understate the number of non-citizen Hispanics registered to vote include the following:

  • Some non-citizens claim they are not registered to vote when, in fact, they are. In a 2008 Harvard/YouGov survey (detailed below), 14% ± 9 percentage points of self-declared non-citizens who said they were not registered to vote were found to be registered when matched to a database of consumer and voting data.[1299] [1300] [1301] [1302]
  • The Census Bureau counts only the number of non-citizens who respond to Census surveys, and some immigrants, especially unauthorized ones, avoid such surveys out of fear of exposing their immigration status.[1303] [1304]
  • Certain groups of immigrants often misrepresent themselves as citizens in Census surveys.[1305]

* Uncertainties in the data above that could overstate the number of non-citizen Hispanics registered to vote include the following:

  • Non-citizens who are not registered to vote may be more risk-averse to exposing their immigration status and thus more likely to:
    • avoid the McLaughlin survey than non-citizens who are registered to vote.
    • misrepresent themselves as citizens in the McLaughlin survey than non-citizens who are registered to vote.

2008 Harvard/YouGov Survey

* In 2008, Harvard University’s Cooperative Congressional Election Study analyzed data from 32,800 adults polled by YouGov to assess their political views and activities.[1306] The authors of a 2014 paper in the journal Electoral Studies weighted the data from self-declared non-citizens in this survey to make it representative of the non-citizen population in the United States.[1307] Based on this data:

  • 15% of non-citizens stated they were registered to vote.
  • a database match with consumer and voter registration records showed that an additional 12% of non-citizens in the database were registered to vote, even though they said they were not registered.[1308]

* Based on:

  • the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1309] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared voter registration is ± 5 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1310] [1311] [1312]
  • the number of non-citizens in this poll who were in the database,[1313] the margin of sampling error for their undeclared voter registration is ± 8 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1314] [1315] [1316]
  • these study results and Census Bureau population estimates, 2.8 million to 7.9 million non-citizens were registered to vote in 2008.[1317]

* In the same Harvard/YouGov study:

  • 8% of self-declared non-citizens said “I definitely voted” in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
  • 82% of the non-citizens who said “I definitely voted” stated that they voted for Barack Obama.
  • a database match with consumer and voting records showed that an additional 8% of non-citizens in the database voted in this election, even though they said they had not voted.[1318]

* Based on:

  • the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1319] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared voting is ± 5 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1320] [1321] [1322]
  • the number of non-citizens in this poll who were in the database,[1323] the margin of sampling error for their undeclared voting is ± 8 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1324] [1325] [1326]
  • these study results and Census Bureau population estimates, 594,000 to 5.7 million non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 election.[1327] [1328]

* Uncertainties in the data above that could overstate or understate the number of non-citizens registered or voting include the following:

  • The YouGov data was collected via an internet poll,[1329] which are generally unreliable because they do not collect a random sample of respondents.[1330] The Harvard study corrects for this by using a process called “matching.” This involves using a portion of the survey respondents that “mimics” the target population characteristics, like race, age, and education. Matching is a common procedure for turning non-random samples into random ones, but it relies on an “assumption” that there is “no difference” in how people would answer a survey if they have the same characteristics.[1331]
  • The Harvard study matched the YouGov polling data to the characteristics of U.S. citizens,[1332] but all of the voting and registration data above was weighted by the authors of the 2014 Electoral Studies paper to make it representative of non-citizens. Like matching, weighting relies on the assumption that that there is no difference in how people would respond to the registration and voting questions if they have similar characteristics.[1333] [1334] [1335]

* Uncertainties in the data above that could overstate the number of non-citizens registered or voting include the following:

  • If survey respondents make random errors on the citizenship question, it is far more likely that citizens will misidentify themselves as non-citizens than vice-versa. This is because the survey population has many more citizens than non-citizens.[1336] However, other data from this study suggests that such errors did not materially affect the results of this survey.[1337]
  • The total registration and voting figures are based on the assumption that everyone who said they registered/voted or were recorded in the database as registered or voting had, in fact, done so. This means that either a self-report or database match were counted as evidence of registration/voting. This methodology is consistent with the facts that:
    • a 2016 paper published in the journal Public Opinion Quarterly found that “several apparently viable methods of matching survey respondents to government records severely underestimate the proportion of Americans who were registered to vote.”[1338]
    • non-citizens commonly use false identifications and Social Security numbers,[1339] and they may register or vote under these names. Such usage of false identifications is evidenced by the fact that the consumer/voting database matches conducted for this survey found records for 90% of all participants but only 41% of all non-citizen participants.[1340] [1341]
  • Non-citizens who are not registered to vote may be more risk-averse to exposing their immigration status and thus more likely to:
    • avoid the YouGov survey than non-citizens who are registered to vote.
    • misrepresent themselves as citizens in the YouGov survey than non-citizens who are registered to vote.

* Uncertainties in the data above that could understate the number of non-citizens registered or voting include the following:

  • The Census Bureau counts only the number of non-citizens who respond to Census surveys, and some immigrants, especially unauthorized ones, avoid such surveys out of fear of exposing their immigration status.[1342] [1343]
  • Certain groups of immigrants often misrepresent themselves as citizens in Census surveys.[1344]
  • This survey does not account for any non-citizens who denied being registered/voting and did so using a false identity.[1345]

* For facts that address criticisms of the data above, see the following articles from Just Facts:


2010 Harvard/YouGov Survey

* In the 2010 Harvard/YouGov survey:

  • 16% of self-declared non-citizens stated they were registered to vote.
  • 3.5% said they “definitely voted” in the mid-term elections that year.[1346]

* Based on:

  • the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1347] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared registration and voting is about ± 5 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1348] [1349] [1350]
  • these survey results and Census Bureau population estimates, 1.9 million to 3.9 million non-citizens stated they were registered to vote, and –291,000 to 1.6 million said they voted.[1351]

* The uncertainties of the 2008 Harvard/YouGov survey also apply to the 2010 survey. In addition, the following factor could understate the number of non-citizens registered or voting:

  • Some non-citizens claim they are not registered to vote when, in fact, they are. In a 2008 Harvard/YouGov survey (detailed below), 14% ± 9 percentage points of self-declared non-citizens who said they were not registered to vote were found to be registered when matched to a database of registered voters.

2012 Harvard/YouGov Survey

* In the 2012 Harvard/YouGov survey:

  • 14% of self-declared non-citizens stated they were registered to vote, and 9% stated they “definitely voted” in the 2012 U.S. presidential election.
  • database matches with consumer and voting records showed that 22% of non-citizens in the database were registered to vote, and 11% voted in the 2012 U.S. presidential election.[1352]

* Based on:

  • the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1353] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared registration and voting is about ± 4 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1354] [1355] [1356]
  • the number of non-citizens in this poll who were in the database,[1357] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared registration and voting is about ± 6 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1358] [1359] [1360]
  • these self-reported registration/voting rates and Census Bureau population estimates, 2.0 million to 3.6 million non-citizens stated they were registered to vote, and 1.0 million to 2.6 million said they voted.[1361]
  • these database-matched registration/voting rates and Census Bureau population estimates, 3.2 million to 5.6 million non-citizens were registered to vote, and 1.2 million to 3.6 million voted.[1362]

* The uncertainties of the 2008 Harvard/YouGov survey also apply to the 2012 survey. In addition, the following factor could understate the number of non-citizens registered or voting:

  • Unlike the data for the 2008 Harvard/YouGov survey, the 2012 data cited above does not provide a total figure for the number of unique non-citizens who said they registered/voted or were recorded in the database as registered/voting. Instead, these figures are isolated in the 2012 data, and the overlap between them is unknown to Just Facts.

Footnotes

[1] Entry: “immigrant.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th edition). Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.thefreedictionary.com>

“1. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.”

[2] Entry: “foreign national.” Oxford University Press. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.lexico.com>

“A person who is not a naturalized citizen of the country in which they are living.”

[3] Webpage: “Foreign National.” Cornell Legal Information Institute. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

“A foreign national is person who is not a citizen of the United States and who is a citizen of a foreign country.”

[4] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter I, Section 1101: “Immigration, Definitions.” Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

“The term ‘alien’ means any person not a citizen or national of the United States. … The term ‘national of the United States’ means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”

[5] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 1: “In this report, the terms ‘alien’ and ‘foreign national’ are used interchangeably.”

[6] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page ii: “Naturalized citizen: A foreign-born individual who has become a U.S. citizen by fulfilling requirements set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act, including, in most cases, having resided in the United States for at least five years.”

[7] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 1:

Noncitizens include lawful permanent residents (LPRs) (also referred to as “immigrants” or “green card holders”) who are admitted to the United States or who adjust status from within the United States to reside permanently and lawfully in the United States; legal nonimmigrants who are admitted on temporary visas for a specific purpose and a limited period of time; and unauthorized aliens who are foreign nationals who enter the United States unlawfully without inspection (or with inspection but with false documents) or who enter the United States lawfully but overstay the terms of their temporary visa.

[8] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page ii: “Unauthorized resident: A noncitizen of the United States who is in the United States without legal authorization. This group includes people who enter the country illegally and people who enter the country with valid visas but overstay their authorized time in the country.”

[9] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page ii: “Legal temporary resident or visitor: A noncitizen of the United States who is admitted to the country with a temporary visa or who is allowed to enter without a visa. People in those categories include visitors who are in the United States for short periods and temporary residents who are in the United States for longer, although time-limited, stays.”

[10] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 1: “Noncitizens include … legal nonimmigrants who are admitted on temporary visas for a specific purpose and a limited period of time….”

[11] Bulletin: “The Digital #Friday Five.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, January 8, 2021. <content.govdelivery.com>

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.”

[12] Webpage: “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.ice.gov>

ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] was created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the former U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. ICE now has more than 20,000 law enforcement and support personnel in more than 400 offices in the United States and around the world.

The agency has an annual budget of approximately $8 billion, primarily devoted to three operational directorates—Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). A fourth directorate—Management and Administration (M&A)—supports the three operational branches to advance the ICE mission.

[13] Webpage: “Mission and Core Values.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed/updated February 9, 2022. <www.uscis.gov>

Who We Are

USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] is the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. We are 19,000 government employees and contractors working at more than 200 offices across the world.

[14] Webpage: “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” USA.gov. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.usa.gov>

Immigration and Customs Enforcement enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. …

Government branch: Executive Department Sub-Office/Agency/Bureau

Parent Agency

• U.S. Department of Homeland Security

[15] Webpage: “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.” USA.gov. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.usa.gov>

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is responsible for processing immigration and naturalization applications and establishing policies regarding immigration services. …

Government branch: Executive Department Sub-Office/Agency/Bureau …

Parent Agency

• U.S. Department of Homeland Security

[16] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protects the American people from a wide range of foreign and domestic threats. DHS has a broad and diverse mission set, including to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect critical infrastructure and civilian computer networks, facilitate lawful trade and travel, respond to and recover from natural disasters, protect our borders, and regulate the migration of individuals to and from our country.

The third largest Cabinet department, DHS employs more than 250,000 people and deploys an $58 billion annual budget across more than 20 components, including the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U. S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Department in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and brought together 22 executive branch agencies.

The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security coordinate policy, including through the Homeland Security Council at the White House and in cooperation with other defense and intelligence agencies.

[17] Notes on U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 13, Section 1551: “Immigration and Naturalization Service.” Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

The Immigration and Naturalization Service was abolished by section 291(a) of Title 6, Domestic Security, upon completion of all transfers from the Immigration and Naturalization Service as provided for by chapter 1 of Title 6. Functions of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization performed under the Border Patrol program, the detention and removal program, the intelligence program, the investigations program, and the inspections program, and all personnel, assets, and liabilities pertaining to such programs, were transferred to the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security of the Department of Homeland Security by section 251 of Title 6 and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6. Functions of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization relating to adjudications of immigrant visa petitions, adjudications of naturalization petitions, adjudications of asylum and refugee applications, adjudications performed at service centers, and all other adjudications performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and all personnel, infrastructure, and funding provided to the Commissioner in support of such functions, were transferred to the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security by section 271(b) of Title 6 and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified.

[18] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page ii: “Naturalized citizen: A foreign-born individual who has become a U.S. citizen by fulfilling requirements set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act, including, in most cases, having resided in the United States for at least five years.”

[19] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Current as of July 1, 2022. <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background): “Naturalization is the conferring of U.S. citizenship after birth by any means whatsoever.”

[20] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Current as of July 1, 2022. <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part A (Citizenship and Naturalization Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Becoming a U.S. Citizen):

Deciding to become a U.S. citizen is one of the most important decisions an immigrant can make. Naturalized U.S. citizens share equally in the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. U.S. citizenship offers immigrants the ability to:

• Vote in Federal elections;

• Travel with a U.S. Passport;

• Run for elective office where citizenship is required;

• Participate on a jury;

• Become eligible for federal and certain law enforcement jobs;

• Obtain certain State and Federal benefits not available to noncitizens;

• Obtain citizenship for minor children born abroad; and

• Expand and expedite their ability to bring family members to the United States.

[21] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page ii:

Legal permanent resident: A noncitizen of the United States authorized to live, work, and study in the United States permanently. Such status is granted to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, including spouses, minor children, and parents. It can also be granted for family-sponsored preferences (for example, to extended family members such as aunts or cousins), employment-based preferences, and diversity preferences, although there is an annual cap on the number of people who can receive such grants. In addition, legal permanent resident status can be granted to people who are classified as refugees or asylum seekers.

[22] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population, 2013 Update.” Congressional Budget Office, May 8, 2013. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 2:

From 2000 to 2012, more than 13 million people were granted lawful permanent resident (LPR) status in the United States, an average of about 1 million per year. Lawful permanent residents are permitted to live, work, and study in the United States, and receiving LPR status is an important milestone on the path to U.S. citizenship. Roughly two-thirds of new LPRs were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or were admitted under family-sponsored preferences.

[23] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 1: “Noncitizens include lawful permanent residents (LPRs) (also referred to as ‘immigrants’ or ‘green card holders’) who are admitted to the United States or who adjust status from within the United States to reside permanently and lawfully in the United States….”

[24] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page ii: “After becoming a legal permanent resident, a noncitizen immigrant receives a permanent resident card, commonly called a ‘green card,’ which serves as proof of permission to live and work in the country.”

[25] Webpage: “12.1 List A Documents That Establish Identity and Employment Authorization.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card (Green Card)

On May 1, 2017, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] began issuing a redesigned Form I-551, which contains the bearer’s photo on the front and back, name, USCIS number, date of birth, laser-engraved fingerprint and card expiration date. This card does not have a signature or a black stripe on the back. Some cards issued after May 1, 2017, may display the previous design format. Both this and previous versions of Form I-551 remain valid until the expiration date shown on the card.

Current Form I-551, Front and Back

USCIS began issuing this version of Form I-551 in May 2010. This redesign changed the card color to green. The card contains the bearer’s photo, name, USCIS number, date of birth, laser-engraved fingerprint, and card expiration date. Currently, the USCIS Number is also the cardholder’s alien registration number (A-Number). This number is also located on the back of the card.

These cards may or may not contain a signature. A signature is not required for the card to be acceptable for Form I-9 purposes.

Current U.S. Legal Permanent Resident or Green Card

Previous Form I-551, Front and Back

Another older version of the Form I-551 shows the DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] seal and contains a detailed hologram on the front of the card. Each card is personalized with an etching showing the bearer’s photo, name, fingerprint, date of birth, A-Number, and the card expiration date.

Some employees may also have older Resident Alien cards, issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, which do not have expiration dates and are valid indefinitely. These cards are peach in color and contain the bearer’s fingerprint and photograph.

Former U.S. Legal Permanent Resident or Green Card

[26] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page ii: “Unauthorized resident: A noncitizen of the United States who is in the United States without legal authorization.”

[27] Article: “U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Total Dips to Lowest Level in a Decade.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn. Pew Research, November 27, 2018. <www.pewresearch.org>

Page 2:

Unauthorized immigrants are all foreign-born noncitizens residing in the country who are not “lawful immigrants.” These definitions reflect standard and customary usage by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and academic researchers. The vast majority of unauthorized immigrants entered the country without valid documents or arrived with valid visas but stayed past their visa expiration date or otherwise violated the terms of their admission.

[28] Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage (3rd edition). By Bryan A. Garner. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Page 912:

undocumented alien; undocumented (migratory) worker; illegal alien. The usual and preferable term in AmE [American English] is illegal alien. The other forms have arisen as needless euphemisms, and should be avoided as near-gobbledygook. The problem with undocumented is that it is intended to mean, by those who use it in this phrase, “not having the requisite documents to enter or stay in a country legally.” But the word strongly suggests “unaccounted for” to those unfamiliar with this quasi-legal jargon, and it may therefore obscure the meaning.

More than one writer has argued in favor of undocumented alien. Such as “An alien’s unauthorized presence in the United States is not a crime under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. … So many people find the term undocumented alien preferable to illegal alien, since the former avoids the implication that one’s unauthorized presence in the United States is a crime.” Elizabeth Hull, Undocumented Aliens and Equal Protection Clause, 48 Brook L. Rev. 43, 43 n.2 (1981).

But that statement is only equivocally correct, however: although illegal aliens’ presence in the country is no crime, their entry into the country is. As Justice Breanna wrote in Plyer v. Doe … “Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U.S.C. Section 1325.” Moreover, it is wrong to equate illegality with criminality, since many illegal acts are not criminal. Illegal alien is not an opprobrious epithet: it describes one present in a country in violation of the immigration laws (hence “illegal”).

Those who enter the U.K. [United Kingdom] illegally are termed by statute illegal entrants.

[29] Book: American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2015.

Article: “Census, U.S.” By Susan Wierzbicki. Pages 69–72.

Page 71: “The biggest obstacle to collecting accurate data on immigrants is the difficulty of counting them. Immigrants may be isolated and suspicious of the government; illegal immigrants may fear deportation, despite laws ensuring the confidentiality of their responses.”

[30] Article: “Denver Defends Release of Illegal Immigrant Later Charged in Murder.” By Keith Coffman. Reuters, February 21, 2017. <www.reuters.com>

The Denver Sheriff’s Department on Tuesday defended its release of an illegal immigrant after he posted bond on theft charges only to be arrested for murder weeks later, saying it had no authority to hold him.

Ever Valles, 19, a Mexican national, was released from the Denver jail in late December. Last week he was charged by state prosecutors, along with another defendant, in the murder and robbery of a man at a light rail station this month.

[31] Article: “What Is a ‘Sanctuary City’?” By Suzanne Ciechalski. Associated Press, February 8, 2017. Revised 2/11/17. <www.nbcchicago.com>

“There’s no specific legal definition for a sanctuary city, but broadly, the term refers to municipalities that don’t let local law enforcement agents cooperate with federal immigration enforcement in an effort to shield its community of undocumented immigrants from deportation.”

[32] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page ii: “Unauthorized resident: A noncitizen of the United States who is in the United States without legal authorization. This group includes people who enter the country illegally and people who enter the country with valid visas but overstay their authorized time in the country.”

[33] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Pages 2–3:

The unauthorized alien population includes not only persons who entered without inspection or overstayed the terms of their temporary visas but also persons who have what some refer to as a “quasi-legal” status (such as temporary protected status, parole, deferred action) that affords them relief from immediate removal. Most unauthorized aliens, however, are removable….

Legal aliens include aliens admitted as lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and aliens admitted on temporary visas, including tourists, temporary workers, and foreign students.

[34] Article: “U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Total Dips to Lowest Level in a Decade.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn. Pew Research, November 27, 2018. <www.pewresearch.org>

Page 2:

Unauthorized immigrants are all foreign-born noncitizens residing in the country who are not “lawful immigrants.” These definitions reflect standard and customary usage by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and academic researchers. The vast majority of unauthorized immigrants entered the country without valid documents or arrived with valid visas but stayed past their visa expiration date or otherwise violated the terms of their admission.

[35] United States Attorneys’ Manual. Office of the United States Attorneys. Updated January 17, 2020. <www.justice.gov>

Criminal Resource Manual, Section 1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 (<www.justice.gov>):

Unlawful Entry, Failure To Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud

Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.

[36] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1325: “Immigration, General Penalty Provisions, Improper Entry by Alien.” Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Improper Time or Place; Avoidance of Examination or Inspection; Misrepresentation and Concealment of Facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper Time or Place; Civil Penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—

(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

(c) Marriage Fraud

Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.

(d) Immigration-Related Entrepreneurship Fraud

Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

[37] Ruling: Plyler v. Doe. U.S. Supreme Court, June 15, 1982. Decided 5–4. Majority: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens. Concurring (all separately): Marshall Blackmun, Powell. Dissenting: Burger, White, Rehnquist, O’Connor. <www.law.cornell.edu>

Majority:

Since the late 19th century, the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime … and those who have entered unlawfully are subject to deportation…. But despite the existence of these legal restrictions, a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering the United States, and now live within various States, including the State of Texas.

[38] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 1:

Congress has long supported efforts to identify, detain, and remove noncitizens1 who have been convicted of crimes in the United States. More generally, all unauthorized aliens2 within the United States are potentially subject to removal, and “interior enforcement” (i.e., alien removals originating from within the United States) is a basic element of immigration control.

2 In this report, the terms “alien” and “foreign national” are used interchangeably.

Pages 2–3:

The unauthorized alien population includes not only persons who entered without inspection or overstayed the terms of their temporary visas but also persons who have what some refer to as a “quasi-legal” status (such as temporary protected status, parole, deferred action) that affords them relief from immediate removal. Hence, not all unauthorized aliens living in the United States are subject to removal. Most unauthorized aliens, however, are removable; but few have been convicted of a crime and are classified as criminal aliens (unlawful presence in the United States itself is a civil violation, not a criminal offense).9

9 Unlawful presence is only a criminal offense when an alien is found in the United States after having been formally removed or after departing the country while a removal order was outstanding. See CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R43892, Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends, by Alison Siskin.

Page 22: “Civil immigration offense: A violation of federal immigration law under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the most common being residing in the United States without authorization. A person cannot be sent to prison for a civil immigration offense. They can be penalized by being deported from the United States, which technically is not classified as punishment.”

[39] Ruling: Gonzales v. City of Peoria. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 16, 1983. <law.justia.com>

Several of the policy statements use the term “illegal alien,” which obscures the distinction between the civil and the criminal violations. In some instances, that term has been used by the City to mean an alien who has illegally entered the country, which is a criminal violation under section 1325. In others, it has meant an alien who is illegally present in the United States, which is only a civil violation. There are numerous reasons why a person could be illegally present in the United States without having entered in violation of section 1325. Examples include expiration of a visitor’s visa, change of student status, or acquisition of prohibited employment.

[40] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part IV, Section 1227: “Immigration, Deportable Aliens.” Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Classes of Deportable Aliens

Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens:

(1) Inadmissible at Time of Entry or of Adjustment of Status or Violates Status

(A) Inadmissible Aliens

Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable.

(B) Present in Violation of Law

Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 1201(i) of this title, is deportable.

[41] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II , Section 1182: “Immigration, Inadmissible Aliens.” Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States …

(6) Illegal Entrants and Immigration Violators

(A) Aliens Present Without Admission or Parole

(i) In General

An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for Certain Battered Women and Children

Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien who demonstrates that—

(I) the alien is a VAWA self-petitioner;

(II)

(a) the alien has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent, or by a member of the spouse’s or parent’s family residing in the same household as the alien and the spouse or parent consented or acquiesced to such battery or cruelty, or (b) the alien’s child has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent of the alien (without the active participation of the alien in the battery or cruelty) or by a member of the spouse’s or parent’s family residing in the same household as the alien when the spouse or parent consented to or acquiesced in such battery or cruelty and the alien did not actively participate in such battery or cruelty, and

(III) there was a substantial connection between the battery or cruelty described in subclause (I) or (II) and the alien’s unlawful entry into the United States.

[42] Entry: “visa.” Macmillan Dictionary. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.macmillandictionary.com>

“an official document or mark in your passport that allows you to enter or leave a country for a specific purpose or period of time”

[43] Webpage: “What is a U.S. Visa?” U.S. Department of State. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <travel.state.gov>

A citizen of a foreign country who seeks to enter the United States generally must first obtain a U.S. visa, which is placed in the traveler’s passport, a travel document issued by the traveler’s country of citizenship.

Certain international travelers may be eligible to travel to the United States without a visa if they meet the requirements for visa-free travel. The Visa section of this website is all about U.S. visas for foreign citizens to travel to the United States.

[44] Report: “Nonimmigrant Admissions to the United States: 2015.” By John Teke and Waleed Navarro. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 2–3:

Documentary Requirements

Visa Required. Most classes of nonimmigrants are required to obtain a visa to enter the United States. In these cases, foreign nationals must fill out an Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application, Form DS-160, or a Nonimmigrant Visa Application, Form DS-156. In addition, applicants aged 14 to 79 years are generally required to visit a U.S. embassy or consulate and be interviewed by a consular official. Possession of a valid visa does not guarantee admission. A CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] officer determines if the nonimmigrant may enter the United States and the authorized duration of stay.

Mexican Tourist and Business Admissions. Mexican nationals who meet the requirements for a B1/B2 visa (temporary visitor for business or pleasure), have a valid Mexican passport, demonstrate that they will return to Mexico upon completion of their stay, and reside in close proximity to the U.S./Mexico border may be eligible for a Border Crossing Card (BCC) or “laser visa.” The BCC is a machine-readable card that is valid for 10 years and contains fingerprint and other biometric data. Those who reside in the interior areas of Mexico are issued visas affixed to their passports.

To be admitted to the U.S.–Mexico border zone (up to 25 or 75 miles from the border, depending on the entry location) without a Form I–94 as a nonimmigrant visitor, a Mexican national must be in possession of a BCC or a passport and valid visa, or for a Mexican national who is a member of the Texas Band of Kickapoo Indians or Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, a Form I–872 American Indian Card. Generally, Mexican nationals are required to present a BCC or a valid passport with a valid nonimmigrant visa, unless exempt. Mexican nationals with BCCs or Form I-872 are generally authorized to travel within the border zone for up to 30 days at a time without having to obtain a Form I–94. Also, Mexicans entering the United States with a passport and visa may remain in the border zone for up to 72 hours without having to obtain an I–94. However, Mexican nationals traveling beyond these specified zones, who will remain beyond the time periods indicated above, or who seek entry for purposes other than as a temporary visitor for business or pleasure, are required to obtain and complete a Form I–94.

Canadian Tourist and Business Admissions. Canadian short-term business and tourist visitors to the United States are required to possess a valid Canadian passport or other Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)-approved form of identification,5 but they generally are not required to obtain a visa or apply for travel authorization through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).

Visa Waiver Program. The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows nationals of designated countries to travel to the United States as tourists or business travelers without a visa for periods not to exceed 90 days. Qualified nationals of VWP countries must be admissible to the United States and not have violated the terms of any previous admission under the VWP; possess a valid machine-readable passport; travel on an approved carrier and possess a round trip ticket if arriving by air or sea; obtain travel authorization through ESTA; and waive their right to contest an immigration officer’s determination of admissibility and the right to contest removal, other than on the basis of an application for asylum. Nationals of VWP countries must obtain a visa if they are traveling to the United States for a purpose other than tourism or business or if their stay will exceed 90 days.

As of fiscal year 2015, 38 countries participated in the VWP: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, South Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Chile, whose admission to the VWP was March 31, 2014.

Waiver Program (GCVWP) permits nationals of designated countries and geographic areas to be admitted to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) without a visa. Admissions under the GCVWP may not exceed 45 days in Guam and/or CNMI. In 2014, Australia, Brunei, Hong Kong,6 Japan, Malaysia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom participated in the GCVWP.7

5 WHTI-approved travel documents include an Enhanced Driver’s License, Enhanced Identification Card, or Trusted Traveler Program card.

6 Eligibility for Hong Kong includes citizens of the former colony of Hong Kong who are in possession of the United Kingdom passport that states “British National Overseas” or holders of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) travel document. Both of these travel documents must be in conjunction with a Hong Kong Identification Card.

7 On November 28, 2009, the GCVWP replaced the Guam Visa Waiver Program (GVWP) which permitted nationals of participating countries to be admitted to Guam without a visa. Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, South Korea, Singapore, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Vanuatu were included in the GVWP when it ended.

[45] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page ii: “Legal temporary resident or visitor: A noncitizen of the United States who is admitted to the country with a temporary visa or who is allowed to enter without a visa. People in those categories include visitors who are in the United States for short periods and temporary residents who are in the United States for longer, although time-limited, stays.”

[46] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 1: “Noncitizens include … legal nonimmigrants who are admitted on temporary visas for a specific purpose and a limited period of time….”

[47] Webpage: “Directory of Visa Categories.” U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <travel.state.gov>

The purpose of your intended travel and other facts will determine what type of visa is required under U.S. immigration law. As a visa applicant, you will need to establish that you meet all requirements to receive the category of visa for which you are applying. When you apply at a U.S embassy or consulate, a consular officer will determine based on laws, whether you are eligible to receive a visa, and if so, which visa category is appropriate. …

The chart below contains many different purposes of temporary travel and the related nonimmigrant visa categories available on this website. Select a visa category below to learn more:

Purpose of Travel

Visa Category

Athlete, amateur or professional (competing for prize money only)

B-1

Au pair (exchange visitor)

J

Australian professional specialty

E-3

Border Crossing Card: Mexico

BCC

Business visitor

B-1

CNMI [Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands]-only transitional worker

CW-1

Crewmember

D

Diplomat or foreign government official

A

Domestic employee or nanny—must be accompanying a foreign national employer

B-1

Employee of a designated international organization or NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]

G1–G5, NATO

Exchange visitor

J

Foreign military personnel stationed in the United States

A-2

NATO1–6

Foreign national with extraordinary ability in Sciences, Arts, Education, Business or Athletics

O

Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Professional: Chile, Singapore

H-1B1 – Chile

H-1B1 – Singapore

International cultural exchange visitor

Q

Intra-company transferee

L

Medical treatment, visitor for

B-2

Media, journalist

I

NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] professional worker: Mexico, Canada

TN/TD

Performing athlete, artist, entertainer

P

Physician

J , H-1B

Professor, scholar, teacher (exchange visitor)

J

Religious worker

R

Specialty occupations in fields requiring highly specialized knowledge

H-1B

Student: academic, vocational

F, M

Temporary agricultural worker

H-2A

Temporary worker performing other services or labor of a temporary or seasonal nature.

H-2B

Tourism, vacation, pleasure visitor

B-2

Training in a program not primarily for employment

H-3

Treaty trader/treaty investor

E

Transiting the United States

C

Victim of Criminal Activity

U

Victim of Human Trafficking

T

Nonimmigrant (V) Visa for Spouse and Children of a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR)

V

Renewals in the U.S. – A, G, and NATO Visas

• About this chart – It is not a complete list of all travel purposes for the visa category.

[48] Webpage: “Nonimmigrant Classes of Admission.” Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. Last updated January 21, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Examples of nonimmigrant classes of admission include foreign government officials, temporary visitors for business and pleasure, aliens in transit, treaty traders and investors, academic and vocational students, temporary workers, exchange visitors, athletes and entertainers, victims of certain crimes, and certain family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs). …

Temporary worker visas are for persons who want to enter the United States for employment lasting a fixed period of time, and are not considered permanent or indefinite. To work in the United States temporarily as a lawful nonimmigrant, temporary workers must qualify for the available visa category based on the planned employment purpose. The steps in the process before applying for a visa vary.

Temporary Workers and Trainees

CW1 CNMI-only transitional workers

CW2 Spouses and children of CW1

H1B Temporary workers in specialty occupations

H1B1 Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreement aliens

H1C Registered nurses participating in the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas

H2A Agricultural workers

H2B Nonagricultural workers

H2R Returning H2B workers

H3 Trainees

H4 Spouses and children of H1, H2, or H3

O1 Workers with extraordinary ability or achievement

O2 Workers accompanying and assisting in performance of O1 workers

O3 Spouses and children of O1 and O2

P1 Internationally recognized athletes or entertainers

P2 Artists or entertainers in reciprocal exchange programs

P3 Artists or entertainers in culturally unique programs

P4 Spouses and children of P1, P2, or P3

Q1 Workers in international cultural exchange programs

R1 Workers in religious occupations

R2 Spouses and children of R1

TN North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) professional workers

TD Spouses and children of TN …

Treaty Traders and Investors

E1 Treaty traders and their spouses and children

E2 Treaty investors and their spouses and children

E2C Treaty investors and their spouses and children (CNMI only)

E3 Australian Free Trade Agreement principals, spouses and children

E3D Spouse or Child of E3

E3R Returning E3

Representatives of Foreign Information Media

I1 Representatives of foreign information media and spouses and children

Students and Exchange Visitors and Their Dependents

The United States supports international education and welcomes foreign students and exchange visitors. Students and exchange visitors must be accepted by their schools or program sponsors before applying for visas.

Students and Their Dependents

F1 Academic students

F2 Spouses and children of F1

M1 Vocational students

M2 Spouses and children of M1

[49] Webpage: “Ineligibilities and Grounds for Refusals.” U.S. State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <fam.state.gov>

a. Basis for Refusal: The basis on which applicants must be denied visas are established by law, as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). INA 214(b) and 221(g) are common bases for refusal. Other grounds for refusal are found in INA 212 (INA 212(a), 212(e) and 212(f)). (Note: We generally uses [sic] the term “ineligibilities” to refer to these grounds for refusal; the Department of Homeland Security usually refers to these grounds as “inadmissabilities.”)

b. Summary of Grounds for Refusal (by Section of Law): See paragraph c for a list by category.

(1) INA 212(a)(1): Health and medical-related grounds …

(2) INA 212(a)(2): Criminal and related grounds …

(3) INA 212(a)(3): Security and related grounds …

(4) INA 212(a)(4): Public charge …

(5) INA 212(a)(5): Labor certification, qualification …

(6) INA 212(a)(6): Illegal entrants, immigration violators, misrepresentation …

(7) INA 212(a)(7): Documentation requirements …

(8) INA 212(a)(8): Ineligible for citizenship …

(9) INA 212(a)(9): Previously removed, unlawfully present, unlawfully present after previous immigration violations …

(10) INA 212(a)(10): Other miscellaneous grounds …

(11) INA 212(e): Former exchange visitors …

(12) INA 212(f): Presidential Proclamations and sanctioned activity …

(13) INA 214(b): Presumption of immigrant status …

(14) INA 221(g): Application does not comply with INA …

(15) INA 222(g): Nonimmigrant overstay, application not in country of nationality….

[50] Webpage: “Ineligibility Based on Criminal Activity, Criminal Convictions and Related Activities.” U.S. State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <fam.state.gov>

“In general, applicants who have been convicted of, or admit to commission of, certain statutory offenses that involve moral turpitude, whether under U.S. law or foreign law, are ineligible under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). See 9 FAM 302.3-2(B)(4) for guidance on what constitutes a legally-valid admission.”

[51] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II , Section 1182: “Immigration, Inadmissible Aliens.” Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States …

(4) Public Charge

(A) In General

Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status [to become a legal permanent resident], is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

(B) Factors to Be Taken Into Account

(i) In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s—

(I) age;

(II) health;

(III) family status;

(IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and

(V) education and skills.

(ii) In addition to the factors under clause (i), the consular officer or the Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support under section 1183a of this title for purposes of exclusion under this paragraph.

[52] Webpage: “Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed August 14, 2019. <www.uscis.gov>

The eastern states’ concerns about poor immigrants and the cost of caring for them found expression in the first general federal immigration statute of 1882.5 The 1882 law excluded “any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.”6

In the Act of March 3, 1903 Congress added “professional beggars” as a class of exclusion.10 A 1907 law then added additional language that excluded potential immigrants with a “mental or physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such an alien to earn a living.”11 The Immigration Act of 1917 added “vagrants” to the LPC [likely to become a public charge] provision and this version of it remained substantially unchanged when it was incorporated into the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act [INA].12 The INA left the LPC policy substantively the same, but added language explicitly emphasizing the discretionary authority of administrative officers in the Department of State and the Immigration Service to determine the definition of “LPC.”13 In sum, a version of the LPC provision has been part of federal immigration policy from its foundations and it consistently remained one of the most common grounds for immigrant inadmissibility.14

In the cases they adjudicated, however, the [Immigration and Naturalization] Service continued to consider a variety of factors beyond the applicant’s current financial conditions when making decisions. For example, the Immigration Service’s 1949 regulations reads: “In the absence of a statutory provision, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the amount of money an alien should have. This is only one element to be considered in each case, but generally he should have enough to provide for his reasonable wants and those of accompanying persons dependent upon him until such time as he is likely to find employment and when bound for an interior point, railroad ticket or funds with which to purchase same.”29

Or, as Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Counsel Charles Gordon put it in 1949:

“It is wrong to assume that poverty alone will disqualify an immigrant. Such an assumption is refuted by the epic American story which tells of millions of immigrants—largely the poor and oppressed of other lands—who have found vast opportunities in America… What is more important than immediate assets is the desire to become a productive member of the community, coupled with freedom from serious physical and mental deficiencies.”30

Immigration policies barring the admission of aliens likely to become public charges predate federal immigration regulations and have been a part of U.S. immigration policy since the first general immigration law of 1882. For more than 100 years the LPC provision remained one of the most common reasons for excluding immigrants from the United States. Federal policies providing for the deportation of immigrants who have actually become public charges date to 1891 and also remain part of current immigration law. Deportations of public charges already living in the U.S. have been much less common than LPC exclusions of aliens attempting entry, especially in the years since the first decades of the twentieth century.

[53] Webpage: “Public Charge.” U.S. State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <fam.state.gov>

Note: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in Make the Road New York et al v. Blinken et al, issued a preliminary injunction on July 29, 2020, enjoining the Department of State’s October 2019 interim final rule and January 2018 FAM [Foreign Affairs Manual] guidance on public charge. In light of the court injunction, until further notice, you should apply the following guidance, which tracks the FAM guidance that the Department applied prior to January 2018. In addition, on February 2, 2021, President Biden signed EO [Executive Order] 14012, directing the Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department to review their public charge policies in consultation with other relevant agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development. The Department is working with the interagency to evaluate the public charge ground of inadmissibility as required in EO 14012, and will issue further guidance if that review leads to changes in operational policy. …

(U) INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 212(a)(4) provides that an applicant who, in your opinion, at the time of application for a visa, for admission, or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge after admission to the United States is inadmissible and, therefore, ineligible for a visa.

a. (U) In General:

(1) (U) For the purpose of determining ineligibility under INA 212(a)(4), the term “public charge” means that an alien, after admission into the United States, is likely to become primarily dependent on the U.S. Government for subsistence. This means either:

(a) (U) Receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance (see paragraph b below); or

(b) (U) Institutionalization for long-term care at U.S. Government expense (see paragraph d below). Short-term confinement in a medical institution for rehabilitation does not constitute primary dependence on the U.S. Government for subsistence.

(2) (U) When considering the likelihood of an applicant becoming a “public charge,” you must take into account, the totality of the applicant’s circumstances at the time of visa application. (See 9 FAM 302.8-2(B)(3) below.)

(3) (U) In determining ineligibility under INA 212(a)(4) a number of factors are considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor, other than the lack of a qualifying affidavit of support, in accordance with INA 213A, if required, will determine whether an individual is a public charge.

[54] Webpage: “Ineligibility Based on Health and Medical Grounds.” U.S. State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <fam.state.gov>

Communicable Disease of Public Health Significance: INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 212(a)(1)(i) provides that an individual is ineligible for a visa if the individual has a communicable disease of public health significance. See 9 FAM 302.2-5.”

[55] Webpage: “Ineligibility Based on Health and Medical Grounds.” U.S. State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <fam.state.gov>

Drug Addict or Abuse: INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 212(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that an individual is ineligible for a visa if the individual is a drug abuser or drug addict. See 9 FAM 302.2–8.”

[56] Webpage: “Ineligibility Based on Health and Medical Grounds.” U.S. State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <fam.state.gov>

Physical or Mental Disorders: INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 212(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that an individual is ineligible for a visa if the individual has a physical or mental disorder and behavior associated with that disorder that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the individual or others, or a history of such behavior likely to occur or lead to other harmful behavior. 9 FAM 302.2-7.

[57] Webpage: “Ineligibility Based on Inadequate Documentation of Qualification.” U.S. State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <fam.state.gov>

For example, failure to possess sufficient funds to cover educational expenses results in a 214(b) denial of a student visa since that is a requirement of the F-1 visa classification; failure to make a substantial investment results in a 214(b) denial of a treaty investor visa since that is the requirement of the E-2 visa classification; and the failure to possess the intent not to abandon a foreign residence results in a 214(b) denial of a B visa since that is a requirement of the B visa classification. In each of these cases, the visa is denied under 214(b) because the applicant has not met the requirements of that particular visa classification.

[58] Webpage: “Ineligibility Based on Inadequate Documentation of Qualification.” U.S. State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <fam.state.gov>

(U) With limited exceptions, all visa applicants are presumed to be intending immigrants and ineligible for an NIV until they satisfy you that they qualify for one of the NIV categories defined in INA 101(a)(15). INA 291 places the burden of proof on the applicant, which means the applicant must convince you that they are qualified for the requested visa. Otherwise, the applicant must be considered to be an applicant for immigrant status and is not eligible for an NIV. …

b. (U) INA 214(b) requires the visa applicant to establish to your satisfaction that they are entitled to nonimmigrant status under INA 101(a)(15). This simply means that the NIV applicant must prove to you that they meet the standards required by the visa classification for which they are applying. In other words, the applicant must make a credible showing to you that all activities in which the applicant is expected to engage in while in the United States are consistent with the claimed nonimmigrant status. A visa adjudication requires you to assess the credibility of the applicant and of the evidence they submit in support of the application, including oral answers to interview questions. INA 291 places the burden of proof at all times on the applicant.

[59] Webpage: “Ineligibility Based on Inadequate Documentation of Qualification.” U.S. State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <fam.state.gov>

To comply with INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 212(a)(7)(A), an immigrant must possess a valid, unexpired U.S. immigrant visa (IV) (and any other documents needed for admission as an immigrant) and valid, unexpired travel document at the time of seeking permission for admission into the United States. INA 212(a)(7)(A) is generally applied by a CBP officer at the port of entry. INA 212(a)(7)(A) is not applicable to nonimmigrant visa applicants.

[60] Webpage: “What We Do.” U.S. Census Bureau. Last revised August 3, 2022. <www.census.gov>

Our Mission

The Census Bureau’s mission is to serve as the nation’s leading provider of quality data about its people and economy.

Our Authority

The Census Bureau operates under Title 13 and Title 26 of the U.S. Code.

Our Goal

Our goal is to provide the best mix of timeliness, relevancy, quality and cost for the data we collect and services we provide. …

The American Community Survey is the premier source for information about America’s changing population, housing and workforce. …

The U.S. census counts every resident in the United States. It is mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and takes place every 10 years. …

Our surveys provide periodic and comprehensive statistics about the nation. This data is critical for government programs, policies, and decision-making. …

How Our Data Are Used

To determine the distribution of Congressional seats to states …

To make planning decisions about community services …

To distribute more than $675 billion in federal funds to local, state and tribal governments each year

[61] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page iii:

Much of the information on immigration in this document comes from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of U.S. households conducted by the Census Bureau. … Among other questions, respondents are asked where they and their parents were born. Those who were born in another country are asked when they came to the United States to stay and whether they have become citizens by naturalization.

[62] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page iii:

Much of the information on immigration in this document comes from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of U.S. households conducted by the Census Bureau. … Among other questions, respondents are asked where they and their parents were born. Those who were born in another country are asked when they came to the United States to stay and whether they have become citizens by naturalization. All information is reported by respondents and is not validated against other sources. No one is asked about legal immigration status.

[63] Book: American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2015.

Article: “Census, U.S.” By Susan Wierzbicki. Pages 69–72.

Page 70: “However, immigration-related questions are no longer asked of every household. Rather, they make up a small section of the long form, which is distributed randomly to one of about every six households.”

Page 71:

The long form of the 2010 census, or the American Community Survey, contained the following questions geared specifically to immigration:

• Where was this person born?

• Is this person a citizen of the United States?

• When did this person come to live in the United States?

• What was this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?

• Does this person speak a language other than English at home?

• If yes … what is this language?

• If yes … how well does this person speak English?

[64] Report: “Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States: January 2013.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

The decennial census and monthly household surveys of the Census Bureau include questions on place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry into the United States. These data provide a wealth of information on the total foreign-born population, naturalized citizens, and non-citizens. However, national population data on the major sub-categories of non-citizens, including LPRs [lawful permanent residents], students, temporary workers, and unauthorized immigrants, are not readily available from any source and must be estimated. An alien registration program requiring all legally resident aliens to report their status annually to the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service was discontinued by Congress in 1981. Immigration data collected by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] measure administrative events such as the number of aliens granted lawful permanent residence or the number approved for asylum, but not the population of legal permanent residents or the population of asylees living in the United States at a point in time.

[65] Book: American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2015.

Article: “Census, U.S.” By Susan Wierzbicki. Pages 69–72.

Page 70: “However, immigration-related questions are no longer asked of every household. Rather, they make up a small section of the long form, which is distributed randomly to one of about every six households.”

Page 71:

The long form of the 2010 census, or the American Community Survey, contained the following questions geared specifically to immigration:

• Where was this person born?

• Is this person a citizen of the United States?

• When did this person come to live in the United States?

• What was this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?

• Does this person speak a language other than English at home?

• If yes … what is this language?

• If yes … how well does this person speak English? …

The biggest obstacle to collecting accurate data on immigrants is the difficulty of counting them. Immigrants may be isolated and suspicious of the government; illegal immigrants may fear deportation, despite laws ensuring the confidentiality of their responses. Many speak English poorly and may be illiterate as well, so they have trouble filling out the forms.

Because the census has been distributed by mail since 1960, it depends on accurate address lists. Yet postal lists may have trouble picking up immigrants, who may be more likely to be living with other family members, in makeshift apartments, or in other hard-to-find places. Migrant farmworkers, many of them from Mexico, are particularly hard to track. While enumerators follow up nonresponses with personal visits, the immigrant population remains hard to find. …

To overcome these difficulties, the Census Bureau has formed partnerships with many organizations and churches in the immigrant community to encourage responses to the census. In 2010, the Census Bureau offered forms in roughly fifty languages.

Another obstacle to collecting accurate data is the difficulty of measuring emigration from the United States by those born abroad. The Census Bureau estimated the level of foreign-born emigration at 195,000 annually in the 1980s by subtracting actual counts of the foreign born from an estimated population. But no one directly measures who leaves the country.

A truly complete portrait of the immigrant population requires more questions than the census can ask. Questions about sensitive matters such as legal status no longer appear on the census form.

[66] Presentation: “Data on the Foreign-Born Population Published by the U.S. Census Bureau.” By Elizabeth M. Grieco. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, April 18, 2013. <www2.census.gov>

Page 3: “The Census Bureau does not collect data by legal status, other than naturalized citizen/noncitizen.”

[67] Report: “Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States: January 2013.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 2: “Most observers agree that a sizable number of LPRs [lawful permanent residents] emigrate from the United States. The U.S. government has not collected official statistics since 1957. National data that directly measure emigration do not exist.”

[68] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 16:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has estimated that, in 2009, about 10.8 million U.S. residents were in the country without legal authorization—about 2.3 million more than in 2000. DHS arrived at its estimate by calculating the difference between the total foreign-born population and the authorized foreign-born population. The numbers that form the basis of DHS’s estimate came from a variety of sources, and they involved various assumptions. Moreover, because they do not reflect actual population counts, the resulting estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty. (The Pew Hispanic Center has issued a slightly different estimate of the unauthorized population in 2009—about 11.1 million people.)

[69] Report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Pages 2–3:

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of people living in the U.S. who were foreign born and not U.S. citizens was 21.7 million in January 2009. Of these, 12.6 million individuals were not legal permanent residents of the U.S. We refer to this group as other immigrants (other than legal permanent resident immigrants). Of this number, about 10.8 million resided in the U.S. in an unauthorized status. The remaining other immigrants resided in the U.S. in a temporary authorized status (for example students and workers with temporary visas).

… The estimated number of other immigrants working is 8.3 million in 2010. OCACT [Office of the Chief Actuary] estimates 0.6 million of the 8.3 million other immigrant workers in 2010 had temporary work authorized at some point in the past and have overstayed the term of their visas. In addition, OCACT estimates that 0.7 million unauthorized workers in 2010 obtained fraudulent birth certificates at some point in the past and these birth certificates allowed the workers to get an SSN [Social Security number]. Combining these two groups with the 1.3 million current visa holders with temporary authorization, we estimate 2.7 million other immigrants have SSNs in their name and thus can work, pay taxes, and have earnings credited to their record for potential benefits in the future.

OCACT estimates 1.8 million other immigrants worked and used an SSN that did not match their name in 2010. Their earnings may be credited to someone else’s record (when the SSN and name submitted to the employer match Social Security records) or may be credited to the Earnings Suspense File (when submitted with non-matching SSN and name). Finally, OCACT estimates 3.9 million other immigrants worked in the underground economy in 2010.

Eliminating the current visa holders with temporary authorization (1.3 million other immigrants with legal work authorization), and those in the underground economy (3.9 million unauthorized workers), we estimate that there are about 3.1 million unauthorized immigrants working and paying Social Security taxes in 2010.

[70] Article: “Senate Leader: ‘Half Of My Family’ Eligible For Deportation Under Trump Order.” CBS Los Angeles, February 6, 2017. <www.cbsnews.com>

California Senate Leader Kevin de Leon made the claims during testimony before the Senate’s Public Safety Committee for SB54 [senate bill], a bill introduced by De Leon that would create a statewide sanctuary for immigrants living in the country illegally.

Responding to President Trump’s suggestion of “withholding federal funding” from California, de Leon said: “Half of my family would be eligible for deportation under the executive order, because they got a false social security card, they got a false identification, they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB [assembly bill] 60, they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.”

[71] Book: Appeal to Popular Opinion. By Douglas N. Walton. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999.

Page 258:

Scientific polls use sampling procedures where random samples are used, that is, where each individual in the group has an equal chance of being selected into the sample, or where some variation on this pattern is used to account for variations in the population that need to be reflected in the sample (Campbell 1974). Scientific popular-opinion polls also compute numerical margins of error indicating the extent to which results can be expected to vary.

[72] Textbook: Sampling: Design And Analysis (2nd edition). By Sharon L. Lohr. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2010.

Page 5:

A good sample will be as free from bias as possible. Selection bias occurs when some part of the target population, or, more generally, when some population units are sampled at a different rate than intended by the investigator. … A sample of convenience is often biased, since the units that are easiest to select or that are most likely to respond or usually not representative of the harder-to-select or non-responding units.

Page 6: “Nonresponse distorts the results of many surveys, even sources that are carefully designed to minimize other sources of selection bias. Often, nonrespondents differ critically from the respondents, but the extent of that difference is unknown unless you can later obtain information about the nonrespondents.”

[73] Book: American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2015.

Article: “Census, U.S.” By Susan Wierzbicki. Pages 69–72.

Page 71: “The biggest obstacle to collecting accurate data on immigrants is the difficulty of counting them. Immigrants may be isolated and suspicious of the government; illegal immigrants may fear deportation, despite laws ensuring the confidentiality of their responses.”

[74] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page iii:

For estimating the size of the unauthorized population, the Department of Homeland Security has assumed that the ACS’s [Census Bureau’s American Community Survey] undercount rates range from 2.5 percent for noncitizens who are legal permanent residents, refugees, or have been granted asylum to 10 percent for noncitizens without authorization to be in the United States. Those estimates suggest that the ACS and CPS [Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey] undercount the overall foreign-born population by about 5 percent.

[75] Paper: “How Well Does the American Community Survey Count Naturalized Citizens?” By Jennifer Van Hooka and James D. Bachmeierb. Demographic Research, July 2, 2013. <www.demographic-research.org>

Page 2: “In the United States, data on naturalization and citizenship largely come from Census Bureau surveys, such as the Current Population Survey (CPS), the long form of the decennial Census (2000 and earlier), and the American Community Survey (ACS).”

Page 3:

There are good reasons to suspect that citizenship is inaccurately estimated in Census data. During the late 1990s, Passel and Clark (1997) compared the number of persons that are reported as naturalized in the 1990 Census and the 1996 Current Population Survey (CPS) with the number of naturalized citizens based on administrative data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They found the Census/CPS estimates to be much higher than the INS-based estimates for two groups. Among new arrivals (those in the U.S. fewer than five years) from all national origins, about 75% of those who were reported as naturalized were probably not. Among longer-resident Mexican and Central American immigrants, about one-third of those who were reported as naturalized were probably not.

Page 5:

To assess the current level of citizenship reporting error, we estimated the number of naturalized citizens in mid-year 2010 by age group, sex, region of origin, and duration of residence based on the number of Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) naturalization records. We then compared the OIS-based estimates with the corresponding numbers in the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) (also a mid-year estimate). The difference between the two provides an indication of over- or under-representation of naturalized citizenship in the ACS.

Page 17:

Table 2 reports the naturalization estimates by sex, region of birth, and duration of U.S. residence. For both men and women from all origin regions, the estimated number of naturalized citizens in the ACS is substantially and significantly higher than the OIS-based estimates among immigrants with fewer than five years in the U.S. For example, the number of naturalized Mexican men with fewer than five years of U.S. residence is nearly 27 times higher (2,587%) in the ACS than the OIS estimates. Another way to express this is that among the 16 thousand reporting as citizens in the ACS, only about 600 (or about 4%) are likely to actually be naturalized citizens. Among those in the United States for five or more years, the OIS–ACS gap is much lower in relative terms, and concentrated among Mexican men.

Page 19:

In Table 3, OIS and ACS estimates are presented for Mexican and non-Mexican men and women by age group by varying rates of emigration. We note that the OIS estimates do not always decline as emigration increases from the “low” to the “moderate” to the “high” series because of age crossovers in various emigration estimates. Regardless of assumptions about emigration, ACS estimates are especially high relative to the OIS-based estimates among Mexican men of all age groups and Mexican women aged 40 and older. The same pattern does not hold among non-Mexicans, among whom the discrepancy remains relatively low across all age groups.

[76] Dataset: “Table S0501: Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

“Total Population … Foreign Born … Estimate [=] 45,270,103”

[77] Presentation: “Data on the Foreign-Born Population Published by the U.S. Census Bureau.” By Elizabeth M. Grieco. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, April 18, 2013. <www2.census.gov>

Page 3:

Native Born – Anyone Who Is a U.S. Citizen at Birth

The native population includes anyone born in the United States, born in Puerto Rico or a U.S. Island Area (such as Guam), and born abroad of a U.S. citizen parent or parents.

Includes children born in the United States to foreign-born parents.

Foreign Born – Anyone Who Is Not a U.S. Citizen at Birth

The foreign-born population includes naturalized U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary migrants, humanitarian migrants, and unauthorized migrants.

[78] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page ii: “Immigrant: In this report, a synonym for foreign born.”

[79] Calculated with the dataset: “Table S0501: Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

“Total Population … Total … Estimate [=] 331,893,745 … Foreign Born … Estimate [=] 45,270,103”

CALCULATION: 45,270,103 / 331,893,745 = 13.6%

[80] Calculated with data from:

a) Presentation: “The Foreign-Born Population in the United States.” U.S. Census Bureau, December 2, 2011. <www.census.gov>

Page 3 (of PDF): “Foreign-Born Population and Percentage of Total Population, for the United States: 1850 to 2010”

b) Dataset: “Table S0501: Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[81] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

Region

Estimate

Margin of Error

Portion of Total †

Total:

45,269,644

±140,339

100%

Latin America

22,691,727

±109,962

50%

Asia

14,034,338

±58,540

31%

Europe

4,865,317

±52,731

11%

Africa

2,597,894

±48,512

6%

North America

787,602

±15,496

2%

Oceania

292,766

±12,639

1%

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

[82] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

Nation

Estimate

Margin of Error

Portion of Total †

Mexico

10,697,374

±77,802

24%

India

2,709,199

±42,095

6%

China

2,132,122

±33,574

5%

Philippines

1,982,434

±28,468

4%

El Salvador

1,418,147

±37,374

3%

Vietnam

1,338,538

±31,531

3%

Cuba

1,278,627

±21,257

3%

Dominican Republic

1,255,036

±31,371

3%

Guatemala

1,106,523

±32,157

2%

Korea

1,011,589

±23,039

2%

Total of Top 10 †

24,929,589

55%

Colombia

854,921

±26,432

2%

Jamaica

796,290

±25,960

2%

Canada

778,497

±15,597

2%

Honduras

767,573

±35,169

2%

United Kingdom

701,102

±17,802

2%

Haiti

696,982

±22,417

2%

Brazil

569,325

±23,585

1%

Venezuela

545,234

±22,254

1%

Germany

540,203

±12,217

1%

Ecuador

481,238

±20,129

1%

Peru

452,207

±18,052

1%

Nigeria

443,181

±21,442

1%

Russia

425,429

±12,813

1%

Poland

412,797

±15,206

1%

Pakistan

398,363

±20,632

1%

Ukraine

398,040

±15,525

1%

Iran

397,735

±16,456

1%

Taiwan

374,103

±13,611

1%

Japan

345,668

±12,723

1%

Italy

303,297

±11,557

1%

Guyana

289,870

±16,345

1%

Bangladesh

286,320

±16,292

1%

Ethiopia

271,847

±15,525

1%

Nicaragua

256,696

±15,453

1%

Thailand

250,677

±10,669

1%

Hong Kong

248,024

±9,440

1%

All Others †

7,826,793

17%

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

[83] Article: “From Germany to Mexico: How America’s Source of Immigrants Has Changed Over a Century.” By Jens Manuel Krogstad and Michael Keegan. Pew Research, October 7, 2015. <www.pewresearch.org>

Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the United States since 1965, making the nation the top destination in the world for those moving from one country to another. Mexico, which shares a nearly 2,000-mile border with the U.S., is the source of the largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States.

… A century ago, the U.S. experienced another large wave of 18.2 million immigrants, hailing largely from Europe. Many Americans can trace their roots to that wave, from 1890 to 1919, when Germany dominated as the country sending the most immigrants to many of the U.S. states, although the United Kingdom, Canada and Italy were also strongly represented. …

Since 1965, when Congress passed legislation to open the nation’s borders, immigrants have largely hailed from Latin America and Asia.

[84] “National Hispanic Survey Results.” By John McLaughlin. McLaughlin & Associates, June 21, 2013. <mclaughlinonline.com>

Page 3:

This bi-lingual national survey of 800 Hispanics was conducted from June 5th through June 16th, 2013.

Interview selection was within predetermined census units of Hispanic adults. 560 interviews were conducted via landline telephone by professional interviewers. To increase coverage, this landline sample was supplemented with 240 interviews, 30%, conducted via internet of cellphone only users. 64% of all respondents use cell phones. 60% of all interviews were conducted in Spanish. 93% of all respondents speak at least some Spanish at home. These samples were then combined and structured to correlate with actual adult Hispanic census population.

This poll of 800 Hispanic adults has an accuracy of ± 3.4% at a 95% confidence interval. Within the sample, 470 of the Hispanic adults are also registered voters. For this subsample the accuracy is ± 4.5% at a 95% confidence interval.

Page 4:

The uniqueness of this poll is that it is very strong demographically and methodologically. 60% of the interviews were actually conducted in Spanish; 76% speak Spanish mostly or equally. 23% always speak Spanish; 93% speak at least some Spanish at home; 30% of the interviews were conducted among cell phone only users. 64% of Hispanic adults have cell phones.

Page 68: “Where Born … U.S. [=] 37% … Puerto Rico [=] 5% … Outside U.S. [=] 59%”

[85] Book: Immigration in America Today: An Encyclopedia. By James Loucky, Jeanne Armstrong, and Lawrence J. Estrada. Greenwood Press, 2006.

Page 308:

Economic Factors

The liberalization of immigration policy following the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act dramatically changed the immigrant composition in America. In the 1960s, the traditional dominance of European immigration began to decline. By the 1980s, only 11 percent of the total immigration came from Europe, whereas in 1900 they made up 90 percent of total immigration (Ueda 1998). After this reversal, the majority of immigrants coming to the United States were from Asia and Latin America. Whereas immigrants before the Great Depression were almost entirely working-class, all the immigrants of the 1970s through the 1990s can be divided into two economic classes, either highly skilled or poorly skilled. Many post-1965 immigrants were highly educated and trained workers. In the 1970s, 25 percent of immigrants were professionals and often more than 40 percent were white-collar workers. This trend continued into the 1980s. From 1976 to 1990, more than 35 percent of employed immigrants were in professional and other white-collar jobs, and an additional 12 percent were in skilled crafts (Ueda 1998).

This human capital migration was counteracted by a large group of low-skilled workers. Service workers, laborers, and semiskilled operatives composed about 46 percent of employed immigrants in this same time period. The flow of the low-skilled and under-educated immigrants rose in numbers and in percentages in the 1980s and 1990s. Hispanic, Asian, and West Indian workers moved into the service and semi-skilled job markets in large cities like Los Angeles and New York, causing increasing friction and conflict with native black workers (Ueda 1998).

[86] Calculated with the dataset: “Educational Attainment by Place of Birth, Ages 25–64, 2022.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[87] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population—2013 Update.” Congressional Budget Office, May 8, 2013. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 13 (of PDF): “Exhibit 11. Educational Attainment of People Ages 25 to 64, by Birthplace, 2012 (Percent) … Source: Congressional Budget Office based on monthly data from Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Groups, 2012, <www.census.gov>. … [Oceania] includes Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands.”

[88] Calculated with the dataset: “Educational Attainment by Place of Birth, Ages 25–64, 2022.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[89] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population—2013 Update.” Congressional Budget Office, May 8, 2013. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 13 (of PDF): “Exhibit 11. Educational Attainment of People Ages 25 to 64, by Birthplace, 2012 (Percent) … Source: Congressional Budget Office based on monthly data from Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Groups, 2012, <www.census.gov>. … [Oceania] includes Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands.”

[90] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population—2013 Update.” Congressional Budget Office, May 8, 2013. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 2:

Foreign-born people represent a substantial fraction of the population in some states. In 2012, about 1 in 4 people in California and about 1 in 5 people in New York and in New Jersey were born in another country. However, in another 31 states, taken together, only about 1 person in 20 was foreign born. Between 1999 and 2012, the share of the population constituted by foreign-born people increased in all but two states and, for the nation as a whole, rose by 2.8 percentage points, to roughly 13 percent.

[91] Calculated with the dataset: “Nativity and Citizenship Status in the United States.” U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2021. <data.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[92] Calculated with the dataset: “Population by Citizenship Status 1995–2022.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[93] Book: Immigration in America Today: An Encyclopedia. By James Loucky, Jeanne Armstrong, and Lawrence J. Estrada. Greenwood Press, 2006.

Page 308:

Frey (1996) focuses on the demographic and economic “balkanization” patterns occurring with post-1965 immigrant groups. Largely the result of de facto as well as self-imposed segregation patterns, new immigrants and ethnic groups have become segregated across neighborhoods or between central cities and suburbs. Recent trends see the emergence of entire metropolitan areas or labor market regions that are distinct from the rest of the country in their race, ethnic, and demographic composition. The notion of self-imposed segregation as it relates to immigrant enclaves speaks to an urban model in which ethnic enclaves or neighborhoods in cities can also serve relatively impoverished new arrivals for a period of time and then later provide a base for spatial assimilation and entry into integrated suburban areas (Logan and others 2002).

[94] Book: Balancing Change and Tradition in Global Education Reform (2nd edition). Edited by Iris C. Rotberg. Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2010.

Chapter: “Concluding Thoughts: On Change, Tradition, and Choices.” By Iris C. Rotberg. Pages 381–403.

Page 385:

In many countries, immigration has led to increasingly diverse student populations, who are often concentrated in city centers or in the suburbs immediately surrounding. The dramatic increase in immigration (and, therefore, in the mix of racial/ethnic groups, cultures, and languages) has occurred in only a few decades. Even a country like the United States, with its long tradition of immigration and diversity, continues to have a significant increase in the proportion of students from minority populations. Indeed, in many parts of the country, the term minority is a misnomer.

[95] Book: Differentiation in Practice: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum (Grades 9–12). By Carol A. Tomlinson and Cindy A. Strickland. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2005.

Page 1:

The United States is moving from a nation constituted by a majority population and a number of minority populations to a nation of minorities. Multiple cultures, races, and language groups will be the norm in our classrooms, and the range of competency or readiness levels within every subject will expand. Yet many teachers are still operating as if diverse backgrounds and readiness levels had no relation to learner success.

[96] Calculated with the dataset: “Population by Citizenship Status.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

“Total [Population] [=] 328,721,881 … Naturalized [=] 22,877,140”

CALCULATION: 22,877,140 / 328,721,881 = 7.0%

[97] Calculated with data from the report: “2020 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 18, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 51–52: “Table 20. Petitions for Naturalization Filed, Persons Naturalized, and Petitions for Naturalization Denied: Fiscal Years 1907 to 2020”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[98] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Citizenship Status by World Area of Birth 2004–2019.” U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2019. <data.census.gov>

b) Dataset: “Table B05002. Place of Birth by Nativity and Citizenship Status.” U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2021. <data.census.gov>

NOTES:

  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.
  • U.S. Census Bureau did not release one-year estimates for 2020. Hence, Just Facts interpolated this data.

[99] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population, 2013 Update.” Congressional Budget Office, May 8, 2013. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 6 (of PDF): “Exhibit 2. Naturalized Citizens, by Period of Arrival in the United States and Birthplace, 2011”

[100] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Citizenship Status by World Area of Birth 2004–2019.” U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2019. <data.census.gov>

b) Dataset: “Table B05002. Place of Birth by Nativity and Citizenship Status.” U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2021. <data.census.gov>

NOTES:

  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.
  • U.S. Census Bureau did not release one-year estimates for 2020. Hence, Just Facts interpolated this data.

[101] Executive summary: “National Survey of Hispanic Adults.” By John McLaughlin and Carlos Rodriguez. McLaughlin & Associates, July 8, 2013. <mclaughlinonline.com>

Page 1: “This bi-lingual national survey of 800 Hispanics was conducted from June 5th through June 16th, 2013.”

Page 4:

Where Born? … U.S. [=] 37% … Puerto Rico [=] 5% … Outside U.S. [=] 59%

Citizenship (asked only to those who were born outside the U.S.) … Yes [=] 43% … No [=] 56%

CALCULATIONS:

  • 800 poll respondents × 59% born outside the U.S. × 56% noncitizens = 264 non-citizen poll respondents
  • (800 poll respondents – 264 non-citizen poll respondents) / 800 poll respondents = 67%

[102] Report: “Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States: January 2013.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1: “[N]ational population data on the major sub-categories of non-citizens, including LPRs [lawful permanent residents], students, temporary workers, and unauthorized immigrants, are not readily available from any source and must be estimated.”

[103] Calculated with the dataset: “Population by Citizenship Status.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

“Total [Population] [=] 328,721,881 … Non-citizen [=] 23,978,643”

CALCULATION: 23,978,643 / 328,721,881 = 7.3%

[104] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Citizenship Status by World Area of Birth 2004–2019.” U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2019. <data.census.gov>

b) Dataset: “Table B05002. Place of Birth by Nativity and Citizenship Status.” U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2021. <data.census.gov>

NOTES:

  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.
  • U.S. Census Bureau did not release one-year estimates for 2020. Hence, Just Facts interpolated this data.

[105] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population, 2013 Update.” Congressional Budget Office, May 8, 2013. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 7 (of PDF): Exhibit 3. Noncitizens, by Period of Arrival in the United States and Birthplace, 2011 (Percent)”

[106] Calculated with the dataset: “Citizenship by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Labor Force Status.” U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2004–2021. <data.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[107] Executive summary: “National Survey of Hispanic Adults.” By John McLaughlin and Carlos Rodriguez. McLaughlin & Associates, July 8, 2013. <mclaughlinonline.com>

Page 1: “This bi-lingual national survey of 800 Hispanics was conducted from June 5th through June 16th, 2013.”

Page 4:

Where Born? … U.S. [=] 37% … Puerto Rico [=] 5% … Outside U.S. [=] 59%

Citizenship (asked only to those who were born outside the U.S.) … Yes [=] 43% … No [=] 56%

CALCULATIONS:

  • 800 poll respondents × 59% born outside the U.S. × 56% noncitizens = 264 non-citizen poll respondents
  • 264 non-citizen poll respondents / 800 poll respondents = 33%

[108] Report: “Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United

States and the Subpopulation Eligible to Naturalize: 2019–2021.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, May 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This report presents annual estimates of the size and characteristics of the lawful permanent resident (LPR) population residing in the United States and on the subpopulation eligible to naturalize for January of each calendar year from 2019 through 2021.1 LPRs, also known as “green card” holders, are immigrants who have been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States, but who have not yet become U.S. citizens. The estimates are tabulated by country and region of birth, initial state of residence, period of entry, age, and sex. The underlying data were obtained from U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) administrative records for LPRs who entered in 1980 or later, supplemented with estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) for LPRs admitted before 1980. The methodology is similar to the methodology used for previous DHS estimates (see Rytina, 2004).2

There were 13.1 million LPRs living in the United States on January 1, 2021, down 245,000 (1.8 percent) from January 2020. This small decline in the population was driven by a steep decline in the inflows of new LPRs following the suspension of certain immigration-related government services and the partial travel ban imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (see Gibson, 2021). In April of 2020, the monthly flow plummeted to 20,000 from a historical range of about 80–100,000 per month; the monthly inflow partially recovered to about half of the historical level by August and remained at that reduced level through the end of the year (Figure 1). The reduction in inflows was concentrated in family preference categories and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens for both new arrivals and adjustments of status. Inflows were relatively unaffected for LPRs in employment preference categories (most of whom are adjusted to LPR status from within the United States), and for adjustments to LPR status by refugees and asylees (all of whom adjusted from within the United States).

Of the 13.1 million LPRs, 9.2 million met the naturalization requirements for age and length of residency as an LPR and thus were potentially eligible to naturalize, an increase of 260,000 (2.9 percent) from 2020.3

3 Most LPRs who have attained 18 years of age and satisfied their required length of residency as an LPR are eligible to naturalize, though certain LPRs who meet these core requirements may fail to qualify for other reasons, and certain noncitizens may be eligible without meeting these requirements…. For the purpose of this report, “eligible to naturalize” refers to individuals who have met these core requirements for age and length of residency.

Page 3: “Table 1. Components of the Population Estimate: January 2019 to January 2021 … Jan. 2021 … Total LPR Stock (non-USC) (Population 1 [admitted in 1980 or later] + Population 2 [admitted before 1980]) [=] 13,110,000 … Stock of LPRs eligible to naturalize [=] 9,210,000”

[109] Calculated with data from: “Population by Citizenship Status.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2021. <data.census.gov>

“Total [Population] [=] 326,195,440”

CALCULATION: 13,110,000 / 326,195,440 = 4.0%

[110] Calculated with data from the report: “Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States and the Subpopulation Eligible to Naturalize: 2019–2021.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, May 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 1–2:

This report presents annual estimates of the size and characteristics of the lawful permanent resident (LPR) population residing in the United States and on the subpopulation eligible to naturalize for January of each calendar year from 2019 through 2021.1 LPRs, also known as “green card” holders, are immigrants who have been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States, but who have not yet become U.S. citizens. The estimates are tabulated by country and region of birth, initial state of residence, period of entry, age, and sex. The underlying data were obtained from U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) administrative records for LPRs who entered in 1980 or later, supplemented with estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) for LPRs admitted before 1980. The methodology is similar to the methodology used for previous DHS estimates (see Rytina, 2004).2

There were 13.1 million LPRs living in the United States on January 1, 2021, down 245,000 (1.8 percent) from January 2020. This small decline in the population was driven by a steep decline in the inflows of new LPRs following the suspension of certain immigration-related government services and the partial travel ban imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (see Gibson, 2021). In April of 2020, the monthly flow plummeted to 20,000 from a historical range of about 80–100,000 per month; the monthly inflow partially recovered to about half of the historical level by August and remained at that reduced level through the end of the year (Figure 1). The reduction in inflows was concentrated in family preference categories and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens for both new arrivals and adjustments of status. Inflows were relatively unaffected for LPRs in employment preference categories (most of whom are adjusted to LPR status from within the United States), and for adjustments to LPR status by refugees and asylees (all of whom adjusted from within the United States).

Of the 13.1 million LPRs, 9.2 million met the naturalization requirements for age and length of residency as an LPR and thus were potentially eligible to naturalize, an increase of 260,000 (2.9 percent) from 2020.3

The growth of the eligible population was also a function of COVID’s impact on the immigration system. Specifically, the number of people leaving the eligible-to-naturalize population via naturalization was substantially reduced in 2020 due to pandemic precautions (see Leong, 2021), but those precautions did not affect inflows of people achieving their time-in-status requirement or turning 18 years old. The eligible-to-naturalize population may be affected in 3 to 5 years when the smaller than usual 2020 cohort of new LPRs achieves their time-in-status requirement.

The population eligible to naturalize is much larger than the inflows and outflows affecting population change, so demographic shifts, if any, are generally expected to be small and slow. Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 was not an exception, and the demographic characteristics of the population eligible to naturalize remained similar to earlier years: many more eligible-to-naturalize LPRs were from Mexico (nearly 30 percent) than any other country; 60 percent settled or currently resided in California, New York, Texas, or Florida; the sex ratio leaned very slightly female; and 60 percent were between 35 and 65 years of age.

3 Most LPRs who have attained 18 years of age and satisfied their required length of residency as an LPR are eligible to naturalize, though certain LPRs who meet these core requirements may fail to qualify for other reasons, and certain noncitizens may be eligible without meeting these requirements…. For the purpose of this report, “eligible to naturalize” refers to individuals who have met these core requirements for age and length of residency.

Pages 2–3:

Nearly 36.5 million immigrants who entered the United States in 1980 or later became LPRs by January 1, 2021 (Table 1). About 45 percent of that total naturalized and another 5 percent derived citizenship6 from a parent before becoming 18 years old. Of the remaining 17.4 million LPRs, about 5.3 million are estimated to have died and/or emigrated, leaving a stock of 12.1 million. Adding 1.0 million noncitizens who entered before 1980 yields a total estimated LPR stock of 13.1 million LPRs living in the United States on January 1, 2021. Of those LPRs, about 9.2 million are adults who acquired LPR status long enough ago to be eligible to naturalize. The remainder of this report following Table 1 focuses on the LPR subpopulation that is eligible to naturalize. Corresponding estimates of the full LPR population can be found in Appendix 2 and are generally similar in terms of each subgroup’s proportion of the total.

More than 25 percent of the LPRs who were eligible to naturalize in 2021 were from Mexico and nearly 50 percent were from North America (Tables 2 and 3).7 The next leading country of birth was People’s Republic of China (China), with 5 percent, followed by the Philippines, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic with 4 percent each. The top 20 countries comprised more than 70 percent of the total LPR population eligible to naturalize. Overall, the population eligible to naturalize increased by 2 percent from 2019 to 2021. The largest numeric increases from 2019 to 2021 were for Cuba and China, both of which increased by about 50,000.

Page 3:

Table 1. Components of the Population Estimate: January 2019 to January 2021 … Jan. 2021 … Total LPR Stock (non-USC) (Population 1 [admitted in 1980 or later] + Population 2 [admitted before 1980]) [=] 13,110,000 … Stock of LPRs eligible to naturalize [=] 9,210,000 …

Table 2. LPRs Eligible to Naturalize by Country of Birth: January 2019 to January 2021 … 2021 … Total [=] 9,210,000 … Mexico [=] 2,450,000

CALCULATIONS:

  • 9,210,000 / 13,110,000 = 70%
  • 2,450,000 / 9,210,000 = 27%

[111] Calculated with data from the report: “2020 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 18, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 5: “Table 1. Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status: Fiscal Years 1820 to 2020”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[112] Report: “2020 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 18, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 5: “Table 1. Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status: Fiscal Years 1820 to 2020”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[113] Calculated with data from the report: “2020 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 18, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 6–11: “Table 2. Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status by Region and Selected Country of Last Residence: Fiscal Years 1820 to 2020”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[114] Calculated with data from the report: “Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics.

2004: “Table 4. Immigrants Admitted by Type and Selected Class of Admission.”

2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020: “Table 6. Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission.”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[115] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population, 2013 Update.” Congressional Budget Office, May 8, 2013. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 2:

From 2000 to 2012, more than 13 million people were granted lawful permanent resident (LPR) status in the United States, an average of about 1 million per year. Lawful permanent residents are permitted to live, work, and study in the United States, and receiving LPR status is an important milestone on the path to U.S. citizenship. Roughly two-thirds of new LPRs were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or were admitted under family-sponsored preferences.

Page 10 (of PDF):

Exhibit 6. Grants of Lawful Permanent Resident Status, by Time and Major Category of Admission, Fiscal Years 2004, 2009, and 2012

2012

Number

(Thousands)

Percentage

of Total

Time of Admission

First-Time Admission to the U.S.

484

47

Admitted Previously, Status Changed to Legal Permanent Resident

548

53

Total

1,032

100

Category of Admission

Uncapped

Immediate relatives of U.S citizens

479

46

Humanitarian a

167

16

Capped

Family-sponsored preferences

202

20

Employment-based preferences

144

14

Diversity Program b

40

4

Total

1,032

100

Source: Congressional Budget Office based on data from Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (March 2013), <www.dhs.gov>.

Note: In its latest publication on the topic, the Department of Homeland Security revised the values for the “Humanitarian” and “Employment-based preferences” categories for 2009, so the figures presented here differ from those presented in Congressional Budget Office, A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update (June 2011), <www.cbo.gov>.

a. Primarily consists of grants to refugees and asylum seekers.

b. The program grants legal permanent resident status to up to 50,000 people annually who are randomly selected from all applicants from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States and who meet strict eligibility requirements. See Congressional Budget Office, Immigration Policy in the United States: An Update (December 2010), <www.cbo.gov>.

[116] Paper: “A Count of the Uncountable: Estimates of Undocumented Aliens Counted in the 1980 United States Census.” By Robert Warren and Jeffrey S. Passel. Demography, August 1987. Pages 375–393. <www.jstor.org>

Page 375:

During the past few decades, significant changes in the level and sources of immigration have led to the reemergence of immigration as a topic of national concern in the United States. In the 1960s, major events in foreign policy and changes in U.S. law set the stage for a renewal of public awareness about international migration to the United States. Hundreds of thousands of refugees arrived from Cuba in the 1960s and from Vietnam after 1975. Following passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, the level of legal immigration increased steadily and Latin America and Asia supplanted Europe as the major source of immigrants [Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 1983]. A suspected increase in undocumented immigrants in recent years has focused attention on the level and impact of immigration, both documented and undocumented, and has led to the passage of new legislation in 1986.

Figures on the size of the undocumented alien population in the country have varied widely, with speculative estimates as high as 12 million (Siegel, Passel. and Robinson, 1980). Much of the conjecture about undocumented immigration during the past 15 years has been based on the rapid increase in the number of apprehensions of deportable aliens, mostly from Mexico, following termination of the Bracero program in 1964. Apprehensions reached 500,000 in 1972, leveled off at about 1 million annually by the end of the 1970s, and increased again in the mid-1980s. These increases were interpreted as evidence of a rapidly growing undocumented population by officials of the INS and others during the 1970s. (For a different interpretation, see Passel, 1985a.) Much of the ensuing numbers debate was unhampered by any other empirical evidence.

Empirically based estimates of undocumented immigrants have been consistently lower than most of the speculative estimates (Garcia y Griego and Estrada, 1981). Recent work using data from the 1980 census of Mexico (Bean, King. and Passel, 1983) placed an upper bound of 4 million on the number of undocumented Mexicans in the United States at that date and suggested that the actual number was probably much smaller. Although the research reported here does not directly address the question of the total number of undocumented aliens in the country, it does help set limits; estimates of the number counted in the census provide a firm empirical basis for setting a lower bound on the total in the country as of 1980. The estimates presented in this paper, along with the results of other studies (Panel on Immigration Statistics, 1985; Passel, 1985a), suggest that the undocumented Mexican population in 1980 was in the 1–2 million range, with the total number from all countries falling in the range of 2–4 million.

Page 3: “The unauthorized immigrant population grew from 2–4 million in 1980 (Warren and Passel, 1987) to 8.5 million in 2000 and 11.6 million in 2010 (see Figure 1).”

[117] Report: “Naturalization Rates among IRCA Immigrants: A 2009 Update.” By Bryan C. Baker. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 2010. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1: “Nearly 2.7 million persons became LPRs [lawful permanent residents] under IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act], including 1.6 million pre-1982s and 1.1 million SAWs [special agricultural workers].”

[118] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in

the United States: 1990 to 2000.” By Robert Warren. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of Policy and Planning, 2003. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This paper describes estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States in January 2000, by State of residence and country of origin. The estimates were developed using data on the foreign-born population from the 2000 Census, INS administrative data, and a new methodology for estimating annual trends in population growth. It is the third in a series of estimates developed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

The INS estimates that the total unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States in January 2000 was 7.0 million. The total population estimates presented here are somewhat higher than INS’ previous estimates. In its last set of estimates, INS estimated that the population was 5.0 million in October 1996; the new estimates produced a total of about 5.8 million for the same date. Estimated population growth was variable in the 1990s; on average, however, the population grew by about 350,000 per year from 1990 to 1999, about 75,000 higher than INS’ previous annual estimate of 275,000 for the 1990s. …

In 1994, the INS developed the first detailed national estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States. Those estimates indicated that the unauthorized resident population was 3.4 million as of October 1992, and that the population was growing at an average annual rate of 300,000. Updated figures for October 1996, released in February 1997, estimated the total population to be 5.0 million and growing at an average annual rate of 275,000.

Pages 2–4:

INS estimates for January 2000 were derived using the residual technique: the legally resident population was estimated and then subtracted from the census-based foreign-born population, leaving estimated unauthorized residents as a residual. The estimates rely primarily on data from two sources: 1) annual INS statistics (immigrants admitted, deportable aliens removed, and nonimmigrant residents admitted); and 2) data for the foreign-born population from the 2000 Census. Questions on country of birth, citizenship, and year of immigration were asked on the “long form,” which was used to collect detailed information from approximately one-sixth of the total U.S. population in the 2000 Census.

The primary reason that the total population estimate shown here is higher than INS’ earlier total is that the new estimate for Mexico is about 1.2 million higher than the previous estimate (for the comparable date, October 1996). The increase in the estimate for Mexico occurred because the new estimate for Mexico is based on data collected in the 2000 Census rather than survey data, which was used previously to estimate the unauthorized resident population from Mexico. Census data are more complete and reliable because of the national scope of the data collection, the vastly larger sample size, and the extensive preparation and follow-up activities involved in conducting the decennial census. For all countries excluding Mexico, the new estimate is 0.4 million lower than the previous estimate for the comparable date. …

Summary of Methodology

Estimates for January 2000

The first step was to estimate the number of unauthorized residents living in the United States in January 2000. Estimates were derived separately for: (1) unauthorized residents who entered the United States in the 1990s; and (2) those who entered before 1990 and still lived here illegally in January 2000.

1. For unauthorized residents who entered in the 1990s and resided illegally in the United States in January 2000, estimates were derived by subtracting estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population. The difference is the number of unauthorized residents, as of January 2000, who entered in the 1990s.

About 12.6 million foreign-born persons who entered the United States from 1990 to 1999 were counted in the 2000 Census. The INS adjusted that number upward by about 850,000, primarily to account for estimated undercount in the census,4 yielding a total foreign-born population of nearly 13.5 million who entered from 1990 to 1999.5 The INS estimates that 8.0 million of the 13.5 million foreign-born residents who moved to the United States in the 1990s were in a legal status. The difference, 5.5 million, is the estimated unauthorized population that entered the United States from 1990 to 1999 and resided here in January 2000 (Table 3).

2. For unauthorized residents who moved here before 1990 and still resided here illegally in January 2000, the estimates are based on the estimated population that resided illegally in the United States in January 1990, reduced by the number that left the population in the 1990s. The INS estimates that 3.5 million unauthorized residents were living in the United States in January 1990. Of those, nearly 2 million left the unauthorized resident population in the 1990s.6 Thus, an estimated 1.5 million who entered before January 1990 were still residing illegally in the United States in January 2000 (Table 3).

Combining the estimates in paragraphs 1 and 2 above yields a total of 7.0 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States in January 2000. The figures shown above are for the entire U.S. foreign-born population; comparable estimates were derived for all States and for 75 source countries of unauthorized immigration.

Pages 5–6:

Limitations of the Data

As described above, the estimates of unauthorized residents were derived by subtracting estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population. The figures used here for the total foreign-born population are relatively straightforward: they are 2000 Census counts of the foreign-born population, adjusted for estimated undercount. Estimating the legally resident population was considerably more complex. In addition to those admitted for lawful permanent residence and refugee arrivals, it was necessary to make reliable estimates for a number of difficult-to-estimate populations. Detailed estimates were made for:

• nonimmigrant residents (temporary workers, students, etc.);

• unauthorized residents who have pending, and likely to be approved, applications for LPR [lawful permanent resident] status in the INS processing backlog;

• asylees and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and

• aliens, mostly from Central American countries, who otherwise would be unauthorized residents but are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings.

All of these groups have been included in the legally resident population used to derive the estimates shown here; the total for these groups is nearly 2.1 million (Table 3, rows 16–18). Failure to fully account for these groups would cause a significant overestimate of the unauthorized resident population (see later section, “Comparison with recent estimates”).

It should be noted that net internal migration (moves from State to State) of lawful residents after admission could affect the accuracy of the estimates of unauthorized immigration for States. For example, if relatively more lawful residents (who arrived in the 1990s) moved out of California than moved into California in the 1990s, then INS’ estimate of lawful residents in California in 2000 would be too high.7 Consequently, the unauthorized resident population in California would be underestimated.

The effects of net internal migration of lawful residents might be relatively small because: 1) the majority of LPRs are admitted on the basis of close kinship with U.S. relatives, possibly reducing the probability of subsequent out-of-State moves; and 2) a majority of the lawfully resident population already had a residence in the United States at the time they entered the INS data systems, for example by adjusting from temporary to permanent lawful residence. The estimated unauthorized resident population in each State would be unaffected by net internal migration of lawful residents who moved to the United States before 1990.

The 2000 Census data for the foreign-born population are based on a sample of the population, and therefore the annual estimates of the unauthorized resident population in January 2000 are subject to sampling variability.8 Also, the estimates for some components of the population, primarily the estimated emigration rates and the size of the resident nonimmigrant population, are subject to other kinds of error. Thus, relatively small year-to-year differences should be disregarded, and the actual trends might be somewhat higher or lower than those shown here.

Page 10:

Table C. Annual Estimates of Population and Net Change of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000

(In thousands. Parts might not add to totals because of rounding)

Year

Estimated Unauthorized Residents, January 1

2000

7,000

1999

6,488

1998

6,098

1997

5,862

1996

5,581

1995

5,146

1994

4,750

1993

4,492

1992

4,204

1991

4,025

1990

3,500

[119] Report: “As Growth Stalls, Unauthorized Immigrant Population Becomes More Settled.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and others. Pew Research, September 3, 2014. <www.pewresearch.org>

Page 5:

The new estimates are based mainly on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, using the widely accepted “residual methodology” employed by the center for many years.1 The estimates of the total population, as well as regarding the share of unauthorized immigrants with U.S. citizen children and length of residence in the U.S., update previously published estimates.

Page 14:

Table A1. Unauthorized Immigrant Population, by Age and Duration of Residence in the U.S., and Their U.S.-Born Children, 1995–2013

Year

Unauthorized Population

2013

11,300

2012

11,200

2011

11,500

2010

11,400

2009

11,300

2008

11,700

2007

12,200

2006

11,600

2005

11,100

2003

10,100

2000

8,600

1998

7,250

1995

5,700

Population figures in thousands, unless otherwise noted (see rounding notes below)

Pages 20–25:

Appendix C: Methodology

Overview

The estimates presented in this report for the unauthorized immigrant population are based on a residual estimation methodology that compares a demographic estimate of the number of immigrants residing legally in the country with the total number of immigrants as measured by a survey—either the American Community Survey (ACS) or the March Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS); the difference is assumed to be the number of unauthorized immigrants in the survey, a number that is later adjusted for omissions from the survey (see below). The basic estimate is:

Unauthorized Immigrants = Survey, Foreign Born – Estimated Legal Immigrant Population …

First, all immigrants entering the U.S. before 1980 are assumed to be legal immigrants. Then, the data are corrected for known over-reporting of naturalized citizenship on the part of recently arrived immigrants (Passel and others 1997) and all remaining naturalized citizens from countries other than Mexico and those in Central America are assigned as legal. … Finally, some individuals are assigned as legal immigrants because they are in certain occupations (such as police officer, lawyer, military occupation, federal job) that require legal status or because they are receiving public benefits (such as welfare or food stamps) that are limited to legal immigrants. As result of these steps, the foreign-born population is divided between individuals with “definitely legal” status (including long-term residents, naturalized citizens, refugees and asylees, legal temporary migrants, and some legal permanent residents) and a group of “potentially unauthorized” migrants.

The number of potentially unauthorized migrants typically exceeds the estimated number of unauthorized migrants (from the residual estimates) by 15–35%. So, to have a result consistent with the residual estimate of legal and unauthorized immigrants, probabilistic methods are employed to assign legal or unauthorized status to these potentially unauthorized individuals. This last step also involves a check to ensure that the legal statuses of family members are consistent; for example, all family members entering the country at the same time are assumed to have the same legal status.

[120] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in

the United States: 1990 to 2000.” By Robert Warren. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of Policy and Planning, 2003. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This paper describes estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States in January 2000, by State of residence and country of origin. The estimates were developed using data on the foreign-born population from the 2000 Census, INS administrative data, and a new methodology for estimating annual trends in population growth. It is the third in a series of estimates developed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

The INS estimates that the total unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States in January 2000 was 7.0 million. The total population estimates presented here are somewhat higher than INS’ previous estimates. In its last set of estimates, INS estimated that the population was 5.0 million in October 1996; the new estimates produced a total of about 5.8 million for the same date. Estimated population growth was variable in the 1990s; on average, however, the population grew by about 350,000 per year from 1990 to 1999, about 75,000 higher than INS’ previous annual estimate of 275,000 for the 1990s. …

In 1994, the INS developed the first detailed national estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States. Those estimates indicated that the unauthorized resident population was 3.4 million as of October 1992, and that the population was growing at an average annual rate of 300,000. Updated figures for October 1996, released in February 1997, estimated the total population to be 5.0 million and growing at an average annual rate of 275,000.

Pages 2–4:

INS estimates for January 2000 were derived using the residual technique: the legally resident population was estimated and then subtracted from the census-based foreign-born population, leaving estimated unauthorized residents as a residual. The estimates rely primarily on data from two sources: 1) annual INS statistics (immigrants admitted, deportable aliens removed, and nonimmigrant residents admitted); and 2) data for the foreign-born population from the 2000 Census. Questions on country of birth, citizenship, and year of immigration were asked on the “long form,” which was used to collect detailed information from approximately one-sixth of the total U.S. population in the 2000 Census.

The primary reason that the total population estimate shown here is higher than INS’ earlier total is that the new estimate for Mexico is about 1.2 million higher than the previous estimate (for the comparable date, October 1996). The increase in the estimate for Mexico occurred because the new estimate for Mexico is based on data collected in the 2000 Census rather than survey data, which was used previously to estimate the unauthorized resident population from Mexico. Census data are more complete and reliable because of the national scope of the data collection, the vastly larger sample size, and the extensive preparation and follow-up activities involved in conducting the decennial census. For all countries excluding Mexico, the new estimate is 0.4 million lower than the previous estimate for the comparable date. …

Summary of Methodology

Estimates for January 2000

The first step was to estimate the number of unauthorized residents living in the United States in January 2000. Estimates were derived separately for: (1) unauthorized residents who entered the United States in the 1990s; and (2) those who entered before 1990 and still lived here illegally in January 2000.

1. For unauthorized residents who entered in the 1990s and resided illegally in the United States in January 2000, estimates were derived by subtracting estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population. The difference is the number of unauthorized residents, as of January 2000, who entered in the 1990s.

About 12.6 million foreign-born persons who entered the United States from 1990 to 1999 were counted in the 2000 Census. The INS adjusted that number upward by about 850,000, primarily to account for estimated undercount in the census,4 yielding a total foreign-born population of nearly 13.5 million who entered from 1990 to 1999.5 The INS estimates that 8.0 million of the 13.5 million foreign-born residents who moved to the United States in the 1990s were in a legal status. The difference, 5.5 million, is the estimated unauthorized population that entered the United States from 1990 to 1999 and resided here in January 2000 (Table 3).

2. For unauthorized residents who moved here before 1990 and still resided here illegally in January 2000, the estimates are based on the estimated population that resided illegally in the United States in January 1990, reduced by the number that left the population in the 1990s. The INS estimates that 3.5 million unauthorized residents were living in the United States in January 1990. Of those, nearly 2 million left the unauthorized resident population in the 1990s.6 Thus, an estimated 1.5 million who entered before January 1990 were still residing illegally in the United States in January 2000 (Table 3).

Combining the estimates in paragraphs 1 and 2 above yields a total of 7.0 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States in January 2000. The figures shown above are for the entire U.S. foreign-born population; comparable estimates were derived for all States and for 75 source countries of unauthorized immigration.

Pages 5–6:

Limitations of the Data

As described above, the estimates of unauthorized residents were derived by subtracting estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population. The figures used here for the total foreign-born population are relatively straightforward: they are 2000 Census counts of the foreign-born population, adjusted for estimated undercount. Estimating the legally resident population was considerably more complex. In addition to those admitted for lawful permanent residence and refugee arrivals, it was necessary to make reliable estimates for a number of difficult-to-estimate populations. Detailed estimates were made for:

• nonimmigrant residents (temporary workers, students, etc.);

• unauthorized residents who have pending, and likely to be approved, applications for LPR [lawful permanent resident] status in the INS processing backlog;

• asylees and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and

• aliens, mostly from Central American countries, who otherwise would be unauthorized residents but are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings.

All of these groups have been included in the legally resident population used to derive the estimates shown here; the total for these groups is nearly 2.1 million (Table 3, rows 16–18). Failure to fully account for these groups would cause a significant overestimate of the unauthorized resident population (see later section, “Comparison with recent estimates”).

It should be noted that net internal migration (moves from State to State) of lawful residents after admission could affect the accuracy of the estimates of unauthorized immigration for States. For example, if relatively more lawful residents (who arrived in the 1990s) moved out of California than moved into California in the 1990s, then INS’ estimate of lawful residents in California in 2000 would be too high.7 Consequently, the unauthorized resident population in California would be underestimated.

The effects of net internal migration of lawful residents might be relatively small because: 1) the majority of LPRs are admitted on the basis of close kinship with U.S. relatives, possibly reducing the probability of subsequent out-of-State moves; and 2) a majority of the lawfully resident population already had a residence in the United States at the time they entered the INS data systems, for example by adjusting from temporary to permanent lawful residence. The estimated unauthorized resident population in each State would be unaffected by net internal migration of lawful residents who moved to the United States before 1990.

The 2000 Census data for the foreign-born population are based on a sample of the population, and therefore the annual estimates of the unauthorized resident population in January 2000 are subject to sampling variability.8 Also, the estimates for some components of the population, primarily the estimated emigration rates and the size of the resident nonimmigrant population, are subject to other kinds of error. Thus, relatively small year-to-year differences should be disregarded, and the actual trends might be somewhat higher or lower than those shown here.

Page 10:

Table C. Annual Estimates of Population and Net Change of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000

(In thousands. Parts might not add to totals because of rounding)

Year

Est. Unauth. Residents, January 1

2000

7,000

1999

6,488

1998

6,098

1997

5,862

1996

5,581

1995

5,146

1994

4,750

1993

4,492

1992

4,204

1991

4,025

1990

3,500

[121] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, March 2013. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 1–2:

This report provides estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States as of January 2012 by period of entry, region and country of origin, state of residence, age, and sex. The estimates were obtained using the residual methodology employed for previous estimates of the unauthorized population (see Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker, 2012). The unauthorized immigrant population is the remainder or residual after the legally resident foreign-born population—legal permanent residents (LPRs), naturalized citizens, asylees, refugees, and nonimmigrants—is subtracted from the total foreign-born population. Data to estimate the legally resident population were obtained primarily from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whereas the American Community Survey (ACS) of the U.S. Census Bureau was the source for estimates of the total foreign-born population.

In summary, an estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in January 2012 compared to 11.5 million in January 2011. These results suggest little to no change in the unauthorized immigrant population from 2011 to 2012. Of all unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2012, 42 percent entered in 2000 or later. Entrants since 2005 accounted for 14 percent of the total. Fifty-nine percent of unauthorized immigrants in 2012 were from Mexico. …

The unauthorized resident immigrant population is defined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents (see above). Most unauthorized residents either entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and stayed past the date they were required to leave. Unauthorized immigrants applying for adjustment to LPR status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are unauthorized until they have been granted lawful permanent residence, even though they may have been authorized to work. Persons who are beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—an estimated several hundred thousand—are not technically unauthorized but were excluded from the legally resident immigrant population because data are unavailable in sufficient detail to estimate this population.

Methodology and Data

Two populations are estimated in order to derive the unauthorized population estimates: 1) the total foreign-born population living in the United States on January 1, 2012 and 2) the legally resident population on the same date. The unauthorized population estimate is the residual when 2) is subtracted from 1). Foreign-born residents who entered the United States prior to 1980 were assumed to be legally resident since most were eligible for LPR [lawful permanent resident] status.1 Therefore, the starting point for the estimates was January 1, 1980. …

Limitations

Annual estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population are subject to sampling error in the ACS and considerable nonsampling error because of uncertainty in some of the assumptions required for estimation as indicated below. Caution is recommended in interpreting year-year changes in the size of the unauthorized population.

Assumptions about undercount of the foreign-born population in the ACS and rates of emigration. The estimates are sensitive to the assumptions that are made about these components (see Results).

Accuracy of year of entry reporting. Concerns exist among immigration analysts regarding the validity and reliability of Census survey data on the year of entry question, “When did this person come to live in the United States?” Errors also occur in converting DHS administrative dates for legally resident immigrants to year of entry dates.

Assumptions about the nonimmigrant population estimate. The estimates are based on admission dates and length of visit by class of admission and country of citizenship and not actual population counts.

Page 3:

Figure 1. Unauthorized Immigration Population: 2000–2012

Year

Number (Millions)

2000

8.5 *

2005

10.5 *

2006

11.3 *

2007

11.8 *

2008

11.6 *

2009

10.8 *

2010

10.8 *, 11.6 †

2011

11.5 †

2012

11.4 †

* Based on the 2000 Census

† Based on the 2010 Census

… It is unlikely that the unauthorized immigrant population has increased since 2007 given relatively high U.S. unemployment, improved economic conditions in Mexico, record low numbers of apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants at U.S. borders, and greater levels of border enforcement.

The sensitivity of the estimates to assumptions about undercount and emigration is illustrated with several examples. Doubling the unauthorized immigrant undercount rate from 10 percent to 20 percent increases the estimated unauthorized population in 2012 from 11.4 million to 12.9 million. By lowering or raising emigration rates 20 percent and holding all other assumptions constant, the estimated unauthorized immigrant population would range from 10.6 million to 12.3 million. Doubling the unauthorized immigrant undercount rate and lowering or raising emigration rates by 20 percent would expand the range of the estimated unauthorized immigrant population from 11.9 to 13.8 million.

[122] Report: “The Underground Labor Force Is Rising to the Surface.” By Robert Justich and Betty Ng. Bear Stearns Asset Management, January 3, 2005. <pdfs.semanticscholar.org>

Page 1 (of PDF): “The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people, more than double the official 9 million people estimated by the Census Bureau.”

Page 6:

Based on several criteria, we believe that immigration is growing significantly faster than the consensus estimates:

1. Remittances

2. Housing permits in gateway communities

3. School enrollment

4. Cross border flows …

Many immigrants, particularly those with immediate families in their native country, provide financial support to those left behind. …

… . The rate of increase in remittances far exceeds the increases in Mexicans residing in the U.S. and their wage growth. Between 1995 and 2003, the official tally of Mexicans has climbed 56%, and median weekly wage has increased by 10%. Yet total remittances jumped 199% over the same period. Even considering the declining costs of money transfers, the growth of remittances remains astounding.

Pages 7–8:

The rapid addition of bank accounts by Mexicans living in the U.S. is also revealing. … Wells Fargo opens an average of 700 new accounts everyday based on this identification, representing the fastest growing segment for the bank. To date, around 2.5 million matriculas have been issued, and the number is growing. …

In major immigrant gateway cities, the influx of immigrants has led to overcrowded dwellings and a housing boom unexplained by official population growth. Many illegal immigrants, especially those who just arrive, reside in congested dwellings in cities, with the hope of finding jobs and upgrading to better living conditions later. These congested dwellings often house far more tenants than they are built for, and their landlords have no qualms about cramming in additional renters for a surcharge. Even so, new housing demand in these illegal immigrant enclaves outstrips those in other areas.

In New Jersey, the three gateway towns of New Brunswick, Elizabeth, and Newark exemplify this trend. According to the census, the combined population in these three towns between 1990 and 2003 grew only 5.6%, less than the 9% reported in the rest of the three corresponding counties. Yet housing permits in these three towns shot up over six-fold, while the rest of the three counties only saw a three-fold increase. More importantly, 80% of these permits were designated for multiple dwellings, so the corresponding increase in people accommodated are even greater. …

… The enrollment statistics for a sample of school districts that included Queens, New York, Elizabeth, Newark and New Brunswick, New Jersey and Wake County in North Carolina revealed explosive growth in immigrant students, far beyond numbers consistent with legal migration limits.

[123] Article: “Illegal Aliens: Counting the Uncountable.” By James H. Walsh. Social Contract, Summer 2007. Pages 216–223. <www.thesocialcontract.com>

Pages 218–219:

The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 million a year. A DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] report, “Border Apprehensions: 2005,” documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.

Journeymen Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more) estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven. That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children. …

My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States.

About the Author

(<www.thesocialcontract.com>):

James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the United States Department of Justice, writes immigration commentary. During his INS tenure, Walsh was selected as a German Marshall Fund Scholar, traveled through Europe interviewing immigration officials, and published articles based on his findings. At INS, he worked with other federal agencies and with congressional committees on immigration matters. His assignments included consultations with foreign governments and international business concerns. He chaired a task force on Transit without Visa (TWOV), whose report identified weaknesses in pre-9/11 airport security.

Walsh has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (Middle District of Florida) and as a Special Trial Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime Section. He chaired the Constitutional Rights Committee, General Law Section, of the American Bar Association, and served on the Editorial Board of The Florida Bar Journal. His articles on immigration have appeared in MigrationWorld, Social Contract, The Florida Bar Journal, and Newsmax.com.

Walsh has a B.A. in history from Spring Hill College and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

[124] Article: “The Challenge of Accurately Estimating the Population of Illegal Immigrants.” By Nancy Bolton. Social Contract, Summer 2007. Pages 224–229. <www.thesocialcontract.com>

Page 224:

While the Census Bureau makes a Herculean effort to get a complete count, it is virtually impossible to get an accurate count of populations who are resistant to being identified. …

… The most definitive conclusion is that determining the size of the population residing illegally in the U.S is subject to very large inaccuracies.

Page 226:

Households containing immigrants who are not legal residents have an incentive not to identify those members.

The Current Population Survey (CPS), which was the basis of the estimate of 11.1 million undocumented migrants reported in March of 2005, is in turn tied to the Census. … While the CPS is a well-constructed survey instrument for measuring employment/unemployment, the survey design is tied to Census data and the CPS also relies on the candor of respondents.

Page 229:

Given the nature of the problem—counting a population composed of individuals that have considerable incentive to be invisible to government authorities—it is probably impossible to know with a high level of precision the size of that population. Although the Census Bureau puts enormous effort into making a complete count, they can only be successful if there is a high level of co-operation from the population being counted. One thing that all sources agree on is that the size of the illegal immigrant population has grown rapidly since the early 1990s. There are indications that the official sources could be underestimating the size of this rapidly growing population.

About the Author

(<www.thesocialcontract.com>):

Nancy Bolton is a demographic expert who developed and programmed the Population Estimation and Projection System for Los Angeles County; a system that produced estimates and projections of the population by age, sex and ethnicity for every census tract in the state. Bolton was the chief demographer for UCLA’s [University of California at Los Angeles] Business Forecast Project, where she produced research based articles for quarterly forecasts on demographic and economic issues. As a consultant to the Los Angeles County Urban Research Division, Bolton coordinated a study of the economic effects of illegal immigration on the county and developed an estimate of tax revenues generated by immigrants. The results were published in a watershed report, “The Impact of Undocumented Persons and Other Immigrants on Costs, Revenues and Services in Los Angeles County.” Bolton also served as a consultant to the Southern California Association of Governments, where she developed the computer programs that processed state tax records and demographic estimates. Nancy Bolton has a PhD. in urban planning from the University of Southern California.

[125] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, March 2013. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 1–2:

This report provides estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States as of January 2012 by period of entry, region and country of origin, state of residence, age, and sex. The estimates were obtained using the residual methodology employed for previous estimates of the unauthorized population (see Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker, 2012). The unauthorized immigrant population is the remainder or residual after the legally resident foreign-born population—legal permanent residents (LPRs), naturalized citizens, asylees, refugees, and nonimmigrants—is subtracted from the total foreign-born population. Data to estimate the legally resident population were obtained primarily from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whereas the American Community Survey (ACS) of the U.S. Census Bureau was the source for estimates of the total foreign-born population.

In summary, an estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in January 2012 compared to 11.5 million in January 2011. These results suggest little to no change in the unauthorized immigrant population from 2011 to 2012. Of all unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2012, 42 percent entered in 2000 or later. Entrants since 2005 accounted for 14 percent of the total. Fifty-nine percent of unauthorized immigrants in 2012 were from Mexico. …

The unauthorized resident immigrant population is defined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents (see above). Most unauthorized residents either entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and stayed past the date they were required to leave. Unauthorized immigrants applying for adjustment to LPR status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are unauthorized until they have been granted lawful permanent residence, even though they may have been authorized to work. Persons who are beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—an estimated several hundred thousand—are not technically unauthorized but were excluded from the legally resident immigrant population because data are unavailable in sufficient detail to estimate this population.

Methodology and Data

Two populations are estimated in order to derive the unauthorized population estimates: 1) the total foreign-born population living in the United States on January 1, 2012 and 2) the legally resident population on the same date. The unauthorized population estimate is the residual when 2) is subtracted from 1). Foreign-born residents who entered the United States prior to 1980 were assumed to be legally resident since most were eligible for LPR [lawful permanent resident] status.1 Therefore, the starting point for the estimates was January 1, 1980. …

Limitations

Annual estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population are subject to sampling error in the ACS and considerable nonsampling error because of uncertainty in some of the assumptions required for estimation as indicated below. Caution is recommended in interpreting year-year changes in the size of the unauthorized population.

Assumptions about undercount of the foreign-born population in the ACS and rates of emigration. The estimates are sensitive to the assumptions that are made about these components (see Results).

Accuracy of year of entry reporting. Concerns exist among immigration analysts regarding the validity and reliability of Census survey data on the year of entry question, “When did this person come to live in the United States?” Errors also occur in converting DHS administrative dates for legally resident immigrants to year of entry dates.

Assumptions about the nonimmigrant population estimate. The estimates are based on admission dates and length of visit by class of admission and country of citizenship and not actual population counts.

Page 3:

Figure 1. Unauthorized Immigration Population: 2000–2012

Year

Number (Millions)

2000

8.5 *

2005

10.5 *

2006

11.3 *

2007

11.8 *

2008

11.6 *

2009

10.8 *

2010

10.8 *, 11.6 †

2011

11.5 †

2012

11.4 †

* Based on the 2000 Census

† Based on the 2010 Census

… It is unlikely that the unauthorized immigrant population has increased since 2007 given relatively high U.S. unemployment, improved economic conditions in Mexico, record low numbers of apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants at U.S. borders, and greater levels of border enforcement.

The sensitivity of the estimates to assumptions about undercount and emigration is illustrated with several examples. Doubling the unauthorized immigrant undercount rate from 10 percent to 20 percent increases the estimated unauthorized population in 2012 from 11.4 million to 12.9 million. By lowering or raising emigration rates 20 percent and holding all other assumptions constant, the estimated unauthorized immigrant population would range from 10.6 million to 12.3 million. Doubling the unauthorized immigrant undercount rate and lowering or raising emigration rates by 20 percent would expand the range of the estimated unauthorized immigrant population from 11.9 to 13.8 million.

[126] Report: “As Growth Stalls, Unauthorized Immigrant Population Becomes More Settled.” By Jeffrey S. Passel, D’Vera Cohn, Jens Manuel Krogstad, and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera. Pew Research, September 3, 2014. <www.pewresearch.org>

Page 5:

The new estimates are based mainly on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, using the widely accepted “residual methodology” employed by the center for many years.1 The estimates of the total population, as well as regarding the share of unauthorized immigrants with U.S. citizen children and length of residence in the U.S., update previously published estimates.

Page 14:

Table A1. Unauthorized Immigrant Population, by Age and Duration of Residence in the U.S., and Their U.S.-Born Children, 1995–2013

Year

Unauthorized Population

2013

11,300

2012

11,200

2011

11,500

2010

11,400

2009

11,300

2008

11,700

2007

12,200

2006

11,600

2005

11,100

2003

10,100

2000

8,600

1998

7,250

1995

5,700

Population figures in thousands, unless otherwise noted (see rounding notes below)

Pages 20–25:

Appendix C: Methodology

Overview

The estimates presented in this report for the unauthorized immigrant population are based on a residual estimation methodology that compares a demographic estimate of the number of immigrants residing legally in the country with the total number of immigrants as measured by a survey—either the American Community Survey (ACS) or the March Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS); the difference is assumed to be the number of unauthorized immigrants in the survey, a number that is later adjusted for omissions from the survey (see below). The basic estimate is:

Unauthorized Immigrants = Survey, Foreign Born – Estimated Legal Immigrant Population …

First, all immigrants entering the U.S. before 1980 are assumed to be legal immigrants. Then, the data are corrected for known over-reporting of naturalized citizenship on the part of recently arrived immigrants (Passel and others 1997) and all remaining naturalized citizens from countries other than Mexico and those in Central America are assigned as legal. … Finally, some individuals are assigned as legal immigrants because they are in certain occupations (such as police officer, lawyer, military occupation, federal job) that require legal status or because they are receiving public benefits (such as welfare or food stamps) that are limited to legal immigrants. As result of these steps, the foreign-born population is divided between individuals with “definitely legal” status (including long-term residents, naturalized citizens, refugees and asylees, legal temporary migrants, and some legal permanent residents) and a group of “potentially unauthorized” migrants.

The number of potentially unauthorized migrants typically exceeds the estimated number of unauthorized migrants (from the residual estimates) by 15–35%. So, to have a result consistent with the residual estimate of legal and unauthorized immigrants, probabilistic methods are employed to assign legal or unauthorized status to these potentially unauthorized individuals. This last step also involves a check to ensure that the legal statuses of family members are consistent; for example, all family members entering the country at the same time are assumed to have the same legal status.

[127] Paper: “US Undocumented Population Drops Below 11 Million in 2014, with Continued Declines in the Mexican Undocumented Population.” By Robert Warren. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2016. <journals.sagepub.com>

Page 1:

Undocumented immigration has been a significant political issue in recent years, and is likely to remain so throughout and beyond the presidential election year of 2016. One reason for the high and sustained level of interest in undocumented immigration is the widespread belief that the trend in the undocumented population is ever upward. This paper shows that this belief is mistaken and that, in fact, the undocumented population has been decreasing for more than a half a decade.

Page 3:

Figure 1. Total Undocumented Population: 2008 to 2014

Year

Number (Millions)

2008

12.0

2009

11.9

2010

11.7

2011

11.3

2012

11.1

2013

11.0

2014

10.9

Page 13:

The following is a brief description of the methodology that CMS [Center for Migration Studies] used to derive detailed annual estimates of the undocumented population for 2010 to 2014. As Table A-1 shows, the initial focus was on the estimates for 2010; the procedures used to derive the estimates for each year after that are straightforward.

The estimation began with the reported characteristics of non-US citizens (henceforth, noncitizens) in the micro data of the ACS [American Community Survey] in 2010. For the estimation procedure, the three relevant data items from the survey are country of birth, citizenship, and year of entry. Noncitizens who entered the United States before 1982 are excluded because (1) pre-1982 entrants could have legalized under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and (2) those who did not do so have had about 30 years in which to leave the undocumented resident population.7

The methodology involved three major steps: (1) applying a series of edits, referred to here as “logical edits,”8 to identify as many legal residents as possible based on responses in the survey; (2) deriving separate population controls, for 145 countries or areas, for undocumented residents in 2010; and (3) using those population controls to make final selections of individual respondents in the ACS to be classified as undocumented residents. Table A-1 shows the specific steps followed to select sample data for undocumented immigrants from Brazil who were counted in the ACS each year from 2010 to 2014. The same set of procedures were followed for each of the 145 countries or areas. A more detailed description of the data sources and methods is available in Warren (2014).

The final step in the methodology was to adjust the estimates for under-enumeration. The most recent entrants were assumed to have the highest undercount rates (about 12%), and the undercount rate drops steadily with length of residence, falling to 2 percent for those who entered in 1982. The estimated undercount rate for the entire population is approximately 7.5 percent.

[128] Webpage: “Journal on Migration and Human Security.” Journal on Migration and Human Security. Accessed July 26, 2021 at <journals.sagepub.com>

The Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS) is a peer-reviewed public policy publication of the Center for Migration Studies (CMS). The journal’s theme of “human security” is meant to evoke the widely shared goals of creating secure and sustaining conditions in migrant sending communities; promoting safe, legal migration options; and developing immigration and integration policies that benefit sending and receiving communities and allow newcomers to lead productive, secure lives. This thematic focus encompasses the broad scope of the social, political, and economic dimensions of “human security.”

[129] Paper: “The Number of Undocumented Immigrants in the United States: Estimates Based on Demographic Modeling with Data From 1990 to 2016.” By Mohammad M. Fazel-Zarandi, Jonathan S. Feinstein, and Edward H. Kaplan. PLOS One, September 21, 2018. <journals.plos.org>

Page 2:

An alternative approach to estimating the size of the undocumented population follows directly from basic demographic principles. Starting from a known population size at a given date, the population size at a future date equals the starting value plus the cumulative inflows minus the cumulative outflows. We employ this approach to estimate the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. for each year from 1990 to 2016, using the best available data and parameter values from the academic literature and government sources.

Page 3: “Population inflows are decomposed into two streams: (I) undocumented immigrants who initially entered the country legally but have overstayed their visas; and (II) immigrants who have illegally crossed the border without being apprehended.”

Page 5: “Population outflows are broken into four categories: (I) voluntary emigration; (II) mortality; (III) deportation; and (IV) change of status from unauthorized to lawful.”

Pages 8–9:

It is currently fairly widely accepted that there are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. This estimate, derived from population surveys and legal immigration records, has formed the backdrop for the immigration policy debate in the United States. Using a different approach grounded in operational data, and demographic and mathematical modeling, we have arrived at higher estimates of the undocumented immigrant population.

A possible explanation for the discrepancy in these results is that the survey-based approach … must surmount two challenges. First, it requires reaching a representative sample of all those born outside of the United States. Second, it requires accurate responses from survey respondents when asked where they were born, and whether they are American citizens. It is plausible that undocumented immigrants are more difficult to locate (and survey) than other foreign-born residents of the United States, and if contacted, undocumented immigrants might misreport their country of origin, citizenship, and/or number of household residents fearing the possible consequences of revealing their true status. Any of these circumstances would lead to underestimating the true number of undocumented immigrants.

Page 10: “Our results lead us to the conclusion that the widely accepted estimate of 11.3 million undocumented immigrants in the United States is too small. Our model estimates indicate that the true number is likely to be larger, with an estimated ninety-five percent probability interval ranging from 16.2 to 29.5 million undocumented immigrants.”

[130] Report: “U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Total Dips to Lowest Level in a Decade.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn. Pew Research Center, November 27, 2018. <www.pewhispanic.org>

Page 5: “There were 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2016, down from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007, according to the new estimates.”

Pages 36–37:

The estimates for the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population presented in this report are based on a residual estimation methodology that compares a demographic estimate of the number of immigrants residing legally in the country with the total number of immigrants as measured by either the American Community Survey or the March Supplement to the Current Population Survey. The difference is assumed to be the number of unauthorized immigrants in the survey, a number that later is adjusted for omissions from the survey (see below). …

The lawful resident immigrant population is estimated by applying demographic methods to counts of lawful admissions covering the period since 1980 obtained from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics and its predecessor at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, with projections to current years, when necessary. Initial estimates here are calculated separately for age-gender groups in six states (California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas) and the balance of the country; within these areas the estimates are further subdivided into immigrant populations from 35 countries or groups of countries by period of arrival in the United States.

The overall estimates for unauthorized immigrants build on these residuals by adjusting for survey omissions in these six states and the balance of the country, subdivided for Mexican immigrants and other groups of immigrants (balance of Latin America, South and East Asia, rest of world) depending on sample size and state.

Once the residual estimates have been produced, individual foreign-born respondents in the survey are assigned a specific status (one option being unauthorized immigrant) based on the individual’s demographic, social, economic, geographic and family characteristics in numbers that agree with the initial residual estimates for the estimated lawful immigrant and unauthorized immigrant populations in the survey. These status assignments are the basis for the characteristics reported here (including, for example, specific countries of birth, detailed state estimates, period of arrival and household-family relationships). A last step in the weighting-estimation process involves developing state-level estimates that take into account trends over time in the estimates.

[131] Report: “Mexicans Decline to Less Than Half the U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Population for the First Time.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn. Pew Research Center, June 12, 2019. <www.pewresearch.org>

In 2017, there were 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., including 4.9 million Mexicans.

The decrease in the Mexican born was the major factor driving down the overall population of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., which in 2017 was 1.7 million below its peak of 12.2 million in 2007. …

How Did We Estimate the U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Population?

Pew Research Center bases the estimates in this post on a “residual method” similar to those employed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics and nongovernmental organizations, such as the Center for Migration Studies and the Migration Policy Institute. Those organizations’ estimates are generally consistent with ours. Our estimates also align with official U.S. data sources, including birth records, school enrollment figures and tax data, as well as Mexican censuses and surveys.

The first step in our method is to use U.S. census counts and government surveys, such as the American Community Survey, to calculate how many immigrants live in the U.S. in a particular year. Next, we use official counts of immigrant admissions and other demographic data (death rates, for example) to determine how many of these immigrants live in the U.S. legally. Then we subtract those lawful immigrants from the total to get an estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population.

Based on experience and research, we know the census counts and other official surveys tend to miss some people. Unauthorized immigrants are especially likely to be missed. Therefore, we do a further assessment of potential undercounts or undercoverage. Based on this additional research, our final estimate of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population includes an upward adjustment for undercount.

[132] Article: “Reverse Migration to Mexico Led to US Undocumented Population Decline: 2010 to 2018.” By Robert Warren. Journal on Migration and Human Security, March 1, 2020. <journals.sagepub.com>

Page 32:

This report presents estimates of the undocumented population residing in the United States in 2018, highlighting demographic changes since 2010. The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) compiled these estimates based primarily on information collected in the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). The annual CMS estimates of undocumented residents for 2010 to 2018 include all the detailed characteristics collected in the ACS.1 A summary of the CMS estimation procedures, as well as a discussion of the plausibility of the estimates, is provided in the Appendix.

The total undocumented population in the United States continued to decline in 2018, primarily because large numbers of undocumented residents returned to Mexico. From 2010 to 2018, a total of 2.6 million Mexican nationals left the US undocumented population;2 about 1.1 million, or 45 percent of them, returned to Mexico voluntarily. The decline in the US undocumented population from Mexico since 2010 contributed to declines in the undocumented population in many states. Major findings include the following:

• The total US undocumented population was 10.6 million in 2018, a decline of about 80,000 from 2017, and a drop of 1.2 million, or 10 percent, since 2010.

Page 33: “The total US undocumented population declined from 11,750,000 in 2010 to 10,565,000 in 2018. The decline of 1.2 million during the eight-year period occurred despite an increasing number of arrivals, from about 425,000 in 2010 to about 550,000 per year in 2018….”

Pages 40–41:

Derivation of CMS Estimates of Undocumented Residents

CMS used the procedures given here (Steps 1 to 5) to derive estimates of the undocumented resident population in 2010. The same steps11 were followed to derive estimates for each year after 2010. The classification of noncitizens as undocumented residents was done at the microdata level. The CMS estimates shown here were compiled by country of origin and single year of entry from those data sets. Warren (2014) provides a detailed description of the methodology and compares the CMS estimates based on this methodology to estimates derived using the residual method.

Step 1. The first step in the estimation procedure was to compile data from the 2010 ACS for all noncitizens who entered the United States from 1982 to 2010. It was assumed that nearly all undocumented residents are in the category “noncitizens who entered the U.S. after 1981.” Very few who entered before 1982 would still be residing here as undocumented residents in 2010 because (1) a large percentage of those who entered before 1982 obtained legal status under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA);12 and (2) those who entered before 1982 and did not apply for legalization had 28 years in which to leave the undocumented resident population—that is, to secure legal status, be removed, leave voluntarily, or die.

Step 2. A series of edits, referred to as “logical edits,”13 were used to identify and remove as many legal residents as possible from the population compiled in Step 1. The logical edits are based on responses in the survey.

Step 3. Separate population controls were estimated for 145 countries or areas for undocumented residents counted in the 2010 ACS. For each country or area, the ratio of the population control to the logically edited population (from Step 2) was computed.

Step 4. The country-by-country ratios derived in Step 3 were used to randomly select individual respondents in the ACS to be classified as undocumented residents.

Step 5. The final step in the CMS estimation procedure is to adjust the figures derived in Step 4 for undercount. The rates shown in Table A3 were derived on the assumption that undercount of undocumented immigrants drops with length of residence. These undercount assumptions are consistent with undercount rates for the Hispanic male population counted in the ACS as measured by the US Census Bureau (Jensen, Bhaskar, and Scopilliti 2015). Those rates are shown in Table A4.

11 Note that independent population controls were computed only for 2010; the country-by-country selection ratios for 2010, computed in Step 3, were used in Step 4 for every year after 2010.

12 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) went into effect in 1987. Two main groups were eligible for legalization, each with their own residency requirements: (1) legalization applicants who continuously resided in the United States since before January 1, 1982; and (2) Special Agricultural Workers (SAWs) who had 90 days of seasonal agricultural work experience in qualifying crops from May 1985 to May 1986. About 1.6 million legalization applicants and 1.1 million SAW applicants were approved.

13 The term “logical edit” refers to the process of determining probable legal status by examining survey data. For example, respondents were assigned to the legal category if they worked in occupations that generally require legal status, had the characteristics of legal temporary migrants, were immediate relatives of US citizens, received public benefits restricted to legal residents, were from countries from which most arrivals would be refugees, or were age 60 or older at entry.

[133] Webpage: “Journal on Migration and Human Security.” Journal on Migration and Human Security. Accessed July 26, 2021 at <journals.sagepub.com>

The Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS) is a peer-reviewed public policy publication of the Center for Migration Studies (CMS). The journal’s theme of “human security” is meant to evoke the widely shared goals of creating secure and sustaining conditions in migrant sending communities; promoting safe, legal migration options; and developing immigration and integration policies that benefit sending and receiving communities and allow newcomers to lead productive, secure lives. This thematic focus encompasses the broad scope of the social, political, and economic dimensions of “human security.”

[134] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This report presents estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States on January 1 each year from 2015 through 2018. The results are tabulated according to available demographic characteristics, including period of entry, country of origin, state of residence, age, and sex. As in previous editions, the estimates were calculated using the residual method in which the unauthorized population is the remainder (or residual) after the legally resident, foreign-born population—naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents (LPRs), asylees, refugees, and certain nonimmigrants—is subtracted from the total foreign-born population.1 The legally-resident subpopulation was estimated primarily based on the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) administrative records and modeled components of population change (such as emigration and mortality), and the total foreign-born population estimate was derived from the American Community Survey (ACS) of the U.S. Census Bureau with adjustments for undercount and the choice of reference date. The population must be estimated because there is no nationally representative survey or census that includes information on the legal status of foreign-born residents.

In summary, DHS estimates that 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States on January 1, 2018, roughly unchanged from 11.4 million on January 1, 2015.2 Slightly fewer than 50 percent of the unauthorized immigrants in 2018 were from Mexico, compared to nearly 55 percent in 2015. About 15 percent entered since January of 2010 and 40 percent reside in California or Texas. …

The resident unauthorized immigrant population is defined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents as defined above. Most unauthorized immigrants either entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and remained past the date they were required to depart. Persons who are beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or other forms of prosecutorial discretion, or who are residing in the United States while awaiting removal proceedings in immigration court are included among the estimates of the unauthorized population. Unauthorized immigrants applying for adjustment to LPR status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are considered to be part of the resident unauthorized population until they have been granted lawful permanent residence.

Methodology Overview and Data

This report estimates two populations to derive the unauthorized immigrant population estimate: 1) the total foreign-born population living in the United States on January 1 of each year 2015–2018, and 2) the legally-resident, foreign-born population on the same dates. The unauthorized immigrant population estimate is the residual when the second population is subtracted from the first population.

Pages 10–11:

Limitations

Annual estimates of the unauthorized population are subject to sampling error in the ACS and considerable non-sampling error because of uncertainty in some of the assumptions required for estimation described above.

Assumptions about undercount of the foreign-born population in the ACS. The foreign-born—particularly unauthorized immigrants and nonimmigrants—are less likely than native-born Americans to respond to or to be included in responses to government surveys. To control for undercount of these “hard to count” populations, analysts must make assumptions about the extent of the undercount and then adjust the ACS survey estimates accordingly. The estimates are sensitive to these undercount adjustments.

Assumptions about rates of emigration. The preexisting legally-resident, foreign-born population declines over time through mortality and emigration. Mortality rates can be estimated from standard demographic tables, but current, nationally representative data necessary to construct similar tables for emigration rates do not exist. The estimates are sensitive to emigration modeling assumptions.

Accuracy of year of entry reporting. Census data suggest that respondents provide unreliable answers to the Census year-of-entry question (“When did this person come to live in the United States?”), with disproportionate numbers of responses “heaping” on round numbers. Errors also occur in converting DHS administrative dates for LPRs into year of entry dates.

Assumptions about the nonimmigrant population estimate. The estimates are based on admission dates of nonimmigrants admitted under classes of admission associated with temporary residence and on typical visit lengths as measured by matched arrival and departure records. Thus, the estimates are sensitive to sudden changes in visit-length trends; are biased downward to the extent that some nonimmigrants adjust to immigrant status and do not ever depart the United States; and do not conform perfectly to the definition of residence in the ACS.13

Sampling error in the ACS. The estimates of the total foreign-born population that moved to the United States in the 1980–2017 period are based on a sample and are thus subject to sampling variability. Actual year-to-year fluctuations in the population size may be larger or smaller than estimated in the ACS, particularly when the foreign-born population is subdivided by state of residence or country of origin. The estimated margin of error for the estimate of the total foreign-born population in the 2017 ACS PUMS [Public Use Microdata Sample] at the 90 percent confidence level is plus or minus approximately 180,000.

[135] Calculated with data from the report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 13: “Table A2-1. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population (in thousands) by Country of Birth and State of Residence: 2000 and 2005–2018”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[136] Calculated with data from the report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 13: “Table A2-1. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population (in thousands) by Country of Birth and State of Residence: 2000 and 2005–2018”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[137] Book: American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2015.

Article: “Census, U.S.” By Susan Wierzbicki. Pages 69–72.

Page 72:

Because the census determines congressional representation and how resources are allocated, it is often the subject of political contention. One issue has to do with sampling, that is, using various statistical techniques to reduce the problem of undercounting those likely to be missed by census takers. Predominant among these are the homeless and, most significant, undocumented immigrants. Since such people tend to be located in primarily Democratic regions of the country—urban areas and states such as California and New York—sampling has been denounced by Republicans, who say it is unscientific and does not meet the constitutional mandate for a decadal “enumeration.” For these reasons, sampling has not been used to determine final census numbers for the purposes of congressional representation.

[138] Calculated with data from the report: “World Population Prospects: 2015 Revision.” United Nations Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015. <www.un.org>

Pages 13–17:

Table S.1. Total Population by Sex in 2015 and Sex Ratio by Country in 2015

Population (thousands) …

World … 2015 [=] 7,349,472 …

United States of America [=] 321,774

CALCULATION: 321,774 / 7,349,472 = 4.4%

[139] Calculated with data from the report: “International Migration Policies: Government Views and Priorities.” United Nations Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2013. <www.un.org>

Page 91:

Information about undocumented migrants or migrants in irregular situation is often difficult to obtain or quantify. Estimates vary greatly from one source to another. For example, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) has estimated that 10–15 per cent of the world’s 214 million international migrants in 2010 were undocumented (IOM, 2013a). The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has estimated that around one third of all migration flows in countries in less developed regions were undocumented (UNDP, 2009). Both the United Nations and the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] include undocumented migrants in their estimation of migrant stocks, but the exact magnitude of migrants in irregular situation remains unknown.

The United States of America is one of the few countries with relatively accurate estimates of undocumented migrants. Using a “residual methodology”, the number of undocumented migrants in the United States of America was estimated at 11.7 million in March 2012 (Pew Research Center, 2013). For the 27 countries of the European Union in 2008, the CLANDESTINO Project estimated 1.9–3.8 million undocumented migrants (CLANDESTINO, 2009). In Australia, the Government estimated that in 2012 about 61,000 persons were in irregular situation (Australia, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 2013). The Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation estimated the number of undocumented migrants at 3 million in 2013 (RIA Novosti, 2013), whereas the OECD had estimated a total of 5–6 million undocumented migrants in Russia in 2012 (OECD, 2012).

CALCULATION: 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. / (214 million immigrants in the world × 10% to 15% illegal) = 36% to 55%

[140] Report: “U.S. Nonimmigrant Admissions: 2019.” By Waleed Navarro. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, July 2020. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

Nonimmigrants are foreign nationals granted temporary admission to the United States. The major purposes for which nonimmigrant admissions are authorized include temporary visits for business or pleasure, academic or vocational study, temporary employment, and to act as a representative of a foreign government or international organization. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) collects information regarding nonimmigrant admissions at ports of entry (POEs) and from DHS Form I-94/I-94W arrival records. The 2019 U.S. Nonimmigrant Admissions Annual Flow Report, authored by the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), presents workload information on total nonimmigrant admissions and detailed data gathered from Form I-94/I-94W arrival records on the number and characteristics of nonimmigrant admissions to the United States in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019.1,2

Summary

In 2019, DHS granted more than 186 million nonimmigrant admissions to the United States, according to DHS workload estimates (Figure 1).3 These admissions included over 81 million nonimmigrants who were issued Form I-94/I-94W (essentially unchanged from 2018)—the primary focus of this report.4 About 91 percent of I-94/I-94W admissions were temporary visitors for business and pleasure, 5.1 percent were temporary workers and their families, and 2.3 percent were students and their families. The leading countries of citizenship for I-94/I-94W admissions were Mexico (26 percent), Canada (17 percent), the United Kingdom (6.5 percent), Japan (4.8 percent), and the People’s Republic of China (China) (4.0 percent)—all virtually unchanged from 2018.

[141] Calculated with the dataset: “Table 7.1. Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and Chained Dollars.” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised March 25, 2021. <apps.bea.gov>

“Population (midperiod, thousands) … 2019 [=] 328,527”

CALCULATION: 186,000,000 / 328,527,000 = 57%

[142] Report: “Population Estimates of Nonimmigrants Residing in the United States: Fiscal Years 2017–2019.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, May 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This report presents estimates of the size and characteristics of the population of nonimmigrants residing in the United States in fiscal years 2017 through 2019.1 Nonimmigrants are foreign nationals admitted into the United States for specific, temporary purposes. Examples of such temporary purposes include tourism, work, study, participation in an exchange program, representing a foreign government or international organization, and accompanying a principal nonimmigrant as an immediate family member or, in some cases, as a member of the principal nonimmigrant’s staff. This report focuses exclusively on nonimmigrants admitted for purposes associated with residence, such as work and study, and excludes nonimmigrants admitted for non-residential purposes, such as tourism.2 ….

The estimates presented here are derived from U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) administrative records of nonimmigrant arrivals and departures. Data are not available to measure the resident nonimmigrant population directly, so this report uses a statistical model of nonimmigrant visit lengths and applies the model to the population of nonimmigrants entering in the last 10 years to estimate the current population. …

Summary

About 3.2 million nonimmigrant workers, students, exchange visitors, and diplomats and other representatives were temporarily residing within the United States in 2019, up from about 2.8 million in 2018 and 2.6 million in 2017….3 These totals and data throughout this report include principal nonimmigrants and their dependent family members.4 Temporary workers comprised about 50 percent of the population each year, about 35 percent were students, about 10 percent were exchange visitors, and the remaining 4 percent were diplomats and other representatives.

Region and Country of Citizenship

About 60 percent of the resident nonimmigrants in 2019 were citizens of Asian countries …. led by India with slightly more than 25 percent and the People’s Republic of China (China) with nearly 15 percent. Another 17 percent came from North America, Mexico and Canada in particular, and Europe accounted for another 14 percent.5 Five percent were from South America, and 40 percent of those South Americans were from Brazil.

Pages 8–9:

In addition, no nationally representative surveys exist that are immediately useful for estimating or measuring the resident nonimmigrant population. Although several representative surveys distinguish between native- and foreign-born persons, no large, national surveys distinguish between (temporary) nonimmigrants and (permanent) immigrants. …

Analysis was restricted to resident nonimmigrant classes of admission, i.e., classes characterized by visits lasting two months or longer on average.8 The 2-month duration was chosen in order to be consistent with the residence definitions used in the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and DHS estimates of the size and characteristics of the unauthorized immigrant population (Baker, 2020). Because admission under a residence class does not always indicate residence in the United States, data were further restricted by omitting records for persons exhibiting likely commuter behavior (defined here as arriving in the United States seven or more times per year).

Limitations

The accuracy and precision of the population estimates depend on how well the visit-length probability models derived from departure cohorts in the most recent year represent the visit-length probabilities for all visits, the choice of classification variables, and the veracity of the assumptions.

[143] Report: “Citizenship and Immigration Statuses of the U.S. Foreign-Born Population.” U.S. Congressional Research Service. Updated July 18, 2022. <sgp.fas.org>

Page 1: “[S]ome nonimmigrants are admitted for purposes associated with U.S. residence. Approximately 3.2 million nonimmigrant workers, students, exchange visitors, diplomats, and their relatives were residing in the United States in 2019, according to the most recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimate.”

[144] Webpage: “Definition of Terms.” Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. Last revised March 16, 2018. <www.dhs.gov>

Temporary Worker – An alien coming to the United States to work for a temporary period of time. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration Act of 1990, as well as other legislation, revised existing classes and created new classes of nonimmigrant admission. Nonimmigrant temporary worker classes of admission are as follows:

1. H-1A – registered nurses (valid from 10/1/1990 through 9/30/1995);

2. H-1B – workers with “specialty occupations” admitted on the basis of professional education, skills, and/or equivalent experience;

3. H-1C – registered nurses to work in areas with a shortage of health professionals under the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999;

4. H-2A – temporary agricultural workers coming to the United States to perform agricultural services or labor of a temporary or seasonal nature when authorized workers are unavailable in the United States;

5. H-2B – temporary non-agricultural workers coming to the United States to perform temporary services or labor if unemployed persons capable of performing the service or labor cannot be found in the United States;

6. H-3 – aliens coming temporarily to the United States as trainees, other than to receive graduate medical education or training;

7. O-1, O-2, O-3 – temporary workers with extraordinary ability or achievement in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; those entering solely for the purpose of accompanying and assisting such workers; and their spouses and children;

8. P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4 – athletes and entertainers at an internationally recognized level of performance; artists and entertainers under a reciprocal exchange program; artists and entertainers under a program that is “culturally unique”; and their spouses and children;

9. Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 – participants in international cultural exchange programs; participants in the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program; and spouses and children of Irish Peace Process participants;

10. R-1, R-2 – temporary workers to perform work in religious occupations and their spouses and children.

See other sections of this Glossary for definitions of Exchange Visitor, Intracompany Transferee, and U.S.-Canada or North American Free-Trade Agreement classes of nonimmigrant admission.

[145] Webpage: “DHS Measures on the Border to Limit the Further Spread of Coronavirus.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, October 19, 2020. Last updated 3/8/21. <www.dhs.gov>

In order to limit the further spread of coronavirus, the U.S. has reached agreements with both Canada and Mexico to limit all non-essential travel across borders. Working closely and collaboratively, the Department of Homeland Security is part of a North American approach to stop the spread of the virus. …

These measures were originally implemented on April 20, 2020 and have been extended by 30 day increments throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic….

“Non-essential” travel includes travel that is considered tourism or recreational in nature.

[146] Report: “Covid-19: Federal Travel Restrictions and Quarantine Measures.” By Edward C. Liu. Congressional Research Service. Updated May 28, 2020. <crsreports.congress.gov>

Pages 1–2:

In response to the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the federal government has taken several actions to deter persons with potential COVID-19 infection from entering the country. …

To deter the entry of aliens into the United States who may have been exposed to COVID-19, President Trump has invoked his authority over alien entry under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). That provision allows the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens, or any class of aliens” whose entry he “finds … would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Under this authority, President Trump has issued several proclamations to restrict the entry of aliens who were recently present in countries affected by COVID-19.

A Proclamation on January 31, 2020, generally suspended the entry of any foreign national who had been in mainland China at some point within the prior 14 days. But lawful permanent residents (LPRs), most immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs, and certain other groups, such as some airplane and ship crew members, are exempt from this restriction, as are those with prior presence in Hong Kong or Macau. On February 29, 2020, President Trump issued a second Proclamation that similarly suspends the entry of any foreign national who has been in Iran within the prior 14 days, in addition to making minor amendments to the earlier Proclamation. In March 2020, President Trump issued two Proclamations imposing the same restrictions on foreign nationals who have been in the Schengen Area of the European Union, Ireland, or the United Kingdom within the prior 14 days. On May 24, 2020, the President issued another proclamation invoking Section 212(f) to restrict the entry of the same categories of noncitizens from Brazil. To be clear, none of the restrictions in these proclamations applies to U.S. citizens, LPRs, most immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and certain other groups specifically exempted in the proclamations.

[147] “Fiscal Year 2020 U.S. Nonimmigrant Admissions Annual Flow Report.” By Scott Meeks. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 4, 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 2 (of PDF):

Nonimmigrants are foreign nationals granted temporary admission to the United States. The major purposes for which nonimmigrant admissions are authorized include temporary visits for business or pleasure, academic or vocational study, temporary employment, and to act as a representative of a foreign government or international organization. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) collects information regarding nonimmigrant admissions at ports of entry (POEs) and from DHS Form I-94/I-94W arrival records. The 2020 U.S. Nonimmigrant Admissions Annual Flow Report, authored by the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), presents workload information on total nonimmigrant admissions and detailed data gathered from Form I-94/ I-94W arrival records on the number and characteristics of nonimmigrant admissions to the United States in Fiscal Year 2020.1,2

Summary

In 2020, DHS granted about 86 million nonimmigrant admissions to the United States, according to DHS workload estimates (Figure 1).3 These admissions included over 37 million nonimmigrants who were issued Form I-94/I-94W—the primary focus of this report.4 Nonimmigrant admissions in 2020 were down 54 percent from 2019 (Figure 2) and down 51 percent from the average over the last 10 years—a period that experienced an average annual growth of 1.7 percent over that time. The abnormally low number of nonimmigrants in 2020 reflects policy and behavioral changes resulting from the global pandemic. About 89 percent of I-94/I-94W admissions were temporary visitors for business and pleasure, 6.9 percent were temporary workers and their families, and 2.5 percent were students and their families (Table 1). The five leading countries of citizenship for I-94/I-94W admissions were Mexico (30 percent), Canada (18 percent), the United Kingdom (5.8 percent), Japan (4.7 percent), and South Korea (3.0 percent). These countries were also the leading countries of citizenship in 2019 except for South Korea, which replaced the People’s Republic of China.

Page 7 (of PDF):

Nonimmigrant Admissions During the COVID Pandemic

Noncitizen flows in 2020 were not representative of typical trends, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic impacted both foreign nationals living within the United States and prospective travelers to the United States, creating difficulties such as travel restrictions and processing shutdowns, and revealing status-specific vulnerabilities in terms of health care. The 2016–2020 period also saw numerous policy changes on immigration, including major changes to enforcement. Due to the tumultuous nature of 2020, it is difficult to trace shifting immigration flows to a single factor; rather, it is important to note that many factors together contributed to a very atypical year for noncitizen flows….

[148] Calculated with the dataset: “Table 7.1. Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and Chained Dollars.” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised June 29, 2022. <apps.bea.gov>

“Population (midperiod, thousands) … 2020 [=] 331,761”

CALCULATION: 86,000,000 / 331,761,000 = 26%

[149] Report: “U.S. Nonimmigrant Admissions: 2021.” By Scott Meeks. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, July 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 1–2:

Nonimmigrants are foreign nationals granted temporary admission to the United States. The major purposes for which nonimmigrant admissions are authorized include temporary visits for business or pleasure, academic or vocational study, temporary employment, and to act as a representative of a foreign government or international organization. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) collects information regarding nonimmigrant admissions at ports of entry (POEs) and from DHS Form I-94/I-94W arrival records. …

Summary

In 2021, DHS granted more than 35 million nonimmigrant admissions to the United States, according to DHS workload estimates…. These included over 14 million nonimmigrants who were issued Form I-94—the primary focus of this report.5 Nonimmigrant admissions in 2021 were down 59 percent from 2020 and down 80 percent from the last 10 years’ average ending in 2019; a decade which experienced an average annual growth of 1.7 percent over that time. The abnormally low number of nonimmigrants reflects policy and behavioral changes resulting from the global pandemic. Of the 14 million I-94 admissions, 76 percent were temporary visitors for business and pleasure, 14 percent were temporary workers and families…. The five leading countries of citizenship for I-94 admissions were Mexico (33 percent), Canada (11 percent), Colombia (6.7 percent), India (4.0 percent), and the Dominican Republic (2.7 percent)…. In 2020, Mexico, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea were the five leading countries of citizenship.

[150] Calculated with the dataset: “Table 7.1. Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and Chained Dollars.” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2022. <apps.bea.gov>

“Population (midperiod, thousands) … 2021 [=] 332,213”

CALCULATION: 35,000,000 / 332,213,000 = 10%

[151] Report: “Latinos See U.S. as Better Than Place of Family’s Ancestry for Opportunity, Raising Kids, Health Care Access.” By Mark Hugo Lopez and Mohamad Moslimani. Pew Research Center, January 20, 2022. <www.pewresearch.org>

Page 6:

[M]ost Latinos born in either Puerto Rico or another country say that if they had to make the choice again, they would migrate to the U.S. Overall, 84% say they would come to the U.S. if they had to do it again, with mostly similar shares saying so across immigrant groups by legal status….

Much smaller shares of Hispanics born in Puerto Rico or another country say they would not come to the U.S. again. Some 8% say they would stay where they were born, and another 7% say they would migrate to someplace other than the U.S.

Page 8: “About eight-in-ten U.S.-born Hispanics (79%) say the opportunity to get ahead is better in the U.S. than in their ancestors’ place of origin, with large majorities across generations saying so. The share rises to 87% among Hispanics born in Puerto Rico or another country.”

Page 2:

For this analysis we surveyed 3,375 U.S. Hispanic adults in March 2021. This includes 1,900 Hispanic adults on Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) and 1,475 Hispanic adults on Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel. Respondents on both panels are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. Recruiting panelists by phone or mail ensures that nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. This gives us confidence that any sample can represent the whole population (see our Methods 101 explainer on random sampling), or in this case the whole U.S. Hispanic population. To further ensure the survey reflects a balanced cross-section of the nation’s Hispanic adults, the data is weighted to match the U.S. Hispanic adult population by age, gender, education, nativity, Hispanic origin group and other categories.

Page 3:

Born in Puerto Rico or another country refers to persons born in Puerto Rico or born outside of the United States to parents of whom neither was a U.S. citizen. Although individuals born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens by birth, they are grouped with those born in another country for the purposes of this report for a variety of reasons: They are born into a Spanish-dominant culture, and on many points their attitudes, views and beliefs are much closer to those of Hispanics born outside the U.S. than of Hispanics born in the 50 states or the District of Columbia, even when compared with those who identify themselves as being of Puerto Rican origin.

Page 18:

The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey. …

Born in Puerto Rico or another country … Unweighted sample size [=] 1,623

Born in the 50 United States or the District of Columbia … Unweighted sample size [=] 1,607

NOTE: For facts about what constitutes a scientific survey and the factors that impact their accuracy, visit Just Facts’ research on Deconstructing Polls & Surveys.

[152] Dataset: “2018 National Survey of Latinos.” Pew Research Center. April 29, 2019. <www.pewresearch.org>

Page 50: “21B. Overall would you say (INSERT) (IS/ARE) better in the United States, better in (the country your parents or ancestors came from/Puerto Rico/the country you came from), or about the same? d. The opportunity to get ahead … Better in the US … Foreign Born [=] 87 [%]”

Page 65:

Results for this study are based on telephone interviews conducted by SSRS, an independent research company, for Pew Research Center among a nationally representative sample of 1,501 Latino respondents ages 18 and older. It was conducted on cellular and landline telephones from July 26 through September 9, 2018.

For the full sample, a total of 742 respondents were U.S. born (including Puerto Rico), and 759 were foreign born (excluding Puerto Rico). For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. …

For this survey, SSRS used a staff of bilingual English- and Spanish-speaking interviewers who, when contacting a household, were able to offer respondents the option of completing the survey in Spanish or English. A total of 626 respondents (41.7%) were surveyed in Spanish, and 875 respondents (58.3%) were interviewed in English. Any person age 18 or older who said they were of Hispanic/Latino origin or descent was eligible to complete the survey.

NOTE: For facts about what constitutes a scientific survey and the factors that impact their accuracy, visit Just Facts’ research on Deconstructing Polls & Surveys.

[153] Article: “Poll of U.S. Latinos Offers Snapshot of Immigrant Vs. Nonimmigrant Experience.” By Gene Demby. NPR [National Public Radio], January 24, 2014. <www.npr.org>

“1,478 Total Latinos … 41% Non-Immigrants … 59% Immigrants”

[154] Report: “Latinos’ Lives and Health Today Summary, Part Two: Immigrants and Non-Immigrants.” NPR [National Public Radio], Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Harvard School of Public Health, January 2014. <www.rwjf.org>

Page 2:

The survey asked Latino immigrants about the reasons they had come to this country and found that most report there was more than one major reason. A strong majority (81%) report a major reason was to have a better life. High numbers also say that finding a better job or other economic reasons (70%) and living in a safer community (62%) were major reasons. Half (50%) said joining family members was a major reason, while just under a third (32%) said getting better health care was a major reason.

Page 5:

Interviews were conducted via telephone (including both landline and cell phone) by SSRS of Media (PA), June 11–July 14, 2013, among a nationally representative sample of 1478 Latinos age 18 and older. The interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. The margin of error for total respondents is ± 3.7 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

NOTE: For facts about what constitutes a scientific survey and the factors that impact their accuracy, visit Just Facts’ research on Deconstructing Polls & Surveys.

[155] Article: “From Germany to Mexico: How America’s Source of Immigrants Has Changed Over a Century.” By Jens Manuel Krogstad and Michael Keegan. Pew Research, October 7, 2015. <www.pewresearch.org>

“Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the United States since 1965, making the nation the top destination in the world for those moving from one country to another. Mexico, which shares a nearly 2,000-mile border with the U.S., is the source of the largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States.”

[156] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

Nation

Estimate

Margin of Error

Portion of Total †

Mexico

10,697,374

±77,802

24%

China

2,754,249

±33,988

6%

India

2,709,199

±42,095

6%

Philippines

1,982,434

±28,468

4%

El Salvador

1,418,147

±37,374

3%

Vietnam

1,338,538

±31,531

3%

Cuba

1,278,627

±21,257

3%

Dominican Republic

1,255,036

±31,371

3%

Guatemala

1,106,523

±32,157

2%

Korea

1,011,589

±23,039

2%

Total of Top 10 †

25,551,716

56%

Colombia

854,921

±26,432

2%

Canada

778,497

±15,597

2%

Jamaica

796,290

±25,960

2%

Honduras

767,573

±35,169

2%

Haiti

696,982

±22,417

2%

United Kingdom (inc. Crown Dependencies):

701,102

±17,802

2%

Germany

540,203

±12,217

1%

Brazil

569,325

±23,585

1%

Venezuela

545,234

±22,254

1%

 Peru

452,207

±18,052

1%

Ecuador

481,238

±20,129

1%

Poland

412,797

±15,206

1%

Pakistan

398,363

±20,632

1%

Nigeria

443,181

±21,442

1%

Russia

425,429

±12,813

1%

Iran

397,735

±16,456

1%

Taiwan

374,103

±13,611

1%

Ukraine

398,040

±15,525

1%

Japan

345,668

±12,723

1%

Italy

303,297

±11,557

1%

England

335,156

±11,133

1%

Bangladesh

286,320

±16,292

1%

Thailand

250,677

±10,669

1%

Nicaragua

256,696

±15,453

1%

Ethiopia

271,847

±15,525

1%

Guyana

289,870

±16,345

1%

Iraq

227,643

±16,498

1%

All Others †

6,986,164

15%

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

[157] Report: “Troubled by Crime, the Economy, Drugs and Corruption: Most Mexicans See Better Life in U.S.—One-in-Three Would Migrate.” Pew Research, September 23, 2009. <assets.pewresearch.org>

Page 2: “Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 1,000 adults in Mexico between May 26 and June 2, 2009. The sample is representative of the country’s adult population, and the margin of sampling error for the results is plus or minus three percentage points.”

Page 32:

Q9a Now I am going to read you a list of things that may be problems in our country. Tell me if you think it is a very big problem, a moderately big problem, a small problem or not a problem at all: a. crime

Very Big Problem

Moderately Big Problem

Small Problem

Not a Problem at All

DK/Refused

Total

Spring, 2009

81

17

2

0

0

100

Spring, 2007

64

32

3

0

1

100

Summer, 2002

81

17

1

0

0

100

Q9b Now I am going to read you a list of things that may be problems in our country. Tell me if you think it is a very big problem, a moderately big problem, a small problem or not a problem at all: b. corrupt political leaders

Very Big Problem

Moderately Big Problem

Small Problem

Not a Problem at All

DK/Refused

Total

Spring, 2009

68

26

5

1

1

100

Spring, 2007

63

28

6

2

1

100

Summer, 2002

72

23

3

0

1

100

Page 38:

Q42 In the past year, how often, if ever, have you had to do a favor, give a gift or pay a bribe to a government official in order to get services or a document that the government is supposed to provide?

Very Often

Somewhat
Often

Not Too Often

Not at All

Never
(Volunteered)

DK/Refused

Total

Spring, 2009

7

23

21

34

14

2

100

Spring, 2007

13

21

19

31

14

2

100

Summer, 2002

8

15

16

38

21

1

100

CALCULATION: 7% Very often + 23% Somewhat often + 21% Not too often = 51% Sometime in past year

Page 40:

Q68 If, at this moment you had the means and opportunity to go to live in the United States, would you go?

Yes

No

DK/Refused

Total

Spring, 2009

33

62

5

100

Q69 Ask if Respondent Wants to Go to Live in the United States: And would you be inclined to go work and live in the U.S. without authorization?

Yes

No

DK/Refused

Total

N

Spring, 2009

55

41

4

100

341

[158] Book: Introductory Econometrics: Using Monte Carlo Simulation with Microsoft Excel. By Humberto Barreto and Frank M. Howland. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Page 43:

Association Is Not Causation

A second problem with the correlation coefficient involves its interpretation. A high correlation coefficient means that two variables are highly associated, but association is not the same as causation.

This issue is a persistent problem in empirical analysis in the social sciences. Often the investigator will plot two variables and use the tight relationship obtained to draw absolutely ridiculous or completely erroneous conclusions. Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.

[159] Article: “Statistical Malpractice.” By Bruce G. Charlton. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, March 1996. Pages 112–114. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>

Page 112: “Science is concerned with causes but statistics is concerned with correlations.”

Page 113: “The root of most instances of statistical malpractice is the breaking of mathematical neutrality and the introduction of causal assumptions into analysis without justifying them on scientific grounds.”

[160] Book: Business and Competitive Analysis: Effective Application of New and Classic Methods (2nd edition). By Craig S. Fleisher and Babette E. Bensoussan. Pearson Education, 2015.

Pages 338–339: “One of the biggest potential problems with statistical analysis is the quality of the interpretation of the results. Many people see cause-and-effect relationships ‘evidenced’ by statistics, which are in actuality simply describing data associations or correlation having little or nothing to do with casual factors.”

[161] Report: “International Comparisons of GDP Per Capita and Per Hour, 1960–2011.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 7, 2012. <www.bls.gov>

Page 1: “GDP per capita, when converted to U.S. dollars using purchasing power parities, is the most widely used income measure for international comparisons of living standards.”

Page 2:

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is defined as the value of all market and some nonmarket goods and services produced within a country’s geographic borders. As such, it is the most comprehensive measure of a country’s economic output that is estimated by statistical agencies. GDP per capita may therefore be viewed as a rough indicator of a nation’s economic well being, while GDP per hour worked can provide a general picture of a country’s productivity.

[162] Textbook: Microeconomics for Today (9th edition). By Irvin B. Tucker. South-Western Cengage Learning, 2016.

Page 473: “GDP [gross domestic product] per capita provides a general index of a country’s standard of living. Countries with low GDP per capita and slow growth in GDP per capita are less able to satisfy basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, and health.”

[163] Book review: “The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. By William Easterly. MIT Press, 2001.” By Terry J. Fitzgerald (Senior Economist and Assistant Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis). The Region, September 2003. <www.minneapolisfed.org>

Economists are sometimes criticized for focusing their attention on gross domestic product per capita, or income per person, as a measure of the material success of an economy. Easterly explains why they do: “We experts don’t care about rising gross domestic product for its own sake. We care because it betters the lot of the poor and reduces the proportion of people who are poor. We care because richer people can eat more and buy more medicines for their babies.”

Still, an important empirical question is whether national economic growth raises the incomes of those in poverty, not just those who are already well off. Here Easterly provides the reader with an overview of the evidence on poverty and growth and reports that the answer is a clear yes. (Throughout the book the author offers readers numerous direct references should they wish to peruse the evidence on their own.) And in a statement that may rankle some, Easterly provocatively offers that “growth has been much more of a lifesaver to the poor than redistribution.” Indeed, recent research by Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University—released after The Elusive Quest’s publication—finds that poverty has declined dramatically worldwide over the past three decades as incomes have risen. Yet, not all would concede Easterly’s point.

[164] Working paper: “Growth is Good for the Poor.” By David Dollar and Aart Kraay. World Bank, April 2001. <library1.nida.ac.th>

Page 5:

Income of the poor has a very tight link with overall incomes. The top panel of Figure 1 shows the logarithm of average income in the poorest fifth of the population plotted against the logarithm of average income for the whole economy (per capita GDP) [gross domestic product]. The graph includes 418 observations covering 137 countries, and multiple observations for a single country are separated by at least five years over time. The slope of this relationship is very close to one, and all of the observations are closely clustered around this regression line. This indicates that as overall income increases, on average incomes of the poor increase equiproportionately.

[165] Chart constructed with data from:

a) Dataset: “Net Migration Rate, 2022.” The World Factbook (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency). Accessed September 20, 2022 at <www.cia.gov>

“Net migration rate compares the difference between the number of persons entering and leaving a country during the year per 1,000 persons (based on midyear population).”

b) Dataset: “GDP Per Capita, PPP (Current International $).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed September 27, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

“This indicator provides per capita values for gross domestic product (GDP) expressed in current international dollars converted by purchasing power parity (PPP) conversion factor. GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the country plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. Conversion factor is a spatial price deflator and currency converter that controls for price level differences between countries. Total population is a mid-year population based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship.”

NOTES:

  • The chart is cropped to improve data visibility, and hence, it does not show several outliers. These outliers don’t materially impact the overall trend.
  • The “GDP Per Capita” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.
  • An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[166] Chart constructed with data from:

a) Dataset: “Net Migration Rate, 2022.” The World Factbook (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency). Accessed September 20, 2022 at <www.cia.gov>

“Net migration rate compares the difference between the number of persons entering and leaving a country during the year per 1,000 persons (based on midyear population).”

b) Dataset: “Corruption Perceptions Index 2021.” Transparency International. Accessed September 20, 2022 at <images.transparencycdn.org>

Tab: “CPI2021”

NOTES:

  • The chart is cropped to improve data visibility, and hence, it does not show several outliers. These outliers don’t materially impact the overall picture or trend.
  • See the forthcoming footnotes for information about the Transparency International Index.
  • An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[167] “Corruption Perceptions Index Frequently Asked Questions.” Transparency International, January 24, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Page 1:

What is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)?

The CPI scores and ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be by experts and business executives. It is a composite index, a combination of 13 surveys and assessments of corruption, collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide.

Which data sources are used for the CPI?

The CPI draws on 13 data sources from 12 independent institutions specialising in governance and business climate analysis. The sources of information used for the CPI are based on data published in the previous two years. The CPI includes only sources that provide a score for a set of countries/territories and that measure expert perceptions of corruption in the public sector.

[168] “Corruption Perceptions Index 2021: Short Methodology Note.” Transparency International, January 24, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Page 1: “The CPI [Corruption Perceptions Index] 2021 is calculated using 13 different data sources from 12 different institutions that capture perceptions of corruption within the past two years. These sources are described in detail in the accompanying source description document.”

[169] “Corruption Perceptions Index 2021: Technical Methodology Note.” Transparency International, January 24, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Page 2:

Each of the data sources used to calculate the CPI [Corruption Perceptions Index] is evaluated against the following criteria:

A) Methodological reliability and institutional reputation.…

B) Conceptual alignment of the data.…

C) Quantitative granularity.…

D) Cross country comparability.…

E) Multi year data availability.…

In order to carry out this quality assurance process, Transparency International reaches out to each one of the institutions providing data in order to verify the methodology used to generate their scores. Since some of the sources are not publicly available, Transparency International also requests permission to publish the rescaled scores from each source alongside the composite CPI score. Transparency International is, however, not permitted to share the original scores given by private sources with the general public.

[170] Chart constructed with data from:

a) Dataset: “Net Migration Rate, 2022.” The World Factbook (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency). Accessed September 20, 2022 at <www.cia.gov>

“Net migration rate compares the difference between the number of persons entering and leaving a country during the year per 1,000 persons (based on midyear population).”

b) Dataset: “Ease of Doing Business Index (1 = Most Business-Friendly Regulations).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed September 27, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

“Ease of doing business ranks economies from 1 to 190, with first place being the best. The ranking of economies is determined by sorting the aggregate ease of doing business scores. A high ranking (a low numerical rank) means that the regulatory environment is conducive to business operation. … The fundamental premise of this data is that economic activity requires good rules and regulations that are efficient, accessible to all who need to use them, and simple to implement. … The Doing Business methodology has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the data. First, the data collected refer to businesses in the economy’s largest city and may not represent regulations in other locations of the economy. To address this limitation, subnational indicators are being collected for selected economies. These subnational studies point to significant differences in the speed of reform and the ease of doing business across cities in the same economy. Second, the data often focus on a specific business form—generally a limited liability company of a specified size—and may not represent regulation for other types of businesses such as sole proprietorships. Third, transactions described in a standardized business case refer to a specific set of issues and may not represent the full set of issues a business encounters. Fourth, the time measures involve an element of judgment by the expert respondents. When sources indicate different estimates, the Doing Business time indicators represent the median values of several responses given under the assumptions of the standardized case. Fifth, the methodology assumes that a business has full information on what is required and does not waste time when completing procedures. …Data are collected by the World Bank with a standardized survey that uses a simple business case to ensure comparability across economies and over time—with assumptions about the legal form of the business, its size, its location, and nature of its operation. Surveys are administered through more than 9,000 local experts, including lawyers, business consultants, accountants, freight forwarders, government officials, and other professionals who routinely administer or advise on legal and regulatory requirements. The Doing Business project of the World Bank encompasses two types of data: data from readings of laws and regulations and data on time and motion indicators that measure efficiency in achieving a regulatory goal. Within the time and motion indicators cost estimates are recorded from official fee schedules where applicable. The data from surveys are subjected to numerous tests for robustness, which lead to revision or expansion of the information collected.”

NOTES:

  • The chart is cropped to improve data visibility, and hence, it does not show several outliers. These outliers don’t materially impact the overall trend.
  • The “Ease of Doing Business Index” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.
  • An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[171] Chart constructed with data from:

a) Dataset: “Net Migration Rate, 2022.” The World Factbook (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency). Accessed September 20, 2022 at <www.cia.gov>

“Net migration rate compares the difference between the number of persons entering and leaving a country during the year per 1,000 persons (based on midyear population).”

b) Dataset: “Intentional Homicides (Per 100,000 People).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed September 20, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

“Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded. … The intentional killing of a human being by another is the ultimate crime. Its indisputable physical consequences manifested in the form of a dead body also make it the most categorical and calculable. All existing data sources on intentional homicides, both at national and international level, stem from either criminal justice or public health systems. … An analysis of official reports and research literature is regularly carried out to verify homicide data used by government agencies and the scientific community. As a result of the data collection and validation process, in many countries several homicide datasets have become available from different or multiple sources. Therefore, data series have been selected to provide the most appropriate reference counts.”

NOTES:

  • The chart is cropped to improve data visibility, and hence, it does not show several outliers. These outliers don’t materially impact the overall trend.
  • The “Intentional Homicides” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.
  • An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[172] Textbook: Introduction to Air Pollution Science. By Robert F. Phalen and Robert N. Phalen. Jones & Bartlett, 2013.

Page 168: “The availability of affordable electric power is essential for public health and economic prosperity.”

[173] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Net Migration Rate, 2022.” The World Factbook (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency). Accessed September 20, 2022 at <www.cia.gov>

“Net migration rate compares the difference between the number of persons entering and leaving a country during the year per 1,000 persons (based on midyear population).”

b) Dataset: “International Electricity Net Consumption (Billion kWh).” U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Accessed October 4, 2022 at <www.eia.gov>

c) Dataset: “International Population (Thousands of Persons).” U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Accessed October 4, 2022 at <www.eia.gov>

NOTES:

  • The chart is cropped to improve data visibility, and hence, it does not show several outliers. These outliers don’t materially impact the overall picture or trend.
  • The “Electricity Net Consumption” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.
  • For more facts about energy and human welfare, visit Just Facts’ research on energy.

[174] Chart constructed with data from:

a) Dataset: “Net Migration Rate, 2022.” The World Factbook (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency). Accessed September 20, 2022 at <www.cia.gov>

“Net migration rate compares the difference between the number of persons entering and leaving a country during the year per 1,000 persons (based on midyear population).”

b) Dataset: “Current Health Expenditure Per Capita, PPP (Current International $).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed September 27, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

“Current expenditures on health per capita expressed in international dollars at purchasing power parity. … The levels and trends of health expenditure data identify key issues such as weaknesses and strengths and areas that need investment, for instance additional health facilities, better health information systems, or better trained human resources. … The health expenditure estimates have been prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) under the framework of the System of Health Accounts 2011 (SHA 2011). The Health SHA 2011 tracks all health spending in a given country over a defined period of time regardless of the entity or institution that financed and managed that spending. It generates consistent and comprehensive data on health spending in a country, which in turn can contribute to evidence-based policy-making.”

NOTES:

  • The chart is cropped to improve data visibility, and hence, it does not show several outliers. These outliers don’t materially impact the overall trend.
  • The “Health Expenditure Per Capita” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.
  • An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[175] Book: Introductory Econometrics: Using Monte Carlo Simulation with Microsoft Excel. By Humberto Barreto and Frank M. Howland. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Page 43:

Association Is Not Causation

A second problem with the correlation coefficient involves its interpretation. A high correlation coefficient means that two variables are highly associated, but association is not the same as causation.

This issue is a persistent problem in empirical analysis in the social sciences. Often the investigator will plot two variables and use the tight relationship obtained to draw absolutely ridiculous or completely erroneous conclusions. Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.

[176] Article: “Statistical Malpractice.” By Bruce G. Charlton. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, March 1996. Pages 112–114. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>

Page 112: “Science is concerned with causes but statistics is concerned with correlations.”

Page 113: “The root of most instances of statistical malpractice is the breaking of mathematical neutrality and the introduction of causal assumptions into analysis without justifying them on scientific grounds.”

[177] Book: Business and Competitive Analysis: Effective Application of New and Classic Methods (2nd edition). By Craig S. Fleisher and Babette E. Bensoussan. Pearson Education, 2015.

Pages 338–339: “One of the biggest potential problems with statistical analysis is the quality of the interpretation of the results. Many people see cause-and-effect relationships ‘evidenced’ by statistics, which are in actuality simply describing data associations or correlation having little or nothing to do with casual factors.”

[178] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

Nation

Estimate

Margin of Error

Portion of Total †

Mexico

10,697,374

±77,802

24%

China

2,754,249

±33,988

6%

India

2,709,199

±42,095

6%

Philippines

1,982,434

±28,468

4%

El Salvador

1,418,147

±37,374

3%

Vietnam

1,338,538

±31,531

3%

Cuba

1,278,627

±21,257

3%

Dominican Republic

1,255,036

±31,371

3%

Guatemala

1,106,523

±32,157

2%

Korea

1,011,589

±23,039

2%

Total of Top 10 †

25,551,716

56%

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

[179] Dataset: “GDP Per Capita, PPP (Current International $).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed September 27, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

This indicator provides per capita values for gross domestic product (GDP) expressed in current international dollars converted by purchasing power parity (PPP) conversion factor. GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the country plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. conversion factor is a spatial price deflator and currency converter that controls for price level differences between countries. Total population is a mid-year population based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship.

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

NOTES:

  • The “GDP Per Capita” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.
  • GDP data for Cuba is unavailable from this source.

[180] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

Nation

Estimate

Margin of Error

Portion of Total †

Mexico

10,697,374

±77,802

24%

China

2,754,249

±33,988

6%

India

2,709,199

±42,095

6%

Philippines

1,982,434

±28,468

4%

El Salvador

1,418,147

±37,374

3%

Vietnam

1,338,538

±31,531

3%

Cuba

1,278,627

±21,257

3%

Dominican Republic

1,255,036

±31,371

3%

Guatemala

1,106,523

±32,157

2%

Korea

1,011,589

±23,039

2%

Total of Top 10 †

25,551,716

56%

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

[181] Dataset: “Ease of Doing Business Index (1 = Most Business-Friendly Regulations).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed September 27, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

Ease of doing business ranks economies from 1 to 190, with first place being the best. The ranking of economies is determined by sorting the aggregate ease of doing business scores. A high ranking (a low numerical rank) means that the regulatory environment is conducive to business operation. …

Development Relevance: The economic health of a country is measured not only in macroeconomic terms but also by other factors that shape daily economic activity such as laws, regulations, and institutional arrangements. The fundamental premise of this data is that economic activity requires good rules and regulations that are efficient, accessible to all who need to use them, and simple to implement. …

General Comments: Data are presented for the survey year instead of publication year.

Limitations and Exceptions: The Doing Business methodology has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the data. First, the data collected refer to businesses in the economy’s largest city and may not represent regulations in other locations of the economy. To address this limitation, subnational indicators are being collected for selected economies. These subnational studies point to significant differences in the speed of reform and the ease of doing business across cities in the same economy. Second, the data often focus on a specific business form—generally a limited liability company of a specified size—and may not represent regulation for other types of businesses such as sole proprietorships. Third, transactions described in a standardized business case refer to a specific set of issues and may not represent the full set of issues a business encounters. Fourth, the time measures involve an element of judgment by the expert respondents. When sources indicate different estimates, the Doing Business time indicators represent the median values of several responses given under the assumptions of the standardized case. Fifth, the methodology assumes that a business has full information on what is required and does not waste time when completing procedures. …

Statistical Concept and Methodology: Data are collected by the World Bank with a standardized survey that uses a simple business case to ensure comparability across economies and over time—with assumptions about the legal form of the business, its size, its location, and nature of its operation. Surveys are administered through more than 9,000 local experts, including lawyers, business consultants, accountants, freight forwarders, government officials, and other professionals who routinely administer or advise on legal and regulatory requirements. The indicator measures the time, cost, and outcome of insolvency proceedings involving domestic entities. The Doing Business project of the World Bank encompasses two types of data: data from readings of laws and regulations and data on time and motion indicators that measure efficiency in achieving a regulatory goal. Within the time and motion indicators cost estimates are recorded from official fee schedules where applicable. The data from surveys are subjected to numerous tests for robustness, which lead to revision or expansion of the information collected.

NOTES:

  • The “Ease of Doing Business Index” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.
  • Data is not available for Cuba from this source.

[182] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

Nation

Estimate

Margin of Error

Portion of Total †

Mexico

10,697,374

±77,802

24%

China

2,754,249

±33,988

6%

India

2,709,199

±42,095

6%

Philippines

1,982,434

±28,468

4%

El Salvador

1,418,147

±37,374

3%

Vietnam

1,338,538

±31,531

3%

Cuba

1,278,627

±21,257

3%

Dominican Republic

1,255,036

±31,371

3%

Guatemala

1,106,523

±32,157

2%

Korea

1,011,589

±23,039

2%

Total of Top 10 †

25,551,716

56%

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

[183] Dataset: “Corruption Perceptions Index 2021.” Transparency International. Accessed September 20, 2022 at <images.transparencycdn.org>

Tab: “CPI2021”

NOTES:

  • See the forthcoming footnotes for information about the Transparency International index.
  • An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[184] “Corruption Perceptions Index Frequently Asked Questions.” Transparency International, January 24, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Page 1:

What is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)?

The CPI scores and ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be by experts and business executives. It is a composite index, a combination of 13 surveys and assessments of corruption, collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide.

Which data sources are used for the CPI?

The CPI draws on 13 data sources from 12 independent institutions specialising in governance and business climate analysis. The sources of information used for the CPI are based on data published in the previous two years. The CPI includes only sources that provide a score for a set of countries/territories and that measure expert perceptions of corruption in the public sector.

[185] “Corruption Perceptions Index 2021: Short Methodology Note.” Transparency International, January 24, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Page 1: “The CPI [Corruption Perceptions Index] 2021 is calculated using 13 different data sources from 12 different institutions that capture perceptions of corruption within the past two years. These sources are described in detail in the accompanying source description document.”

[186] “Corruption Perceptions Index 2021: Technical Methodology Note.” Transparency International, January 24, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Page 2:

Each of the data sources used to calculate the CPI [Corruption Perceptions Index] is evaluated against the following criteria:

A) Methodological reliability and institutional reputation.…

B) Conceptual alignment of the data.…

C) Quantitative granularity.…

D) Cross country comparability.…

E) Multi year data availability.…

In order to carry out this quality assurance process, Transparency International reaches out to each one of the institutions providing data in order to verify the methodology used to generate their scores. Since some of the sources are not publicly available, Transparency International also requests permission to publish the rescaled scores from each source alongside the composite CPI score. Transparency International is, however, not permitted to share the original scores given by private sources with the general public.

[187] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

Nation

Estimate

Margin of Error

Portion of Total †

Mexico

10,697,374

±77,802

24%

China

2,754,249

±33,988

6%

India

2,709,199

±42,095

6%

Philippines

1,982,434

±28,468

4%

El Salvador

1,418,147

±37,374

3%

Vietnam

1,338,538

±31,531

3%

Cuba

1,278,627

±21,257

3%

Dominican Republic

1,255,036

±31,371

3%

Guatemala

1,106,523

±32,157

2%

Korea

1,011,589

±23,039

2%

Total of Top 10 †

25,551,716

56%

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

[188] Dataset: “Intentional Homicides (Per 100,000 People).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed September 20, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded. …

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

Development Relevance: In some regions, organized crime, drug trafficking and the violent cultures of youth gangs are predominantly responsible for the high levels of homicide. There has been a sharp increase in homicides in some countries, particularly in Central America, are making the activities of organized crime and drug trafficking more visible. Greater use of firearms is often associated with the illicit activities of organized criminal groups, which are often linked to drug trafficking. Knowledge of the patterns and causes of violent crime are crucial to forming preventive strategies. Young males are the group most affected by violent crime in all regions, particularly in the Americas. Yet women of all ages are the victims of intimate partner and family-related violence in all regions and countries. Indeed, in many of them, it is within the home where a woman is most likely to be killed. Data on intentional homicides are from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which uses a variety of national and international sources on homicides—primarily criminal justice sources as well as public health data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization—and the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems to present accurate and comparable statistics. The UNODC defines homicide as “unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.” This definition excludes deaths arising from armed conflict.

Limitations and Exceptions: Statistics reported to the United Nations in the context of its various surveys on crime levels and criminal justice trends are incidents of victimization that have been reported to the authorities in any given country. That means that this data is subject to the problems of accuracy of all official crime data. The survey results provide an overview of trends and interrelationships between various parts of the criminal justice system to promote informed decision-making in administration, nationally and internationally. The degree to which different societies apportion the level of culpability to acts resulting in death is also subject to variation. Consequently, the comparison between countries and regions of “intentional homicide”, or unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person, is also a comparison of the extent to which different countries deem that a killing be classified as such, as well as the capacity of their legal systems to record it. Caution should therefore be applied when evaluating and comparing homicide data. …

Statistical Concept and Methodology: The definitions used to produce data are in line with the homicide definition used in the UNODC Homicide Statistics dataset. On the basis of these selection criteria and subject to data availability, a long and continuous time series including recent data on homicide counts and rates has been identified or created at country level. Data included in the dataset correspond to the original value provided by the source of origin, since no statistical procedure or modeling was used to change collected values or to create new or revised figures. The intentional killing of a human being by another is the ultimate crime. Its indisputable physical consequences manifested in the form of a dead body also make it the most categorical and calculable. All existing data sources on intentional homicides, both at national and international level, stem from either criminal justice or public health systems. In the former case, data are generated by law enforcement or criminal justice authorities in the process of recording and investigating a crime event. In the latter, data are produced by health authorities certifying the cause of death of an individual. Criminal justice data were collected through UNODC regular collections of crime data from Member States, through publicly available data produced by national government sources and from data compiled by other international and regional agencies, including from Interpol, Eurostat, the Organization of American States and UNICEF [United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund]. Public health data on homicides were mainly derived from databases on deaths by cause disseminated by the World Health Organization (WHO). The inclusion of recent data was given a higher priority in the selection process than the length of the time series (number of years covered). An analysis of official reports and research literature is regularly carried out to verify homicide data used by government agencies and the scientific community. As a result of the data collection and validation process, in many countries several homicide datasets have become available from different or multiple sources. Therefore, data series have been selected to provide the most appropriate reference counts.

NOTE: The “Intentional Homicides” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.

[189] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

Nation

Estimate

Margin of Error

Portion of Total †

Mexico

10,697,374

±77,802

24%

China

2,754,249

±33,988

6%

India

2,709,199

±42,095

6%

Philippines

1,982,434

±28,468

4%

El Salvador

1,418,147

±37,374

3%

Vietnam

1,338,538

±31,531

3%

Cuba

1,278,627

±21,257

3%

Dominican Republic

1,255,036

±31,371

3%

Guatemala

1,106,523

±32,157

2%

Korea

1,011,589

±23,039

2%

Total of Top 10 †

25,551,716

56%

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

[190] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “International Electricity Net Consumption (Billion kWh).” U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Accessed October 4, 2022 at <www.eia.gov>

b) Dataset: “International Population (Thousands of Persons).” U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Accessed October 4, 2022 at <www.eia.gov>

NOTES:

  • The “Electric Power Consumption” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.
  • For more facts about energy and human welfare, visit Just Facts’ research on energy.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[191] Dataset: “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

Nation

Estimate

Margin of Error

Portion of Total †

Mexico

10,697,374

±77,802

24%

China

2,754,249

±33,988

6%

India

2,709,199

±42,095

6%

Philippines

1,982,434

±28,468

4%

El Salvador

1,418,147

±37,374

3%

Vietnam

1,338,538

±31,531

3%

Cuba

1,278,627

±21,257

3%

Dominican Republic

1,255,036

±31,371

3%

Guatemala

1,106,523

±32,157

2%

Korea

1,011,589

±23,039

2%

Total of Top 10 †

25,551,716

56%

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

[192] Dataset: “Current Health Expenditure Per Capita, PPP (Current International $).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed September 27, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

Current expenditures on health per capita expressed in international dollars at purchasing power parity. …

Development Relevance: Strengthening health financing is one objective of Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG target 3.c). The levels and trends of health expenditure data identify key issues such as weaknesses and strengths and areas that need investment, for instance additional health facilities, better health information systems, or better trained human resources. Health financing is also critical for reaching universal health coverage (UHC) defined as all people obtaining the quality health services they need without suffering financial hardship (SDG 3.8). The data on out-of-pocket spending is a key indicator with regard to financial protection and hence of progress towards UHC. …

Statistical Concept and Methodology: The health expenditure estimates have been prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) under the framework of the System of Health Accounts 2011 (SHA 2011). The Health SHA 2011 tracks all health spending in a given country over a defined period of time regardless of the entity or institution that financed and managed that spending. It generates consistent and comprehensive data on health spending in a country, which in turn can contribute to evidence-based policy-making.

NOTES:

  • The “Health Expenditure Per Capita” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.
  • For more facts about healthcare spending, visit Just Facts’ research on healthcare.

[193] Book: Introductory Econometrics: Using Monte Carlo Simulation with Microsoft Excel. By Humberto Barreto and Frank M. Howland. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Page 43:

Association Is Not Causation

A second problem with the correlation coefficient involves its interpretation. A high correlation coefficient means that two variables are highly associated, but association is not the same as causation.

This issue is a persistent problem in empirical analysis in the social sciences. Often the investigator will plot two variables and use the tight relationship obtained to draw absolutely ridiculous or completely erroneous conclusions. Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.

[194] Article: “Statistical Malpractice.” By Bruce G. Charlton. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, March 1996. Pages 112–114. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>

Page 112: “Science is concerned with causes but statistics is concerned with correlations.”

Page 113: “The root of most instances of statistical malpractice is the breaking of mathematical neutrality and the introduction of causal assumptions into analysis without justifying them on scientific grounds.”

[195] Book: Business and Competitive Analysis: Effective Application of New and Classic Methods (2nd edition). By Craig S. Fleisher and Babette E. Bensoussan. Pearson Education, 2015.

Pages 338–339: “One of the biggest potential problems with statistical analysis is the quality of the interpretation of the results. Many people see cause-and-effect relationships ‘evidenced’ by statistics, which are in actuality simply describing data associations or correlation having little or nothing to do with casual factors.”

[196] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 4:

Mexico continued to account for the largest share of the unauthorized population, with an estimated 5.42 million people from Mexico representing nearly 50 percent of the total unauthorized population in 2018 (see Table 2).7 The next five leading countries included the three Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador (730,000 people), Guatemala (620,000), and Honduras (450,000), along with India (540,000) and the People’s Republic of China (China) (410,000)—together accounting for just under an additional 25 percent of the total unauthorized population in 2018. The Philippines, Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela rounded out the top 10 in 2018, with South Korea, Vietnam, and Ecuador falling out of the top 10 list from the previous edition of this report (Baker, 2018).8

Table 2. Estimated Unauthorized Immigrant Population by Top 10 Countries of Birth: 2015–2018

Country of Birth

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

11,440,000

11,750,000

11,410,000

11,390,000

Mexico

6,200,000

5,970,000

5,860,000

5,420,000

El Salvador

720,000

750,000

750,000

730,000

Guatemala

600,000

610,000

610,000

620,000

India

450,000

560,000

490,000

540,000

Honduras

420,000

430,000

500,000

450,000

China, People’s Republic

320,000

420,000

410,000

410,000

Philippines

350,000

410,000

300,000

370,000

Colombia

130,000

140,000

130,000

210,000

Brazil

100,000

110,000

150,000

200,000

Venezuela

80,000

100,000

120,000

190,000

All other countries

2,080,000

2,260,000

2,090,000

2,260,000

Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

[197] Dataset: “GDP Per Capita, PPP (Current International $).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed September 27, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

This indicator provides per capita values for gross domestic product (GDP) expressed in current international dollars converted by purchasing power parity (PPP) conversion factor. GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the country plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. conversion factor is a spatial price deflator and currency converter that controls for price level differences between countries. Total population is a mid-year population based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship.

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

NOTE: The “GDP Per Capita” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.

[198] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 4:

Mexico continued to account for the largest share of the unauthorized population, with an estimated 5.42 million people from Mexico representing nearly 50 percent of the total unauthorized population in 2018 (see Table 2).7 The next five leading countries included the three Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador (730,000 people), Guatemala (620,000), and Honduras (450,000), along with India (540,000) and the People’s Republic of China (China) (410,000)—together accounting for just under an additional 25 percent of the total unauthorized population in 2018. The Philippines, Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela rounded out the top 10 in 2018, with South Korea, Vietnam, and Ecuador falling out of the top 10 list from the previous edition of this report (Baker, 2018).8

Table 2. Estimated Unauthorized Immigrant Population by Top 10 Countries of Birth: 2015–2018

Country of Birth

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

11,440,000

11,750,000

11,410,000

11,390,000

Mexico

6,200,000

5,970,000

5,860,000

5,420,000

El Salvador

720,000

750,000

750,000

730,000

Guatemala

600,000

610,000

610,000

620,000

India

450,000

560,000

490,000

540,000

Honduras

420,000

430,000

500,000

450,000

China, People’s Republic

320,000

420,000

410,000

410,000

Philippines

350,000

410,000

300,000

370,000

Colombia

130,000

140,000

130,000

210,000

Brazil

100,000

110,000

150,000

200,000

Venezuela

80,000

100,000

120,000

190,000

All other countries

2,080,000

2,260,000

2,090,000

2,260,000

Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

[199] Dataset: “Ease of Doing Business Index (1 = Most Business-Friendly Regulations).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed September 27, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

Ease of doing business ranks economies from 1 to 190, with first place being the best. The ranking of economies is determined by sorting the aggregate ease of doing business scores. A high ranking (a low numerical rank) means that the regulatory environment is conducive to business operation. …

Development Relevance: The economic health of a country is measured not only in macroeconomic terms but also by other factors that shape daily economic activity such as laws, regulations, and institutional arrangements. The fundamental premise of this data is that economic activity requires good rules and regulations that are efficient, accessible to all who need to use them, and simple to implement. …

General Comments: Data are presented for the survey year instead of publication year.

Limitations and Exceptions: The Doing Business methodology has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the data. First, the data collected refer to businesses in the economy’s largest city and may not represent regulations in other locations of the economy. To address this limitation, subnational indicators are being collected for selected economies. These subnational studies point to significant differences in the speed of reform and the ease of doing business across cities in the same economy. Second, the data often focus on a specific business form—generally a limited liability company of a specified size—and may not represent regulation for other types of businesses such as sole proprietorships. Third, transactions described in a standardized business case refer to a specific set of issues and may not represent the full set of issues a business encounters. Fourth, the time measures involve an element of judgment by the expert respondents. When sources indicate different estimates, the Doing Business time indicators represent the median values of several responses given under the assumptions of the standardized case. Fifth, the methodology assumes that a business has full information on what is required and does not waste time when completing procedures. …

Statistical Concept and Methodology: Data are collected by the World Bank with a standardized survey that uses a simple business case to ensure comparability across economies and over time—with assumptions about the legal form of the business, its size, its location, and nature of its operation. Surveys are administered through more than 9,000 local experts, including lawyers, business consultants, accountants, freight forwarders, government officials, and other professionals who routinely administer or advise on legal and regulatory requirements. The indicator measures the time, cost, and outcome of insolvency proceedings involving domestic entities. The Doing Business project of the World Bank encompasses two types of data: data from readings of laws and regulations and data on time and motion indicators that measure efficiency in achieving a regulatory goal. Within the time and motion indicators cost estimates are recorded from official fee schedules where applicable. The data from surveys are subjected to numerous tests for robustness, which lead to revision or expansion of the information collected.

NOTE: The “Ease of Doing Business Index” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.

[200] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 4:

Mexico continued to account for the largest share of the unauthorized population, with an estimated 5.42 million people from Mexico representing nearly 50 percent of the total unauthorized population in 2018 (see Table 2).7 The next five leading countries included the three Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador (730,000 people), Guatemala (620,000), and Honduras (450,000), along with India (540,000) and the People’s Republic of China (China) (410,000)—together accounting for just under an additional 25 percent of the total unauthorized population in 2018. The Philippines, Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela rounded out the top 10 in 2018, with South Korea, Vietnam, and Ecuador falling out of the top 10 list from the previous edition of this report (Baker, 2018).8

Table 2. Estimated Unauthorized Immigrant Population by Top 10 Countries of Birth: 2015–2018

Country of Birth

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

11,440,000

11,750,000

11,410,000

11,390,000

Mexico

6,200,000

5,970,000

5,860,000

5,420,000

El Salvador

720,000

750,000

750,000

730,000

Guatemala

600,000

610,000

610,000

620,000

India

450,000

560,000

490,000

540,000

Honduras

420,000

430,000

500,000

450,000

China, People’s Republic

320,000

420,000

410,000

410,000

Philippines

350,000

410,000

300,000

370,000

Colombia

130,000

140,000

130,000

210,000

Brazil

100,000

110,000

150,000

200,000

Venezuela

80,000

100,000

120,000

190,000

All other countries

2,080,000

2,260,000

2,090,000

2,260,000

Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

[201] Dataset: “Corruption Perceptions Index 2021.” Transparency International. Accessed September 20, 2022 at <images.transparencycdn.org>

Tab: “CPI2021”

NOTES:

  • See the forthcoming footnotes for information about the Transparency International index.
  • An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[202] “Corruption Perceptions Index Frequently Asked Questions.” Transparency International, January 24, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Page 1:

What is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)?

The CPI scores and ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be by experts and business executives. It is a composite index, a combination of 13 surveys and assessments of corruption, collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide.

Which data sources are used for the CPI?

The CPI draws on 13 data sources from 12 independent institutions specialising in governance and business climate analysis. The sources of information used for the CPI are based on data published in the previous two years. The CPI includes only sources that provide a score for a set of countries/territories and that measure expert perceptions of corruption in the public sector.

[203] “Corruption Perceptions Index 2021: Short Methodology Note.” Transparency International, January 24, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Page 1: “The CPI [Corruption Perceptions Index] 2021 is calculated using 13 different data sources from 12 different institutions that capture perceptions of corruption within the past two years. These sources are described in detail in the accompanying source description document.”

[204] “Corruption Perceptions Index 2021: Technical Methodology Note.” Transparency International, January 24, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Page 2:

Each of the data sources used to calculate the CPI [Corruption Perceptions Index] is evaluated against the following criteria:

A) Methodological reliability and institutional reputation.…

B) Conceptual alignment of the data.…

C) Quantitative granularity.…

D) Cross country comparability.…

E) Multi year data availability.…

In order to carry out this quality assurance process, Transparency International reaches out to each one of the institutions providing data in order to verify the methodology used to generate their scores. Since some of the sources are not publicly available, Transparency International also requests permission to publish the rescaled scores from each source alongside the composite CPI score. Transparency International is, however, not permitted to share the original scores given by private sources with the general public.

[205] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 4:

Mexico continued to account for the largest share of the unauthorized population, with an estimated 5.42 million people from Mexico representing nearly 50 percent of the total unauthorized population in 2018 (see Table 2).7 The next five leading countries included the three Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador (730,000 people), Guatemala (620,000), and Honduras (450,000), along with India (540,000) and the People’s Republic of China (China) (410,000)—together accounting for just under an additional 25 percent of the total unauthorized population in 2018. The Philippines, Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela rounded out the top 10 in 2018, with South Korea, Vietnam, and Ecuador falling out of the top 10 list from the previous edition of this report (Baker, 2018).8

Table 2. Estimated Unauthorized Immigrant Population by Top 10 Countries of Birth: 2015–2018

Country of Birth

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

11,440,000

11,750,000

11,410,000

11,390,000

Mexico

6,200,000

5,970,000

5,860,000

5,420,000

El Salvador

720,000

750,000

750,000

730,000

Guatemala

600,000

610,000

610,000

620,000

India

450,000

560,000

490,000

540,000

Honduras

420,000

430,000

500,000

450,000

China, People’s Republic

320,000

420,000

410,000

410,000

Philippines

350,000

410,000

300,000

370,000

Colombia

130,000

140,000

130,000

210,000

Brazil

100,000

110,000

150,000

200,000

Venezuela

80,000

100,000

120,000

190,000

All other countries

2,080,000

2,260,000

2,090,000

2,260,000

Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

[206] Dataset: “Intentional Homicides (Per 100,000 People).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed September 20, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded. …

Aggregation Method: Weighted average

Development Relevance: In some regions, organized crime, drug trafficking and the violent cultures of youth gangs are predominantly responsible for the high levels of homicide. There has been a sharp increase in homicides in some countries, particularly in Central America, are making the activities of organized crime and drug trafficking more visible. Greater use of firearms is often associated with the illicit activities of organized criminal groups, which are often linked to drug trafficking. Knowledge of the patterns and causes of violent crime are crucial to forming preventive strategies. Young males are the group most affected by violent crime in all regions, particularly in the Americas. Yet women of all ages are the victims of intimate partner and family-related violence in all regions and countries. Indeed, in many of them, it is within the home where a woman is most likely to be killed. Data on intentional homicides are from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which uses a variety of national and international sources on homicides—primarily criminal justice sources as well as public health data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization—and the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems to present accurate and comparable statistics. The UNODC defines homicide as “unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.” This definition excludes deaths arising from armed conflict.

Limitations and Exceptions: Statistics reported to the United Nations in the context of its various surveys on crime levels and criminal justice trends are incidents of victimization that have been reported to the authorities in any given country. That means that this data is subject to the problems of accuracy of all official crime data. The survey results provide an overview of trends and interrelationships between various parts of the criminal justice system to promote informed decision-making in administration, nationally and internationally. The degree to which different societies apportion the level of culpability to acts resulting in death is also subject to variation. Consequently, the comparison between countries and regions of “intentional homicide”, or unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person, is also a comparison of the extent to which different countries deem that a killing be classified as such, as well as the capacity of their legal systems to record it. Caution should therefore be applied when evaluating and comparing homicide data. …

Statistical Concept and Methodology: The definitions used to produce data are in line with the homicide definition used in the UNODC Homicide Statistics dataset. On the basis of these selection criteria and subject to data availability, a long and continuous time series including recent data on homicide counts and rates has been identified or created at country level. Data included in the dataset correspond to the original value provided by the source of origin, since no statistical procedure or modeling was used to change collected values or to create new or revised figures. The intentional killing of a human being by another is the ultimate crime. Its indisputable physical consequences manifested in the form of a dead body also make it the most categorical and calculable. All existing data sources on intentional homicides, both at national and international level, stem from either criminal justice or public health systems. In the former case, data are generated by law enforcement or criminal justice authorities in the process of recording and investigating a crime event. In the latter, data are produced by health authorities certifying the cause of death of an individual. Criminal justice data were collected through UNODC regular collections of crime data from Member States, through publicly available data produced by national government sources and from data compiled by other international and regional agencies, including from Interpol, Eurostat, the Organization of American States and UNICEF [United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund]. Public health data on homicides were mainly derived from databases on deaths by cause disseminated by the World Health Organization (WHO). The inclusion of recent data was given a higher priority in the selection process than the length of the time series (number of years covered). An analysis of official reports and research literature is regularly carried out to verify homicide data used by government agencies and the scientific community. As a result of the data collection and validation process, in many countries several homicide datasets have become available from different or multiple sources. Therefore, data series have been selected to provide the most appropriate reference counts.

NOTE: The “Intentional Homicides” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.

[207] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 4:

Mexico continued to account for the largest share of the unauthorized population, with an estimated 5.42 million people from Mexico representing nearly 50 percent of the total unauthorized population in 2018 (see Table 2).7 The next five leading countries included the three Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador (730,000 people), Guatemala (620,000), and Honduras (450,000), along with India (540,000) and the People’s Republic of China (China) (410,000)—together accounting for just under an additional 25 percent of the total unauthorized population in 2018. The Philippines, Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela rounded out the top 10 in 2018, with South Korea, Vietnam, and Ecuador falling out of the top 10 list from the previous edition of this report (Baker, 2018).8

Table 2. Estimated Unauthorized Immigrant Population by Top 10 Countries of Birth: 2015–2018

Country of Birth

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

11,440,000

11,750,000

11,410,000

11,390,000

Mexico

6,200,000

5,970,000

5,860,000

5,420,000

El Salvador

720,000

750,000

750,000

730,000

Guatemala

600,000

610,000

610,000

620,000

India

450,000

560,000

490,000

540,000

Honduras

420,000

430,000

500,000

450,000

China, People’s Republic

320,000

420,000

410,000

410,000

Philippines

350,000

410,000

300,000

370,000

Colombia

130,000

140,000

130,000

210,000

Brazil

100,000

110,000

150,000

200,000

Venezuela

80,000

100,000

120,000

190,000

All other countries

2,080,000

2,260,000

2,090,000

2,260,000

Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

[208] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “International Electricity Net Consumption (Billion kWh).” U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Accessed October 4, 2022 at <www.eia.gov>

b) Dataset: “International Population (Thousands of Persons).” U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Accessed October 4, 2022 at <www.eia.gov>

NOTES:

  • The “Electric Power Consumption” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.
  • For more facts about energy and human welfare, visit Just Facts’ research on energy.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[209] Webpage: “Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA).” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Last modified August 25, 2022. <www.cms.gov>

“In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.”

[210] Report: “EMTALA: Access to Emergency Medical Care.” By Edward C. Liu. Congressional Research Service, July 1, 2010. <www.everycrsreport.com>

Summary:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) ensures universal access to emergency medical care at all Medicare participating hospitals with emergency departments. Under EMTALA, any person who seeks emergency medical care at a covered facility, regardless of ability to pay, immigration status, or any other characteristic, is guaranteed an appropriate screening exam and stabilization treatment before transfer or discharge. Failure to abide by these requirements can subject hospitals or physicians to civil monetary sanctions or exclusion from Medicare. Hospitals may also be subject to civil liability under the statute for personal injuries resulting from the violation.

Page 1:

Only hospitals that (1) participate in Medicare and (2) maintain an emergency department are required to screen patients under EMTALA.7

7 … Although the screening and stabilization requirements are phrased such that they apply to “hospitals” generally, enforcement of EMTALA is only authorized against hospitals that have entered into a Medicare provider agreement.

[211] Report: “Underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid.” American Hospital Association, February 2022. <www.aha.org>

Page 1:

Hospital participation in Medicare and Medicaid is voluntary. However, as a condition for receiving federal tax exemption for providing health care to the community, not-for-profit hospitals are required to care for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Also, Medicare and Medicaid account for more than 60 percent of all care provided by hospitals. Consequently, very few hospitals can elect not to participate in Medicare and Medicaid.

[212] United States Code Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter XVIII, Part E, Section 1395dd: “Examination and Treatment for Emergency Medical Conditions and Women in Labor.” Accessed October 5, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Medical Screening Requirement

In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1)) exists.

(b) Necessary Stabilizing Treatment for Emergency Medical Conditions and Labor

(1) In General

If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—

(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or

(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c). …

(e) Definitions

In this section:

(1) The term “emergency medical condition” means—

(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—

(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,

(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or

(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—

(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or

(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

(2) The term “participating hospital” means a hospital that has entered into a provider agreement under section 1395cc of this title.

(3)

(A) The term “to stabilize” means, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(A), to provide such medical treatment of the condition as may be necessary to assure, within reasonable medical probability, that no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a facility, or, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(B), to deliver (including the placenta).

[213] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 4:

Mexico continued to account for the largest share of the unauthorized population, with an estimated 5.42 million people from Mexico representing nearly 50 percent of the total unauthorized population in 2018 (see Table 2).7 The next five leading countries included the three Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador (730,000 people), Guatemala (620,000), and Honduras (450,000), along with India (540,000) and the People’s Republic of China (China) (410,000)—together accounting for just under an additional 25 percent of the total unauthorized population in 2018. The Philippines, Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela rounded out the top 10 in 2018, with South Korea, Vietnam, and Ecuador falling out of the top 10 list from the previous edition of this report (Baker, 2018).8

Table 2. Estimated Unauthorized Immigrant Population by Top 10 Countries of Birth: 2015–2018

Country of Birth

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

11,440,000

11,750,000

11,410,000

11,390,000

Mexico

6,200,000

5,970,000

5,860,000

5,420,000

El Salvador

720,000

750,000

750,000

730,000

Guatemala

600,000

610,000

610,000

620,000

India

450,000

560,000

490,000

540,000

Honduras

420,000

430,000

500,000

450,000

China, People’s Republic

320,000

420,000

410,000

410,000

Philippines

350,000

410,000

300,000

370,000

Colombia

130,000

140,000

130,000

210,000

Brazil

100,000

110,000

150,000

200,000

Venezuela

80,000

100,000

120,000

190,000

All other countries

2,080,000

2,260,000

2,090,000

2,260,000

Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

[214] Dataset: “Current Health Expenditure Per Capita, PPP (Current International $).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed September 27, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

Current expenditures on health per capita expressed in international dollars at purchasing power parity. …

Development Relevance: Strengthening health financing is one objective of Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG target 3.c). The levels and trends of health expenditure data identify key issues such as weaknesses and strengths and areas that need investment, for instance additional health facilities, better health information systems, or better trained human resources. Health financing is also critical for reaching universal health coverage (UHC) defined as all people obtaining the quality health services they need without suffering financial hardship (SDG 3.8). The data on out-of-pocket spending is a key indicator with regard to financial protection and hence of progress towards UHC. …

Statistical Concept and Methodology: The health expenditure estimates have been prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) under the framework of the System of Health Accounts 2011 (SHA 2011). The Health SHA 2011 tracks all health spending in a given country over a defined period of time regardless of the entity or institution that financed and managed that spending. It generates consistent and comprehensive data on health spending in a country, which in turn can contribute to evidence-based policy-making.

NOTES:

  • The “Health Expenditure Per Capita” data shown in the chart is the latest available data for each country.
  • For more facts about healthcare spending, visit Just Facts’ research on healthcare.

[215] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background): “Prior to the late 19th century, immigration was essentially unregulated.”

[216] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background): “Prior to the late 19th century, immigration was essentially unregulated. At that time, Congress imposed the first qualitative restrictions, which barred certain undesirable immigrants such as criminals and those with infectious diseases from entering the country.”

Volume 8 (Admissibility), Part B (Health-Related Grounds of Inadmissibility), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

Public health concerns have been reflected in U.S. immigration law since the Immigration Act of 1882.1 Among others, “persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease” were not allowed to enter the United States.2

1 See the Immigration Act of 1882, 22 Stat. 214 (August 3, 1882).

2 See the Immigration Act of 1891, 26 Stat. 1084 (March 3, 1891).

Volume 8 (Admissibility), Part C (Civil Surgeon Designation and Revocation), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

The Immigration Act of 18823 first granted the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to examine noncitizens arriving in the United States to prohibit the entry of any “person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” The Act provided that the examination be delegated to state commissions, boards, or officers.

3 See 22 Stat. 214 (August 3, 1882).

[217] “An Act to Execute Certain Treaty Stipulations Relating to Chinese.” 47th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882. <www.archives.gov>

Whereas in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof: Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or having so come after the expiration of said ninety days to remain within the United States. …

Sec. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.

[218] Webpage: “Chinese Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Acts.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed July 26, 2021 at <history.state.gov>

American objections to Chinese immigration took many forms, and generally stemmed from economic and cultural tensions, as well as ethnic discrimination. Most Chinese laborers who came to the United States did so in order to send money back to China to support their families there. At the same time, they also had to repay loans to the Chinese merchants who paid their passage to America. These financial pressures left them little choice but to work for whatever wages they could. Non-Chinese laborers often required much higher wages to support their wives and children in the United States, and also generally had a stronger political standing to bargain for higher wages. Therefore many of the non-Chinese workers in the United States came to resent the Chinese laborers, who might squeeze them out of their jobs. Furthermore, as with most immigrant communities, many Chinese settled in their own neighborhoods, and tales spread of Chinatowns as places where large numbers of Chinese men congregated to visit prostitutes, smoke opium, or gamble. Some advocates of anti-Chinese legislation therefore argued that admitting Chinese into the United States lowered the cultural and moral standards of American society. Others used a more overtly racist argument for limiting immigration from East Asia, and expressed concern about the integrity of American racial composition. …

… In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which, per the terms of the Angell Treaty, suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers (skilled or unskilled) for a period of 10 years. The Act also required every Chinese person traveling in or out of the country to carry a certificate identifying his or her status as a laborer, scholar, diplomat, or merchant. The 1882 Act was the first in American history to place broad restrictions on immigration.

… In 1888, Congress took exclusion even further and passed the Scott Act, which made reentry to the United States after a visit to China impossible, even for long-term legal residents. The Chinese Government considered this act a direct insult, but was unable to prevent its passage. In 1892, Congress voted to renew exclusion for ten years in the Geary Act, and in 1902, the prohibition was expanded to cover Hawaii and the Philippines, all over strong objections from the Chinese Government and people. Congress later extended the Exclusion Act indefinitely. …

The Chinese Exclusion Acts were not repealed until 1943, and then only in the interests of aiding the morale of a wartime ally during World War II.

[219] Webpage: “The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act).” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed July 26, 2021 at <history.state.gov>

In 1917, the U.S. Congress enacted the first widely restrictive immigration law. The uncertainty generated over national security during World War I made it possible for Congress to pass this legislation, and it included several important provisions that paved the way for the 1924 Act. The 1917 Act implemented a literacy test that required immigrants over 16 years old to demonstrate basic reading comprehension in any language. It also increased the tax paid by new immigrants upon arrival and allowed immigration officials to exercise more discretion in making decisions over whom to exclude. Finally, the Act excluded from entry anyone born in a geographically defined “Asiatic Barred Zone” except for Japanese and Filipinos. In 1907, the Japanese Government had voluntarily limited Japanese immigration to the United States in the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The Philippines was a U.S. colony, so its citizens were U.S. nationals and could travel freely to the United States. China was not included in the Barred Zone, but the Chinese were already denied immigration visas under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

[220] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

During the 1920s, Congress established annual quotas that imposed the first numerical restrictions on immigration. This was known as the National Origins Quota System. The system limited immigration from each country to a designated percentage of foreign-born persons of that nationality who resided in the United States according to the 1910 census. These quotas did not apply to spouses and children (unmarried and under 21 years old) of U.S. citizens.3

These immigration laws required all intending immigrants to obtain an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad and then travel to the United States and seek admission as LPRs [lawful permanent residents].4 As such, these laws provided no legal procedure by which a noncitizen already physically present in the United States could become a permanent resident without first leaving the country to obtain the required immigrant visa.

By 1935, the administrative process of pre-examination was developed so that a noncitizen already temporarily in the United States could obtain permanent resident status more quickly and easily.5

3 See 1921 Emergency Quota Law, Pub. L. 67-5 (May 19, 1921). See Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Act or the Johnson–Reed Act, Pub. L. 68-139 (May 26, 1924).

4 This process is known as “consular processing.”

5 See 2 C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure, Section 7.3a. See Jain v. INS, 612 F.2d 683 (2nd Cir. 1979).

[221] Webpage: “The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act).” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed July 26, 2021 at <history.state.gov>

The literacy test alone was not enough to prevent most potential immigrants from entering, so members of Congress sought a new way to restrict immigration in the 1920s. Immigration expert and Republican Senator from Vermont William P. Dillingham introduced a measure to create immigration quotas, which he set at three percent of the total population of the foreign-born of each nationality in the United States as recorded in the 1910 census. This put the total number of visas available each year to new immigrants at 350,000. It did not, however, establish quotas of any kind for residents of the Western Hemisphere. President Wilson opposed the restrictive act, preferring a more liberal immigration policy, so he used the pocket veto to prevent its passage. In early 1921, the newly inaugurated President Warren Harding called Congress back to a special session to pass the law. In 1922, the act was renewed for another two years.

When the congressional debate over immigration began in 1924, the quota system was so well-established that no one questioned whether to maintain it, but rather discussed how to adjust it. Though there were advocates for raising quotas and allowing more people to enter, the champions of restriction triumphed. They created a plan that lowered the existing quota from three to two percent of the foreign-born population. They also pushed back the year on which quota calculations were based from 1910 to 1890.

Another change to the quota altered the basis of the quota calculations. The quota had been based on the number of people born outside of the United States, or the number of immigrants in the United States. The new law traced the origins of the whole of the U.S. population, including natural-born citizens. The new quota calculations included large numbers of people of British descent whose families had long resided in the United States. As a result, the percentage of visas available to individuals from the British Isles and Western Europe increased, but newer immigration from other areas like Southern and Eastern Europe was limited.

The 1924 Immigration Act also included a provision excluding from entry any alien who by virtue of race or nationality was ineligible for citizenship. Existing nationality laws dating from 1790 and 1870 excluded people of Asian lineage from naturalizing. As a result, the 1924 Act meant that even Asians not previously prevented from immigrating—the Japanese in particular—would no longer be admitted to the United States.

[222] Article: “The Repeal of Asian Exclusion.” By Jane H. Hong. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, September 3, 2015. <americanhistory.oxfordre.com>

“As a U.S. territory (1898–1934) and, later, a U.S. commonwealth (1934–1946), the Philippines never came under complete exclusion in the same way as did other Asian powers.”

[223] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

Near the onset of World War II, the U.S. government became increasingly concerned about the possibility of hostile foreign enemies living in the United States. In response, Congress enacted the Alien Registration Act of 1940, which required foreign-born persons 14 years of age and older to report to a U.S. post office, and later to an immigration office, to be fingerprinted and register their presence in the United States.7 Those found to have no legal basis to remain in the United States were required to leave or were removed. Those with a valid claim to permanent residency received an Alien Registration Card.

7 Also known as the Smith Act, Pub. L. 76-670 (June 28, 1940).

[224] Webpage: “Chinese Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Acts.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed July 26, 2021 at <history.state.gov>

“The Chinese Exclusion Acts were not repealed until 1943, and then only in the interests of aiding the morale of a wartime ally during World War II.”

[225] Article: “The Repeal of Asian Exclusion.” By Jane H. Hong. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, September, 2015. <americanhistory.oxfordre.com>

Beginning in World War II, U.S. lawmakers began to dismantle the Asian exclusion regime in response to growing international pressure and scrutiny of America’s racial policies and practices. The Japanese government sought to use the U.S. Asian exclusion laws to disrupt the Sino-American alliance of World War II, causing Washington officials to recognize these laws as a growing impediment to international diplomacy and the war effort. Later, the Soviet Union and other communist powers cited U.S. exclusion policies as evidence of American racial hypocrisy during the Cold War.

A diverse group of actors championed the repeal of Asian exclusion laws over the 1940s and early 1950s. They included former American missionaries to Asia, U.S. and Asian state officials, and Asian and Asian American activists. The movement argued for repeal legislation as an inexpensive way for the United States to demonstrate goodwill, counter foreign criticism, and rehabilitate America’s international image as a liberal democracy. Drawing upon the timely language and logic of geopolitics, advocates lobbied Congressional lawmakers to pass legislation ending the racial exclusion of Asians from immigration and naturalization eligibility, in support of U.S. diplomatic and security interests abroad. …

The 1943 Magnuson Act repealed the thirteen Chinese exclusion laws passed between 1882 and 1913, reopened the United States to nominal Chinese immigration with a race-based immigration quota of 105 persons, and granted naturalization rights to an Asian group for the first time in American history. …

The Magnuson bill passed U.S. Congress on December 17, 1943. In addition to making persons of Chinese descent racially eligible for U.S. citizenship, the law granted China a race-based immigration quota of 105 persons per year.9 (By way of comparison, annual immigration quotas for European nations ranged from the thousands to the ten of thousands and were based on nationality rather than race.) The symbolic quota was sufficient for Washington’s purposes.

[226] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

The passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 organized all existing immigration laws into one consolidated source.8 The INA retained a modified system of both qualitative and numerical restrictions on permanent immigration. The INA established a revised version of the controversial National Origins Quota System, limiting immigration from the eastern hemisphere while leaving immigration from the western hemisphere unrestricted.

The INA also introduced a system of numerically limited immigrant preference categories, some based on desirable job skills and others based on family reunification. Spouses and children (unmarried and under 21 years old) of U.S. citizens remained exempt from any quota restrictions.

In addition, the INA established a formal system of temporary (or nonimmigrant) categories under which noncitizens could come to the United States for various temporary purposes such as to visit, study, or work. For the first time, the INA also provided a procedure for noncitizens temporarily in the United States to adjust status to permanent resident status without having to travel abroad and undergo consular processing.

Although it has since been amended many times, the INA remains the foundation of current immigration law in the United States.

8 This Act is also referred to as the McCarran-Walter Act, Pub. L. 82-414 (PDF) (June 27, 1952).

[227] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

Congress amended the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] in 1965 to abolish the National Origins Quota System, creating in its place separate quotas for immigration from the eastern and western hemispheres.9 These amendments also established a revised preference system of six categories for family-based and employment-based categories, and added a seventh preference category for refugees. Finally, the law introduced an initial version of what has evolved into today’s permanent labor certification program.

9 See Pub. L. 89-236 (PDF) (October 3, 1965).

[228] Article: “The Repeal of Asian Exclusion.” By Jane H. Hong. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, September, 2015. <americanhistory.oxfordre.com>

The 1965 Immigration Act ushered in unprecedented waves of Asian and Latin American immigration, transforming the demographics of the American nation. …

The 1965 Hart–Celler Act marked a watershed in American history. The Act abolished the national origins quota system once and for all. It created in its place uniform quotas across countries as well as two categories of preferred immigrants; those individuals with family relationships to U.S. citizens and residents could enter the United States above the per-country caps, while individuals who possessed skills in occupations deemed in short-supply by the U.S. Department of Labor were given preference within the quota pool.

[229] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

Further amendments in 1976 and 1978 ultimately combined the eastern and western hemisphere quotas into a single worldwide quota system which limited annual immigration from any single country to 20,000 and established an overall limit of 290,000 immigrants per year.10

10 See Pub. L. 95-412 (PDF) (October 5, 1978).

[230] Article: “House Passes Immigration Bill—with a Catch.” By Christopher Drew. Chicago Tribune, October 10, 1986. <articles.chicagotribune.com>

The House late Thursday resurrected and speedily passed by a vote of 230–166 a controversial immigration reform bill that had been debated for years and presumed dead for this congressional session. …

The politically sensitive bill would legalize possibly millions of aliens already in the country and would discourage further immigration by levying fines and jail terms on employers who knowingly hire illegals. …

Later, the House dodged a “killer amendment” by a vote of 199–192 that would have stripped the bill of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens now living in the United States. …

The farm-worker dispute had pitted proponents of a stringent crackdown on illegal immigration against mostly Western growers interested in keeping a cheap labor supply to pick perishable crops.

[231] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143:

After years of heated debate involving ethnic and religious groups, labor and agricultural organizations, business interests, and the government, a compromise measure was reached. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for “brief, casual, and innocent” absences, from the beginning of 1982; provided amnesty to seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986; required all amnesty applicants to take courses in English and American government to qualify for permanent residence; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail; prohibited employers from discrimination on the basis of national origins; increased border patrol by 50 percent in 1987 and 1988; and, in a matter unrelated to illegal aliens, introduced a lottery program for 5,000 visas for countries “adversely affected” by provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

[232] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.

[233] Calculated with data from the webpage: “Actions on Senate Bill 1200: Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” 99th U.S. Congress (1985–1986). Accessed April 6, 2017 at <www.congress.gov>

“10/17/1986: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea–Nay Vote. 63–24. Record Vote No: 357. … 10/15/1986: House Agreed to Conference Report by Yea–Nay Vote: 238–173 (Record Vote No: 469).”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 63 / (63 + 24) = 72% Senate
  • 238 / (238 + 173) = 58% House

[234] Public Law 99-603: “Immigration Reform and Control Act.” 99th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. <www.govinfo.gov>

[235] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for ‘brief, casual, and innocent’ absences, from the beginning of 1982….”

[236] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The provisions of new INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] section 245A(a)(4)(B) and (b)(1)(C)(ii), added by section 201(a) of the bill, state that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or the permanent residence status provided in that section if he or she has been convicted of any felony or three or more misdemeanors committed in the United States.

New INA section 245A(d)(2) states that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or permanent residence status provided in that section if “likely to become [a] public charge [ ].” This disqualification could be waived by the Attorney General under certain circumstances. A likelihood that an applicant would become a public charge would exist, for example, if the applicant had failed to demonstrate either a history of employment in the United States of a kind that would provide sufficient means without public cash assistance for the support of the alien and his likely dependents who are not United States citizens or the possession of independent means sufficient by itself for such support for an indefinite period.

[237] Report: “Naturalization Rates Among IRCA Immigrants: A 2009 Update.” By Bryan C. Baker. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 2010. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 provided a path to legal permanent residence and citizenship for several categories of unauthorized immigrants. The two primary groups1 were immigrants who had continuously and unlawfully resided within the U.S. since before January 1, 1982 (“pre-1982s”) and special agricultural workers (“SAWs”), who were required to have worked at least 90 days in agriculture during each of the years ending on May 1, 1984, 1985, and 1986 (Group 1) or solely during the year ending on May 1, 1986 (Group 2).

1 The other categories, Cuban and Haitian immigrants and Registry immigrants, were small by comparison and are not discussed in this Report.

[238] Report: “Naturalization Rates Among IRCA Immigrants: A 2009 Update.” By Bryan C. Baker. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 2010. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

In addition to the residency requirement, pre-1982 IRCA (Immigration Reform and Control Act) immigrants were required to meet certain standards for English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and government as a prerequisite for legal permanent resident (LPR) status.2 SAWs [special agricultural workers] were not subject to English or civics requirements.

2 For a complete list of the requirements and conditions for both pre-82s and SAWs, see Sections 210A and 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

[239] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part E (English and Civics Testing and Exceptions), Chapter 2 (English and Civics Testing):

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) mandated that persons legalized under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 245A meet a basic citizenship skills requirement in order to be eligible for adjustment to LPR [lawful permanent resident] status. An applicant was permitted to demonstrate basic citizenship skills by:

• Passing the English and civics tests administered by legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); or

• Passing standardized English and civics tests administered by organizations then authorized by the INS.4

At the time of the naturalization re-examination, the officer only retests the applicant on any portion of the test that the applicant did not satisfy under IRCA. In all cases, the applicant must demonstrate the ability to speak English at the time of the naturalization examination, unless the applicant meets one of the age and time as resident exemptions of English or qualifies for a medical waiver.5

4 The INS Standardized Citizenship Testing Program was conducted by five non-government companies on behalf of the INS. That program was established in 1991 and ended on August 30, 1998. See 63 FR 25080 (May 6, 1998).

5 See INA 245A(b)(1)(D)(iii). See 8 CFR 312.3.

[240] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “At the insistence of state governments, newly legalized aliens were prohibited from receiving most types of federal public welfare, although Cubans (see Cuban Immigration) and Haitians (See Haitian Immigration) were exempted.”

[241] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … provided amnesty to seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986….”

[242] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … prohibited employers from discrimination on the basis of national origins….”

[243] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

Section 102(a) of the bill adds section 274B to the Immigration and Nationality Act. This new section relates to certain kinds of discrimination in connection with employment in the United States. Section 274B(a) provides that it is an “unfair immigration-related employment practice” to “discriminate against” any individual in hiring, recruitment or referral for a fee, or discharging from employment “because of” such individual’s national origin or—if such individual is a United States citizen or an alien who is a lawful permanent resident, refugee admitted under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] section 207, or asylee granted asylum under section 208, and who has taken certain steps evidencing an intent to become a United States citizen—because of such individual’s citizenship status. Employers of fewer than four employees are expressly exempted from coverage. Discrimination against an “unauthorized alien,” as defined in section 274A(h)(3), is also not covered. Other exceptions include cases of discrimination because of national origin that are covered by title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination based on citizenship status when lawfully required under government authority, and discrimination in favor of a United States citizen over an alien if the citizen is at least “equally qualified.”

The major purpose of section 274B is to reduce the possibility that employer sanctions will result in increased national origin and alienage discrimination and to provide a remedy if employer sanctions enforcement does have this result. Accordingly, subsection (k) provides that the section will not apply to any discrimination that takes place after a repeal of employer sanctions if this should occur. In the light of this major purpose, the Special Counsel should exercise the discretion provided under subsection (d)(1) so as to limit the investigations conducted on his own initiative to cases involving discrimination apparently caused by an employer’s fear of liability under the employer sanctions program.

[244] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … increased border patrol by 50 percent in 1987 and 1988….”

[245] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background): “IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] also increased immigration enforcement at U.S. borders….”

[246] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail….”

[247] Article: “Agriculture.” American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and ‎John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2014. Pages 415–423.

Page 420: “The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act sought to provide a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with the agricultural labor situation, as well as undocumented immigration. An employer sanctions provision in the legislation was intended to hold employers accountable that knowingly hired undocumented laborers.”

[248] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. …

… The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.

[249] Article: “Agriculture.” American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and ‎John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2014. Pages 415–423.

Page 420: “The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act sought to provide a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with the agricultural labor situation, as well as undocumented immigration. … Verification of citizenship status became a lasting requirement for all new hires.”

[250] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background): “IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] … for the first time in history, required U.S. employers to verify all newly hired employees’ work authorization in the United States. This is sometimes called the employer sanctions program or the I-9 program.”

[251] Report: “Identity Fraud, Prevalence and Links to Alien Illegal Activities.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, June 25, 2002. <www.gao.gov>

Page 8:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 198615 made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. IRCA requires employers to comply with an employment verification process intended to provide employers with a means to avoid hiring unauthorized aliens. The process requires newly hired employees to present documentation establishing their identity and eligibility to work. From a list of 27 acceptable documents, employees have the choice of presenting 1 document establishing both identity and eligibility to work (such as an INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] permanent resident card) or 1 document establishing identity (such as a driver’s license) and 1 establishing eligibility to work (such as a Social Security card). Generally, employers cannot require the employees to present a specific document. Employers are to review the document or documents that an employee presents and complete an Employment Eligibility Form, INS Form I-9. On the form, employers are to certify that they have reviewed the documents and that the documents appear genuine and relate to the individual. Employers are expected to judge whether the documents are obviously fraudulent. INS is responsible for checking employer compliance with IRCA’s verification requirements.

[252] Report: “Employment Verification: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, but Significant Challenges Remain.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, December 2010. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 6–7:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire immigrants who were unauthorized to work in the United States.11 IRCA established an employment verification process—the Form I-9 process—that required employers to review documents presented by new employees to establish their identity and employment eligibility.12 Employers are required to certify that they have reviewed the documents presented by their employees and that the documents reasonably appear genuine and relate to the individual presenting them. Like all employers, employers participating in E-Verify are required to retain Form I-9s for all newly hired employees in accordance with IRCA.

[253] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “Because the measure was meant as a one-time resolution of a longstanding problem, a strict deadline for application was established: All applications for legalization were required within one year of May 5, 1987.”

[254] Webpage: “Summary of Senate Bill 358: Immigration Act of 1990.” U.S. Senate, 101st Congress (1989–1990). Accessed June 4, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Kennedy, Edward M. [D–MA] …

Title I: Immigrants—Subtitle A: Worldwide and Per Country Levels—Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) to set a permanent annual worldwide level of immigration, to begin in FY 1995, with a transition level for FY 1992 through 1994. Sets forth formulas to divide such worldwide level into worldwide levels for the following categories: (1) family-related immigrants; (2) employment-based immigrants; and (3) diversity immigrants. Excludes from such direct numerical limitations specified categories of special immigrants or aliens, including refugees.

Sets forth per country levels for the maximum portion (ceiling) of a country’s total number of immigrant visas which may be for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Makes exceptions to such ceiling if additional visas are available, under specified conditions. Sets forth special rules for: (1) spouses and children of lawful permanent resident aliens; and (2) countries at such ceiling.

Sets forth special rules for treatment of Hong Kong as a separate foreign state, with specified limitations, under such per country levels.

Revises provisions for asylee adjustments. Increases the maximum numerical limitation on adjustment of asylees. Requires annual asylee enumeration. Waives the numerical limitation for certain current asylees. Provides for adjustment of certain former asylees, subject to specified per country limitations. …

[255] Calculated with data from:

a) Vote 530: “Immigration Act of 1990.” U.S. House of Representatives, October 27, 1990. <clerk.house.gov>

b) Vote 323: “Immigration Act of 1990.” U.S. Senate, October 26, 1990. <www.senate.gov>

Party

Voted “Yes”

Voted “No”

Voted “Present” or Did Not Vote †

Number

Portion

Number

Portion

Number

Portion

Republican

131

60%

69

31%

20

9%

Democrat

229

72%

57

18%

33

10%

Independent

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

NOTE: † Voting “Present” is effectively the same as not voting.

[256] Public Law 101-649: “Immigration Act of 1990.” 101st U.S. Congress. Signed into law by George H. Bush on November 29, 1990. <www.uscis.gov>

[257] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

Congress made the most sweeping changes to the original INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] by passing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90).14 Key provisions adopted by IMMACT 90 include:

• Significantly increased the worldwide quota limits on permanent immigration from 290,000 to 675,000 per year (plus up to another 125,000 for refugees);

• Established separate preference categories for family-based and employment-based immigration, including moving several special immigrant categories into the employment-based preferences and adding a new category for immigrant investors;

• Established the Diversity Visa Program, making immigrant visas available to randomly selected noncitizens coming from countries with historically low rates of immigration;

• Created several new nonimmigrant work visa categories: O, P, Q, and R; and

• Reorganized and expanded the types of qualitative bars to U.S. entry, known as inadmissibility or exclusion grounds.

12 See Pub. L. 101-649 (PDF) (November 29, 1990).

[258] Webpage: “Summary of Senate Bill 358: Immigration Act of 1990.” U.S. Senate, 101st Congress (1989–1990). Accessed April 17, 2017 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Kennedy, Edward M. [D–MA] …

Part 3: Diversity Immigrants—Allocates annually (on a permanent basis beginning in FY 1995) specified numbers of visas for diversity immigrants, i.e. natives of foreign states from which immigration was lower than 50,000 over the preceding five years (weighting distribution of such visas in favor of countries in defined regions that are underrepresented in terms of relative regional populations). Limits the percentage of diversity visas for any single foreign state (treating Northern Ireland as a separate foreign state for such purposes). Requires, as a condition of eligibility for a diversity visa, that an alien have at least: (1) a high school education or its equivalent; or (2) two years of work experience in an occupation requiring at least two years of training or experience (within five years of the visa application date). Directs the Secretary of State to maintain information on the age, occupation, education level, and other relevant characteristics of immigrants issued such diversity visas.

Sets forth diversity transition provisions for immigrant visas for certain groups, as follows. Provides specified numbers of immigrant visas, in FY 1992 through 1994, for aliens who: (1) are natives of foreign states that are not contiguous to the United States and that are identified as adversely affected by the 1986 repeal of the national origins quota system; and (2) have a firm commitment of U.S. employment for at least one year (earmarking a portion of such visas for that foreign state which received the greatest number of visas under certain provisions for adversely affected states). Provides for immigrant visas in FY 1991 for aliens who have been notified of availability of NP-5 visas (i.e. are notified before a certain date of their selection for a visa as a native of an adversely affected state and are qualified but for certain numerical and fiscal year limitations). Provides for a specified number of immigrant visas, in FY 1991 through 1993, for displaced Tibetans and their relatives. (Requires such Tibetans to have been continuously residing in India or Nepal since before enactment of this Act, but gives preference to those who are not firmly resettled in India or Nepal or who are most likely to be resettled successfully in the United States.)

[259] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 8 (Admissibility), Part B (Health-Related Grounds of Inadmissibility), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

Public health concerns have been reflected in U.S. immigration law since the Immigration Act of 1882.1 Among others, “persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease” were not allowed to enter the United States.2 In 1990, Congress revised and consolidated all of the grounds of inadmissibility. It narrowed health-related grounds of inadmissibility to include only noncitizens with communicable diseases, physical or mental disorders with associated harmful behavior, or those with drug abuse or addiction problems.3

1 See the Immigration Act of 1882, 22 Stat. 214 (August 3, 1882).

2 See the Immigration Act of 1891, 26 Stat. 1084 (March 3, 1891).

3 See the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90), Pub. L. 101-649 (PDF) (November 29, 1990).

[260] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II , Section 1182: “Immigration, Inadmissible Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:

(1) Health-related grounds

(A) In general.

Any alien—

(i) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to have a communicable disease of public health significance;

[261] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for noncitizens to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. …

Generally, an adjustment applicant is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible for adjustment of status if one or more of the grounds of inadmissibility apply to him or her.

Volume 8 (Admissibility), Part B (Health-Related Grounds of Inadmissibility), Chapter 6 (Communicable Diseases of Public Health Significance):

Applicants who have communicable diseases of public health significance are inadmissible.1 The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has designated the following conditions as communicable diseases of public health significance that apply to immigration medical examinations conducted in the United States:2

• Gonorrhea;

• Hansen’s Disease (leprosy), infectious;

• Syphilis, infectious stage; and

• Tuberculosis (TB), Active—Only a Class A TB diagnosis renders an applicant inadmissible to the United States. Under current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, Class A TB means TB that is clinically active and communicable.

What qualifies as a communicable disease of public health significance is determined by HHS, not by USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services]. Any regulatory updates HHS makes to its list of communicable diseases of public health significance are controlling over the list provided in this Part B. …

2. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)

As of January 4, 2010, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is no longer defined as a communicable disease of public health significance according to HHS regulations.6 Therefore, HIV infection does not make the applicant inadmissible on health-related grounds for any immigration benefit adjudicated on or after January 4, 2010, even if the applicant filed the immigration benefit application before January 4, 2010.

The officer should disregard a diagnosis of HIV infection when determining whether an applicant is inadmissible on health-related grounds. The officer should administratively close any HIV waiver application filed before January 4, 2010.

1 See INA 212(a)(1)(A)(i).

2 See 42 CFR 34.2(b). …

6 See the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-293 (PDF) (July 30, 2008). See 42 CFR 34.2(b) as amended by 74 FR 56547 (PDF) (Nov. 2, 2009).

[262] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the United States government’s principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. Agencies of HHS conduct health and social science research, work to prevent disease outbreaks, assure food and drug safety, and provide health insurance.

[263] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for noncitizens to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. Noncitizens may only adjust under a particular basis if they meet the eligibility requirements for that basis at the time of filing the Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485). Eligibility requirements vary, depending on the specific basis for adjustment.1

[264] Webpage: “Green Card for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizen.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed/updated on June 16, 2020. <www.uscis.gov>

If you are an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, you can become a lawful permanent resident (get a Green Card) based on your family relationship if you meet certain eligibility requirements.

You are an immediate relative if you are:

• The spouse of a U.S. citizen;

• The unmarried child under 21 years of age of a U.S. citizen; or

• The parent of a U.S. citizen (if the U.S. citizen is 21 years of age or older).

• This page provides specific information for immediate relatives in the United States who want to apply for lawful permanent resident status while in the United States. This is called “adjustment of status.”

[265] Webpage: “Family of U.S. Citizens.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed/updated on March 23, 2018. <www.uscis.gov>

Family of U.S. Citizens

This page describes how you (a U.S. citizen) may petition for certain family members to receive either a Green Card, a fiancé(e) visa or a K-3/K-4 visa based on your relationship. (If your relative wishes to naturalize or obtain proof of citizenship, see the Citizenship section of our website.)

Table: Relatives for Whom You May Petition 

Type of Relative for Whom You May Petition

Immigration Benefit

Spouse
Children (unmarried and under 21)
Sons and daughters (married and/or 21 or over)
Parents, if you are 21 or over
Siblings, if you are 21 or over

Green Card (permanent residence)

A fiancé(e) residing outside the United States and children of fiancé(e) under 21

Fiancé(e) visa

Spouse
Children of spouse (unmarried and under 21)

K-3/K-4 visa

[266] Webpage: “Green Card for Family Preference Immigrants.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed/updated on January 10, 2022. <www.uscis.gov>

U.S. immigration law allows certain noncitizens who are family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to become lawful permanent residents (get a Green Card) based on specific family relationships. If you are the spouse, minor child or parent of a U.S. citizen, please see the Green Card for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizen page for information on how to apply for a Green Card.

Other family members eligible to apply for a Green Card are described in the following family “preference immigrant” categories:

• First preference (F1) – unmarried sons and daughters (21 years of age and older) of U.S. citizens;

• Second preference (F2A) – spouses and children (unmarried and under 21 years of age) of lawful permanent residents;

• Second preference (F2B) – unmarried sons and daughters (21 years of age and older) of lawful permanent residents;

• Third preference (F3) – married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens; and

• Fourth preference (F4) – brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (if the U.S. citizen is 21 years of age and older).

This page provides specific information for noncitizens in the United States who want to apply for lawful permanent resident status based on a family preference category while in the United States. This is called “adjustment of status.”

[267] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for noncitizens to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. …

Noncitizens eligible for adjustment of status generally may apply based on one of the following immigrant categories or basis for adjustment:

• Immediate relative of a U.S. citizen;2

• Other relative of a U.S. citizen or relative of a lawful permanent resident under a family-based preference category;3

• Person admitted to the United States as a fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen;

• Widow(er) of a U.S. citizen….

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 6 (Adjudicative Review):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to noncitizens seeking to become U.S. permanent residents each year. U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the agency that allocates immigrant visa numbers. In most cases, an immigrant visa must be available at the time of filing the adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved.

1. Immediate Visa Availability

Congress gave immigration priority to immediate relative immigrants, defined as:

• The spouses of U.S. citizens;

• The children (unmarried and under 21 years of age) of U.S. citizens;

• The parents of U.S. citizens at least 21 years old; and

• Widows or widowers of U.S. citizens if the spouse files a petition within 2 years of the citizen’s death.12

Immigrant visas for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are unlimited, so the visas are always available. In other words, immediate relatives are exempt from the numerical restrictions of other immigrant categories; an immigrant visa is always immediately available at the time they file an adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved. …

Immigrant visa numbers for family-based and employment-based immigrant preference categories as well as the Diversity Visa program are limited, so they are not always immediately available.

Family-sponsored preference visas are limited to a minimum of 226,000 visas per year….18 In addition, there are limits to the percentage of visas that can be allotted based on an immigrant’s country of birth.19

[268] Webpage: “Become a Lawful Permanent Resident (Green Card Holder) Through a Job Offer.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed/updated on December 16, 2020. <www.uscis.gov>

You may be eligible to become a lawful permanent resident based on an offer of permanent employment in the United States.

Eligibility

Several immigrant visa categories are based on employment. Your education, skills and work experience are some of the factors used to determine if the individual is eligible for a specific type of employment-based visa.

Priority Workers

This category includes individuals who have/are:

• Extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or who are athletes who have national or international acclaim and whose achievements are recognized in their fields.

• Outstanding professors or researchers.

• Certain multinational executives or managers.

Professionals

You must have an advanced degree or an exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business (the requirement for a job offer may be waived for those in this category if such waiver is in the national interest).

Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers

If you don’t petition for yourself, your employer must obtain a labor certification from the Department of Labor (DOL) and then file Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, on your behalf. For occupations where DOL has already determined that there is a shortage, you do not need a labor certification.

Employment Creation

Foreign nationals who are making investments in a new commercial enterprise (business) in the United States, may qualify under this category and may file Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Investor.

Visa Availability

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to individuals seeking lawful permanent resident status (a “Green Card”) each year.

The U.S. Department of State is the agency that distributes immigrant visa numbers. Employment-based immigrant visas are limited to 140,000 per year. In addition, there are limits to the percentage of immigrant visas that can be allotted to each country. Immigrant visas for individuals are limited and not always available.

[269] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for noncitizens to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. …

Noncitizens eligible for adjustment of status generally may apply based on one of the following immigrant categories or basis for adjustment: …

• Noncitizen worker under an employment-based preference category;4

• Noncitizen investor.…

4 This includes priority workers (including noncitizens with extraordinary ability, outstanding professors and researchers, and certain multinational executives and managers); members of the professions holding advanced degrees or noncitizens of exceptional ability; or skilled workers, professionals, and other workers. See INA 203(b).

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 6 (Adjudicative Review):

Immigrant visa numbers for family-based and employment-based immigrant preference categories as well as the Diversity Visa program are limited, so they are not always immediately available.

[E]mployment-based preference visas are limited to a minimum of 140,000 visas per year.18 By statute, these annual visa limits can be exceeded where certain immigrant visa numbers from the previous fiscal year’s allocation were not fully used. Both categories are further divided into several sub-categories, each of which receives a certain percentage of the overall visa numbers as prescribed by law. In addition, there are limits to the percentage of visas that can be allotted based on an immigrant’s country of birth.19

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to noncitizens seeking to become U.S. permanent residents each year. U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the agency that allocates immigrant visa numbers. In most cases, an immigrant visa must be available at the time of filing the adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved. …

Below are additional categories of noncitizens who are exempt from numerical restrictions and may file an adjustment of status application at any time or during the time period allowed by the applicable provision of law, provided they are otherwise eligible:13

• Persons adjusting status based on Special Agricultural Worker or Legalization provisions….16

[270] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for noncitizens to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. …

Noncitizens eligible for adjustment of status generally may apply based on one of the following immigrant categories or basis for adjustment: …

• Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioner …

[271] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for noncitizens to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. …

Noncitizens eligible for adjustment of status generally may apply based on one of the following immigrant categories or basis for adjustment: …

• Human trafficking victim;

• Crime victim

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 6 (Adjudicative Review):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to noncitizens seeking to become U.S. permanent residents each year. U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the agency that allocates immigrant visa numbers. In most cases, an immigrant visa must be available at the time of filing the adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved. …

Below are additional categories of noncitizens who are exempt from numerical restrictions and may file an adjustment of status application at any time or during the time period allowed by the applicable provision of law, provided they are otherwise eligible:13

• Persons adjusting status based on T nonimmigrant (human trafficking victim) status;15

• Persons adjusting status based on U nonimmigrant (crime victims) status;

15 Although a visa is immediately available to T nonimmigrant-based adjustment applicants at the time of filing, there is an annual cap on the number of adjustments allowed each year. Up to 5,000 T nonimmigrants are allowed to adjust status each year. This does not include immediate family members. See INA 245(l).

[272] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for noncitizens to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. …

Noncitizens eligible for adjustment of status generally may apply based on one of the following immigrant categories or basis for adjustment: …

• Person granted asylum status;

• Person granted refugee status

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 6 (Adjudicative Review):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to noncitizens seeking to become U.S. permanent residents each year. U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the agency that allocates immigrant visa numbers. In most cases, an immigrant visa must be available at the time of filing the adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved. …

Below are additional categories of noncitizens who are exempt from numerical restrictions and may file an adjustment of status application at any time or during the time period allowed by the applicable provision of law, provided they are otherwise eligible:13

• Persons adjusting status based on refugee or asylee status;14

[273] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for noncitizens to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. …

Noncitizens eligible for adjustment of status generally may apply based on one of the following immigrant categories or basis for adjustment: …

• Diversity Visa program

[274] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and certain other federal laws provide over forty different ways for noncitizens to adjust status to lawful permanent residence. …

Noncitizens eligible for adjustment of status generally may apply based on one of the following immigrant categories or basis for adjustment: …

• Special immigrant;5

• Person qualifying under certain special programs based on certain public laws;6

• Private immigration bill signed into law;

• Other eligibility under a special program not listed above (for example, Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA)7 Section 202);

• Adjustment of status under INA 245(i); or

• Derivative applicant (filing based on a principal applicant).

Specific eligibility requirements for each immigrant category are discussed in the program-specific parts of this volume.

5 This includes religious workers, special immigrant juveniles, certain Afghans and Iraqis, certain international broadcasters, certain G-4 international organization employee or family member or NATO-6 employee or family member, certain U.S. armed forces members, Panama Canal Zone employees, certain employees or former employees of the U.S. government abroad, and certain physicians. See INA 101(a)(27).

6 Some adjustment programs that are otherwise different from general adjustment include: the Cuban Adjustment Act, Pub. L. 89-732 (PDF) (November 2, 1966); the Cuban Adjustment Act for Battered Spouses and Children, Section 1509 of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Pub. L. 106-386 (PDF), 114 Stat. 1464, 1530 (October 28, 2000) and Sections 811, 814, and 823 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005), Pub. L. 109-162 (PDF), 119 Stat. 2960, 3057-58 and 3063 (January 5, 2006); dependent status under the Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act (HRIFA), Division A, Section 902 of Pub. L. 105-277 (PDF), 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-538 (October 21, 1998); dependent status under HRIFA for Battered Spouses and Children, Section 1511 of VTVPA, Pub. L. 106-386 (PDF), 114 Stat. 1464, 1532 (October 28, 2000), Section 1505 of the LIFE Act Amendments, Pub. L. 106-554 (PDF), 114 Stat. 2763, 2753A-326 (December 21, 2000), Sections 811, 814, and 824 of VAWA 2005, Pub. L. 109-162 (PDF), 119 Stat. 2960, 3057-58 and 3063 (January 5, 2005), and 8 CFR 245.15; former Soviet Union, Indochinese or Iranian parolees (Lautenberg Parolees), Section 599E of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-167 (PDF), 103 Stat. 1195, 1263 (November 21, 1989), as amended; and diplomats or high-ranking officials unable to return home, Section 13 of the Act of September 11, 1957, Pub. L. 85-316 (PDF), as amended, 8 CFR 245.3, INA 101(a)(15)(A)(i)–(ii) and INA 101(a)(15)(G)(i)–(ii).

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 6 (Adjudicative Review):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to noncitizens seeking to become U.S. permanent residents each year. U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the agency that allocates immigrant visa numbers. In most cases, an immigrant visa must be available at the time of filing the adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved. …

Below are additional categories of noncitizens who are exempt from numerical restrictions and may file an adjustment of status application at any time or during the time period allowed by the applicable provision of law, provided they are otherwise eligible:13

• Persons adjusting status based on public laws with certain adjustment of status programs;17 and

• Persons who obtain relief through a private immigration bill signed into law.

17 Some adjustment programs that are otherwise different from general adjustment include: the Cuban Adjustment Act, Pub. L. 89-732 (PDF) (November 2, 1966); the Cuban Adjustment Act for Battered Spouses and Children, Section 1509 of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Pub. L. 106-386 (PDF), 114 Stat. 1464, 1530 (October 28, 2000) and Sections 811, 814, and 823 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005), Pub. L. 109-162 (PDF), 119 Stat. 2960, 3057–58 and 3063 (January 5, 2006); dependent status under the Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act (HRIFA), Division A, Section 902 of Pub. L. 105-277 (PDF), 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-538 (October 21, 1998); dependent status under HRIFA for Battered Spouses and Children, Section 1511 of VTVPA, Pub. L. 106-386 (PDF), 114 Stat. 1464, 1532 (October 28, 2000), Section 1505 of the LIFE Act Amendments, Pub. L. 106-554 (PDF), 114 Stat. 2763, 2753A-326 (December 21, 2000), Sections 811, 814, and 824 of VAWA 2005, Pub. L. 109-162 (PDF), 119 Stat. 2960, 3057–58 and 3063 (January 5, 2005), and 8 CFR 245.15; former Soviet Union, Indochinese or Iranian parolees (Lautenberg Parolees), Section 599E of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-167 (PDF), 103 Stat. 1195, 1263 (November 21, 1989), as amended; and diplomats or high-ranking officials unable to return home, Section 13 of the Act of September 11, 1957, Pub. L. 85-316 (PDF), as amended, 8 CFR 245.3, INA 101(a)(15)(A)(i)-(ii) and INA 101(a)(15)(G)(i)-(ii). Although a visa is immediately available to Section 13-based adjustment applicants at the time of filing, there is an annual cap on the number of adjustments allowed each year. Only 50 visas per year, including both principal applicants and their immediate family members, are allotted each year.

[275] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part F (Special Immigrant-Based (EB-4) Adjustment), Chapter 8 (Members of the U.S. Armed Forces):

A. Purpose and Background

Under special agreements that the United States maintained after World War II with several Pacific island nations, certain noncitizens residing outside of the United States were allowed to enlist in the U.S. military. During times of specific hostilities, these noncitizens could become naturalized U.S. citizens based upon their active duty service if they met certain qualifications. However, once American military action terminated in Vietnam in 1978, they no longer had this pathway to U.S. citizenship.

In the years that followed, Congress discovered that many of these noncitizens had served multiple tours of duty but were denied advancement in their military careers because they were not U.S. citizens and so were unable to receive security clearances or become officers. In 1991, Congress passed the Armed Forces Immigration Adjustment Act,1 creating a special immigrant category for certain qualifying military members. This provision in essence recognized these noncitizen military members for their years of service to the United States.

Congress intended the law to be comparable to the special immigrant status awarded to certain U.S. government workers in the Panama Canal and long-term employees of international organizations residing in the United States.2

Sometimes referred to as the “Six and Six program,” adjustment as a special immigrant armed forces member under this law requires either 12 years of honorable, active duty service in the U.S. armed forces or 6 years of honorable, active duty service, if the military member has re-enlisted to serve for an additional 6 years. In addition, these special immigrants may be eligible for immediate citizenship after acquiring lawful permanent resident status, through their service during a designated period of hostilities.3

Special immigrant military members eligible under treaties in effect on October 1, 1991, include nationals of the Philippines, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. While the treaty for Filipinos no longer exists, sailors from the Philippines who served during the Persian Gulf conflict may still qualify under these provisions; a more direct route to naturalization may also be available.

B. Legal Authorities

• INA 101(a)(27)(K) – Certain Armed Forces Members

• INA 203(b)(4) – Certain Special Immigrants

• INA 245; 8 CFR 245 – Adjustment of Status of Nonimmigrant to That of Person Admitted for Permanent Residence

• INA 245(g) – Parole Provision for Special Immigrant Armed Forces Members Seeking Adjustment of Status

• 8 CFR 245.8 – Adjustment of Status as a Special Immigrant under Section 101(a)(27)(K) of the Act

• Armed Forces Immigration Adjustment Act of 19914

2 See INA 101(a)(27)(E), INA 101(a)(27)(F), INA 101(a)(27)(G), INA 101(a)(27)(I), and INA 101(a)(27)(L). See Chapter 4, Panama Canal Zone Employees [7 USCIS-PM F.4] and Chapter 6, Certain G-4 or NATO-6 Employees and Their Family Members [7 USCIS-PM F.6].

3 See INA 329. See Volume 12, Citizenship and Naturalization, Part I, Military Members and their Families [12 USCIS-PM I].

4 See Pub. L. 102-110 (PDF), 105 Stat. 555 (October 1, 1991).

[276] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 6 (Adjudicative Review):

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits the number of immigrant visas that may be issued to noncitizens seeking to become U.S. permanent residents each year. U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the agency that allocates immigrant visa numbers. In most cases, an immigrant visa must be available at the time of filing the adjustment application and at the time of final adjudication, if approved. …

A visa queue (waiting list or backlog) forms when the demand is higher than the supply of visas for a given year in any category or country. To distribute the visas among all preference categories, DOS allocates the visas by providing visa numbers according to the prospective immigrant’s:

• Preference category;

• Country to which the visa will be charged (usually the country of birth);20 and

• Priority date.

Therefore, the length of time an applicant must wait in line before being eligible to file an adjustment application depends on:

• The demand for and supply of immigrant visa numbers;

• The per-country visa limitations; and

• The number of visas allocated for the immigrant’s preference category.21

3. Priority Dates

The priority date is used to determine an immigrant’s place in the visa queue. The priority date is generally the date when the applicant’s relative or employer properly filed the immigrant visa petition on the applicant’s behalf with USCIS. A prospective immigrant’s priority date can be found on Notice of Action (Form I-797) for the petition filed on his or her behalf.22 The officer should verify the priority date by reviewing the actual immigrant petition or permanent labor certification application.

20 For exceptions to this general rule, see 22 CFR 42.12. …

22 Form I-797 is contained in the A-file.

[277] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 6 (Adjudicative Review):

To adjust status to a lawful permanent resident, an applicant must first be eligible for one of the immigrant visa categories established by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or another provision of law. …

Security Checks and National Security Concerns

USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] conducts background checks on all applicants for adjustment of status to enhance national security and protect the integrity of the immigration process by ensuring that USCIS grants lawful permanent resident status only to those applicants eligible for the requested benefit. The officer must ensure that all security checks are completed, unexpired, and resolved as necessary prior to adjudicating an adjustment application.

In general, a national security concern exists when a person or organization has been determined to have a link to past, current, or planned involvement in an activity or organization involved in terrorism, espionage, sabotage, or the illegal transfer of goods, technology, or sensitive information.2

2 See INA 212(a)(3)(A), INA 212(a)(3)(B), or INA 212(a)(3)(F). See INA 237(a)(4)(A) or INA 237(a)(4)(B).

[278] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

Noncitizens are generally not eligible for adjustment of status [to become a legal permanent resident] if one or more of the following bars to adjustment or grounds of inadmissibility apply. However, adjustment bars do not apply to every type of adjustment pathway. Furthermore, different inadmissibility grounds may apply to different adjustment pathways.

Therefore, applicants may still be able to adjust under certain immigrant categories due to special exceptions or exemptions from the adjustment bars, inadmissibility grounds, or access to program-specific waivers of inadmissibility or other forms of relief. …

Some of the adjustment bars listed may not apply to all applicants. For example, certain adjustment bars do not apply to immediate relatives, VAWA [Violence Against Women Act]-based applicants, certain special immigrants, or employment-based immigrants.

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 6 (Adjudicative Review): “Some employment-based adjustment applicants may overcome adjustment bars under the provisions of INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 245(k). In addition, some applicants who entered without inspection or are otherwise subject to adjustment bars may still be eligible to adjust status under the provisions of INA 245(i).”

[279] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

Depending on how a noncitizen entered the United States or if a noncitizen committed a particular act or violation of immigration law, he or she may be barred from adjusting status [to become a legal permanent resident]. With certain exceptions, some noncitizens ineligible for adjustment of status under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 245 include any noncitizen who…

• Last entered the United States without being admitted or paroled after inspection by an immigration officer;9

• Last entered the United States as a nonimmigrant crewman….10

9 See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(3).

10 See INA 245(c)(1). See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(2).

[280] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

Depending on how a noncitizen entered the United States or if a noncitizen committed a particular act or violation of immigration law, he or she may be barred from adjusting status [to become a legal permanent resident]. With certain exceptions, some noncitizens ineligible for adjustment of status under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 245 include any noncitizen who …

• Is now employed or has ever been employed in the United States without authorization;11

11 See INA 245(c)(2) and 8 CFR 245.1(b)(4). See INA 245(c)(8) and 8 CFR 245.1(b)(10). Immediate relatives, as defined in INA 201(b), and certain special immigrants are exempt from these bars.

[281] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part B (Adjustment), Chapter 6 (Unauthorized Employment):

With certain exceptions, an applicant is barred from adjusting status if:

• He or she continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior to filing an application for adjustment of status;1 or

• He or she has ever engaged in unauthorized employment, whether before or after filing an adjustment application.2

These bars apply not only to unauthorized employment since an applicant’s most recent entry but also to unauthorized employment during any previous periods of stay in the United States.3

As previously discussed, the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8) bars to adjustment do not apply to:4

• Immediate relatives;

• Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)-based applicants;

• Certain physicians and their accompanying spouse and children;5

• Certain G-4 international organization employees, NATO-6 [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] employees, and their family members;6

• Special immigrant juveniles;7 or

• Certain members of the U.S. armed forces and their accompanying spouse and children.8

Employment-based applicants also may be eligible for exemption from this bar under INA 245(k).9

An applicant employed while his or her adjustment application is pending final adjudication must maintain USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] employment authorization and comply with the terms and conditions of that authorization.10 The filing of an adjustment application itself does not authorize employment.

A. Definitions

1. Unauthorized Employment

Unauthorized employment is any service or labor performed for an employer within the United States by a noncitizen who is not authorized by the INA or USCIS to accept employment or who exceeds the scope or period of the noncitizen’s employment authorization.11

1 See INA 245(c)(2).

2 See INA 245(c)(8).

3 See Section B, Periods of Time to Consider and Effect of Departure [7 USCIS-PM B.6(B)].

4 Both INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8) bar applicants from adjusting if they have engaged in unauthorized employment. However, the language of INA 245(c)(2) includes a specific exclusion for immediate relatives and certain special immigrants that is missing from the language of INA 245(c)(8). Applying traditional concepts of statutory construction, USCIS interprets the exemptions in INA 245(c)(2) to apply to INA 245(c)(8) as well. See 62 FR 39417 (PDF), 39422 (Jul. 23, 1997). See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(10).

5 See INA 101(a)(27)(H).

6 See INA 101(a)(27)(I). This group is exempt from INA 245(c)(2), INA 245(c)(7), and INA 245(c)(8).

7 See INA 101(a)(27)(J).

8 See INA 101(a)(27)(K).

9 See Chapter 8, Inapplicability of Bars to Adjustment, Section E, Employment-Based Exemption under INA 245(k) [7 USCIS-PM B.8(E)].

10 See INA 274A, 8 CFR 274a, and 62 FR 39417 (PDF) (Jul. 23, 1997).

11 See 8 CFR 274a.12(a)-(c) for examples of authorized employment.

[282] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

Depending on how a noncitizen entered the United States or if a noncitizen committed a particular act or violation of immigration law, he or she may be barred from adjusting status [to become a legal permanent resident]. With certain exceptions, some noncitizens ineligible for adjustment of status under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 245 include any noncitizen who: …

• Is not in lawful immigration status on the date of filing his or her application;12

• Has ever failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since entry into the United States, unless his or her failure to maintain status was through no fault of his or her own or for technical reasons;13

• Was last admitted to the United States in transit without a visa;14

• Was last admitted to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) as a visitor under the Guam or CNMI Visa Waiver Program and who is not a Canadian citizen;15

• Was last admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor without a visa under the Visa Waiver Program;16

• Is seeking employment-based adjustment of status and who is not maintaining a lawful nonimmigrant status on the date of filing this application;18

• Has ever violated the terms of his or her nonimmigrant status;19

• Was admitted as a nonimmigrant fiancé(e), but did not marry the U.S. citizen who filed the petition or any noncitizen who was admitted as the nonimmigrant child of a fiancé(e) whose parent did not marry the U.S. citizen who filed the petition.21

12 See INA 245(c)(2). See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(5). Immediate relatives, as defined in INA 201(b), and certain special immigrants are exempt from this bar.

13 See INA 245(c)(2). See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(6). Immediate relatives, as defined in INA 201(b), and certain special immigrants are exempt from this bar. For information on fault of the applicant or technical reasons, see 8 CFR 245.1(d)(2).

14 See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(1).

15 See INA 245(c)(4). See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(7). Immediate relatives, as defined in INA 201(b), are exempt from this bar.

16 See INA 245(c)(4). See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(8). Immediate relatives, as defined in INA 201(b), are exempt from this bar. …

18 See INA 245(c)(7). See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(9).

19 See INA 245(c)(8). See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(10). Immediate relatives, as defined in INA 201(b), and certain special immigrants are exempt from this bar. …

21 See INA 245(d). See 8 CFR 245.1(c)(6).

[283] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part B (Adjustment), Chapter 3 (Unlawful Immigration Status at Time of Filing):

A noncitizen is in unlawful immigration status if he or she is in the United States without lawful immigration status either because the noncitizen never had lawful status or because the noncitizen’s lawful status has ended.

Noncitizens in unlawful immigration status generally include those:

• Who entered the United States without inspection and admission or parole;13 and

• Whose lawful immigration status expired or was rescinded, revoked, or otherwise terminated.14

13 USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] systems may indicate an entry without inspection as “EWI.”

14 For example, a noncitizen who was admitted as a nonimmigrant is in an unlawful status if the noncitizen has violated any of the terms or conditions of the nonimmigrant status—such as by engaging in unauthorized employment, termination of the employment that was the basis for the nonimmigrant status, failing to maintain a full course of study, or engaging in conduct specified in 8 CFR 212.1(e)-(g). The noncitizen’s status also becomes unlawful if the noncitizen remains in the United States after DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Services] terminates the noncitizen’s nonimmigrant status under 8 CFR 214.1(d).

[284] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part B (Adjustment), Chapter 4 (Status and Nonimmigrant Visa Violations):

Any adjustment applicant is ineligible to adjust status under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 245(a) if, other than through no fault of his or her own or for technical reasons,1 he or she has ever:

• Failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since entry into the United States;2 or

• Violated the terms of his or her nonimmigrant status.3

The INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8) bars to adjustment do not apply to:

• Immediate relatives;4

• VAWA [Violence Against Women Act]-based applicants;

• Certain physicians and their accompanying spouse and children;5

• Certain G-4 international organization employees, NATO-6 employees, and their family members;6

• Special immigrant juveniles;7 or

• Certain members of the U.S. armed forces and their spouse and children.8

Employment-based applicants also may be eligible for exemption from this bar under INA 245(k).9

A. Failure to Continuously Maintain Lawful Immigration Status

The bar to adjustment for failing to continuously maintain a lawful status since entry into the United States applies to an applicant for adjustment who has:

• Failed to maintain continuously a lawful status since their most recent entry; and

• An applicant who has ever been out of lawful status at any time since any entry.10

1 The language “…other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons…” listed in INA 245(c)(2) also applies to INA 245(c)(8) and is defined in 8 CFR 245.1(d)(2).

2 See INA 245(c)(2). See 8 CFR 245.1(b)(6). This chapter only addresses one of the three immigration violations described in the INA 245(c)(2) bar. For more information on the other two immigration violations, see Chapter 3, Unlawful Immigration Status at Time of Filing – INA 245(c)(2) [7 USCIS-PM B.3] and Chapter 6, Unauthorized Employment – INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8) [7 USCIS-PM B.6].

3 See INA 245(c)(8). An example of violating the terms of a nonimmigrant status would be if a B-2 visitor were to enroll in college and attend classes. This chapter only addresses one of the two immigration violations described in the INA 245(c)(8) bar. For more information on the other immigration violation, see Chapter 6, Unauthorized Employment – INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8) [7 USCIS-PM B.6].

4 See INA 201(b). Immediate relatives of a U.S. citizen include the U.S. citizen’s spouse, children (unmarried and under 21 years of age), and parents (if the U.S. citizen is 21 years of age or older). Widow(er)s of U.S. citizens and noncitizens admitted to the United States as a fiancé(e) or child of a fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen may also be considered immediate relatives if they meet certain conditions.

5 See INA 101(a)(27)(H).

6 See INA 101(a)(27)(I).

7 See INA 101(a)(27)(J).

8 See INA 101(a)(27)(K).

9 See Chapter 8, Inapplicability of Bars to Adjustment, Section E, Employment-Based Exemption under INA 245(k) [7 USCIS-PM B.8(E)].

10 See INA 245(c)(2). See Section I, Evidence to Consider [7 USCIS-PM B.4(I)].

[285] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Eligibility Requirements):

Depending on how a noncitizen entered the United States or if a noncitizen committed a particular act or violation of immigration law, he or she may be barred from adjusting status [to become a legal permanent resident]. …

Generally, an adjustment applicant is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible for adjustment of status if one or more of the grounds of inadmissibility apply to him or her.

[286] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 8 (Admissibility), Part J (Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

The 1924 Immigration Act3 made obtaining a visa under a false name or submitting false evidence in support of a visa application a federal crime. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the courts used this principle to find that a visa obtained by fraud was no visa at all, making the person’s admission with a fraudulent visa unlawful.4

Congress codified the BIA’s and the courts’ approach in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. With former INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 212(a)(19), it created a new bar to admission for any applicant who used fraud or willful misrepresentation to gain entry into the United States or obtain a visa or other documentation.5

In 1986, Congress amended the bar so that a person could be found inadmissible for using fraud or willful misrepresentation when seeking any benefit under the INA, not just entry, visas, or other documents.6 Congress re-designated former INA 212(a)(19) as INA 212(a)(6)(C) in 1990 but did not alter the bar to admission itself.7 Substantive changes to the inadmissibility ground did not come until 1996, when Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).8

With the passage of IIRIRA, Congress created two separate inadmissibility grounds that remain unchanged to this day:9

• Fraud or willful misrepresentation made in connection with obtaining an immigration benefit;10 and

• False claim to U.S. citizenship made on or after September 30, 1996.11

These two grounds differ significantly. This Part J only addresses the inadmissibility determination for fraud or willful misrepresentation made in connection with obtaining an immigration benefit. This includes, however, false claims to U.S. citizenship made prior to September 30, 1996.

Noncitizens who made a false claim to U.S. citizenship prior to September 30, 1996, cannot be found inadmissible under the false claim to U.S. citizenship ground of inadmissibility.12 IIRIRA made this ground applicable only to false claims made on or after September 30, 1996.13

Therefore, for false claims to U.S. citizenship made before September 30, 1996, the officer must analyze the person’s inadmissibility according to the general fraud and willful misrepresentation ground of inadmissibility, as outlined in this Part J.14

C. Scope

This guidance addresses inadmissibility for fraud and willful misrepresentation15 in relation to obtaining a benefit under the INA, including inadmissibility for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship before September 30, 1996.

D. Legal Authorities

• INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) – Illegal Entrants and Immigration Violators –Misrepresentation

3 See Sections 22(b) and 22(c) of the Immigration Act of 1924, Pub. L. 68-139 (May 26, 1924).

4 See Matter of B- and P-, 2 I&N Dec. 638, 640–41 (A.G. 1947), citing McCandless v. Murphy, 47 F.2d 1072 (3rd Cir. 1931). See United States ex rel. Leibowitz v. Schlotfeldt, 94 F.2d 263 (7th Cir. 1938). See United States ex rel. Fink v. Reimer, 96 F.2d 217 (2nd Cir. 1938).

5 Former INA 212(a)(19) made inadmissible any applicant who “seeks to procure, or has sought to procure or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact.” See the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. 82-414 (PDF) (June 27, 1952).

6 Congress expanded former INA 212(a)(19) to make one inadmissible for using fraud or willful misrepresentation in relation to “a visa, other documentation, or entry into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act.” See Section 6(a) of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. 99-639 (PDF), 100 Stat. 3537, 3543 (November 10, 1986).

7 See Section 601(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, 5067 (November 29, 1990).

8 See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Division C of Pub. L. 104-208 (September 30, 1996).

9 See Section 344(a) of IIRIRA, Division C of Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-637 (September 30,1996).

10 See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

11 See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).

12 See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).

13 See Section 344(a) of IIRIRA, Division C of Pub. L. 104-208 (PDF) (September 30, 1996).

14 See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

15 See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Inadmissibility for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship on or after September 30, 1996 is a separate inadmissibility ground. See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).

[287] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 8 (Admissibility), Part J (Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation), Chapter 2 (Overview of Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation):

A. General

An applicant may be found inadmissible if he or she obtains a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) either through:

• Fraud; or

• Willful misrepresentation.

Although fraud and willful misrepresentation are distinct actions for inadmissibility purposes, they share common elements. All of the elements necessary for a finding of inadmissibility based on willful misrepresentation are also needed for a finding of inadmissibility based on fraud. However, a fraud finding requires two additional elements.

This is why a person who is inadmissible for fraud is always also inadmissible for willful misrepresentation. However, the opposite is not necessarily true: a person inadmissible for willful misrepresentation is not necessarily inadmissible for fraud.1

Additionally, misrepresentation of a material fact may lead to other adverse immigration consequences. For example, if the beneficiary commits marriage fraud, it may have adverse immigration consequences for both the petitioner and the beneficiary. …

E. Overview of Admissibility Determination

When making the inadmissibility determination, the officer should keep in mind the severe nature of the penalty for fraud or willful misrepresentation. The person will be barred from admission for the rest of his or her life unless the person qualifies for and is granted a waiver. The officer should examine all facts and circumstances when evaluating inadmissibility for fraud or willful misrepresentation.

1 For more on the interplay between findings of fraud and willful misrepresentation, see Section D, Comparing Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation [8 USCIS-PM J.2(D)].

[288] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 8 (Admissibility), Part J (Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation), Chapter 3 (Adjudicating Inadmissibility):

A. Evidence and Burden of Proof

1. Evidence

To find a person inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation,1 there must be at least some evidence that would permit a reasonable person to find that the person used fraud or that he or she willfully misrepresented a material fact in an attempt to obtain a visa, other documentation, admission into the United States, or any other immigration benefit.2

In addition, the evidence must show that the person made the misrepresentation to an authorized official of the U.S. government, whether in person, in writing, or through other means.3 Examples of evidence an officer may consider include oral or written testimony, or any other documentation containing false information. …

B. Procuring a Benefit under the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act]

1. General

In order to be found inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation, a person must seek to procure, have sought to procure, or have procured one of the following:

• An immigrant or nonimmigrant visa;

• Other documentation;

• Admission into the United States; or

• Other benefit provided under the INA.

The fraud or willful misrepresentation must have been made to an official of the U.S. government, generally an immigration or consular officer.10

2. Other Documentation

“Other documentation” refers to documents required when a person applies for admission to the United States. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Re-entry permits;

• Refugee travel documents;

• Border crossing cards; and

• U.S. passports.

Documents evidencing extension of stay are not considered entry documents.9 Similarly, documents such as petitions and labor certification forms are documents that are presented in support of a visa application or applications for status changes. They are not, by themselves, entry documents and therefore, they are also not considered “other documentation.”

However, if such documents are used in support of obtaining another benefit provided under the INA, they may be relevant to a finding of willful misrepresentation or fraud.

3. Other Benefits Provided under the INA

Any “other benefit” refers to an immigration benefit or entitlement provided for by the INA. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Requests for extension of nonimmigrant stay;12

• Change of nonimmigrant status;13

• Permission to re-enter the United States;

• Waiver of the 2-year foreign residency requirement;14

• Employment authorization;15

• Parole;16

• Voluntary departure;17

• Adjustment of status;18 and

• Requests for stay of deportation.19

1 See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

2 The “reasonable person” standard is drawn from INS [U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service] v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (agency fact-finding must be accepted unless a reasonable fact-finder would necessarily conclude otherwise).

3 See Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 1994). See Matter of D-L- & A-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 409 (BIA 1991). See Matter of L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961). …

10 See Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 1994). See Matter of D-L- & A-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 409 (BIA 1991). See Matter of L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961).

11 See Matter of M-y R-, 6 I&N Dec. 315 (BIA 1954). See 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(7), Interpretation of the Terms “Other Documentation” or “Other Benefit.”

12 See 8 CFR 214.1.

13 See INA 248. See 8 CFR 248.

14 See INA 212(e).

15 See INA 274A. See 8 CFR 274a.12.

16 See INA 212(d)(5). See 8 CFR 212.5.

17 See INA 240B. See 8 CFR 240.25 and 8 CFR 1240.26.

18 See INA 245.

19 See 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(7), Interpretation of the Terms “Other Documentation” or “Other Benefit.”

[289] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 8 (Admissibility), Part B (Health-Related Grounds of Inadmissibility), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

The medical grounds of inadmissibility, the medical examination of noncitizens, and the vaccinations administered to noncitizens are designed to protect the health of the United States population. The immigration medical examination, the resulting medical examination report, and the vaccination record provide the information USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] uses to determine if an applicant meets the health-related standards for admissibility.

Four basic medical conditions may make an applicant inadmissible on health-related grounds:

• Communicable disease of public health significance,

• Failure to show proof of required vaccinations,

• Physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior, and

• Drug abuse or addiction.

B. Background

Public health concerns have been reflected in U.S. immigration law since the Immigration Act of 1882.1 Among others, “persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease” were not allowed to enter the United States.2 In 1990, Congress revised and consolidated all of the grounds of inadmissibility. It narrowed health-related grounds of inadmissibility to include only noncitizens with communicable diseases, physical or mental disorders with associated harmful behavior, or those with drug abuse or addiction problems.3

As of 1996, Congress requires all immigrant visa and adjustment of status applicants to establish that they have been vaccinated against certain vaccine-preventable diseases.4

C. Role of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Because medical knowledge and public health concerns can and do change over time, Congress gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to designate by regulations which conditions make a person inadmissible on health-related grounds.

The HHS component charged with defining these medical conditions is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). …

D. Role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Congress authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to determine a noncitizen’s admissibility to the United States, which includes determinations based on health reasons.7 DHS must follow HHS regulations and instructions when determining whether an applicant is inadmissible on health-related grounds.8

Congress also empowers DHS to designate qualified physicians as civil surgeons who conduct medical examinations of noncitizens physically present in the United States.9

F. Legal Authorities

• INA 212(a)(1) – Health-Related Grounds

• INA 221(d) – Physical Examination

• INA 232; 8 CFR 232 – Detention of Aliens for Physical and Mental Examination

• 42 U.S.C. 252 – Medical Examination of aliens

• 42 CFR 34 – Medical Examination of Aliens

• Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons (Technical Instructions), and updates11

1 See the Immigration Act of 1882, 22 Stat. 214 (August 3, 1882).

2 See the Immigration Act of 1891, 26 Stat. 1084 (March 3, 1891).

3 See the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90), Pub. L. 101-649 (PDF) (November 29, 1990).

4 See the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Division C of Pub. L. 104-208 (PDF) (September 30, 1996). See INA 212(a)(1)(A)(ii). …

7 See INA 212(a).

8 See INA 212(a)(1)(A).

9 See INA 232.

[290] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 8 (Admissibility), Part B (Health-Related Grounds of Inadmissibility), Chapter 6 (Communicable Diseases of Public Health Significance):

A. Communicable Diseases

Applicants who have communicable diseases of public health significance are inadmissible.1 The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has designated the following conditions as communicable diseases of public health significance that apply to immigration medical examinations conducted in the United States:2

• Gonorrhea;

• Hansen’s Disease (Leprosy), infectious;

• Syphilis, infectious stage; and

• Tuberculosis (TB), Active—Only a Class A TB diagnosis renders an applicant inadmissible to the United States. Under current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, Class A TB means TB that is clinically active and communicable.

What qualifies as a communicable disease of public health significance is determined by HHS, not by USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services]. Any regulatory updates HHS makes to its list of communicable diseases of public health significance are controlling over the list provided in this Part B.

1. Additional Communicable Diseases for Applicants Abroad

HHS regulations also list two additional general categories of communicable diseases of public health significance.3 Currently, these provisions only apply to applicants outside the United States who have to be examined by panel physicians:4

• Communicable diseases that may make a person subject to quarantine, as listed in a Presidential Executive Order, as provided under Section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act.5

• Communicable diseases that may pose a public health emergency of international concern if they meet one or more of the factors listed in 42 CFR 34.3(d) and for which the Director of the CDC has determined that (A) a threat exists for importation into the United States, and (B) such disease may potentially affect the health of the American public. The determination will be made consistent with criteria established in Annex 2 of the revised International Health Regulations. HHS/CDC’s determinations will be announced by notice in the Federal Register.

2. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)

As of January 4, 2010, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is no longer defined as a communicable disease of public health significance according to HHS regulations.6 Therefore, HIV infection does not make the applicant inadmissible on health-related grounds for any immigration benefit adjudicated on or after January 4, 2010, even if the applicant filed the immigration benefit application before January 4, 2010.

The officer should disregard a diagnosis of HIV infection when determining whether an applicant is inadmissible on health-related grounds. The officer should administratively close any HIV waiver application filed before January 4, 2010.

B. Parts of Form I-693 Addressing Communicable Diseases

1. Tuberculosis

An initial tuberculosis (TB) screening test for showing an immune response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis,7 antigens is required for all applicants 2 years of age or older.8 According to the Tuberculosis Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons, applicants under 2 years of age are required to undergo an initial screening test only if the child has signs or symptoms suggestive of TB or has known human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. …

Positive Screening Results

If the initial screening test is positive, or if the applicant has signs or symptoms of TB or has known HIV infection, a chest X-ray must be performed. Applicants who have chest x-ray findings suggestive of TB, signs or symptoms of TB, or known HIV infection must be referred to the health department of jurisdiction for sputum testing. This referral, testing, and treatment can be a lengthy process, but the civil surgeon cannot sign off on the Form I-693 until any required steps relating to TB have been completed.

Under the Technical Instructions, a pregnant applicant can defer the chest X-ray until after pregnancy but the civil surgeon may not submit the form until the chest X-ray has been performed, interpreted, and the appropriate follow-up, if required under the Technical Instructions, is completed. If the officer receives an incomplete medical examination for a pregnant applicant, the officer should return the original form to the applicant for corrective action according to established local procedures.

Referral and Reporting to Health Departments

If a referral is required, the civil surgeon must not sign Form I-693 until the referral evaluation section has been completed and received back from the appropriate health department. If the referral evaluation section is not documented, the officer should issue an RFE [Requests for Evidence] for corrective action. Determining whether a referral is required is detailed in the TB Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons.

2. Syphilis

An applicant may be required to undergo serological testing for syphilis depending on the applicant’s age and other factors set by CDC. Civil surgeons must consult CDC’s Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons for current requirements, and to ensure they are using approved screening, testing, and treatment procedures. The testing age is determined by the applicant’s age on the date the civil surgeon completed the immigration medical examination and signed Form I-693, not the age at the time USCIS adjudicates the application.

1 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 212(a)(1)(A)(i).

2 See 42 CFR 34.2(b).

3 See 42 CFR 34.2(b)(2) and 42 CFR 34.2(b)(3).

4 An officer will not encounter such annotations on Form I-693, but may on the DS-2053/DS-2054.

5 See Pub. L. 78-410, 58 Stat. 682, 703 (July 1, 1944), as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. Chapter 6A. The current revised list of quarantinable communicable diseases is available at cdc.gov and archives.gov/federal-register.

6 See the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-293 (PDF) (July 30, 2008). See 42 CFR 34.2(b) as amended by 74 FR 56547 (PDF) (Nov. 2, 2009).

7 Bacteria that cause latent TB infection and TB disease.

8 For acceptable tests and more information regarding procedures relating to the referral process, see the Tuberculosis Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons.

[291] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 8 (Admissibility), Part B (Health-Related Grounds of Inadmissibility), Chapter 7 (Physical or Mental Disorder with Associated Harmful Behavior):

Applicants who have physical or mental disorders and harmful behavior associated with those disorders are inadmissible.2 The inadmissibility ground is divided into two subcategories:

• Current physical or mental disorders, with associated harmful behavior.

• Past physical or mental disorders, with associated harmful behavior that is likely to recur or lead to other harmful behavior.

There must be both a physical or mental disorder and harmful behavior to make an applicant inadmissible based on this ground. Neither harmful behavior nor a physical or mental disorder alone renders an applicant inadmissible on this ground. Harmful behavior is defined as behavior that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the applicant or others.

A physical disorder is a currently accepted medical diagnosis as defined by the current edition of the Manual of International Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death published by the World Health Organization or by another authoritative source as determined by the Director.3 Officers should consult the Technical Instructions for additional information, if needed.

A mental disorder is a currently accepted psychiatric diagnosis, as defined by the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association or by another authoritative source as determined by the Director.4 Officers should consult the Technical Instructions for additional information, if needed.

Under the Technical Instructions, a diagnosis of substance abuse/addiction for a substance that is not listed in Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (with current associated harmful behavior or a history of associated harmful behavior judged likely to recur) is classified as a mental disorder.5

Under prior Technical Instructions and the July 20, 2010 or older versions of the form, these conditions were summarized under the drug abuse/addiction part of the form. An officer, however, should not find an applicant inadmissible for “drug abuse/addiction” if a non-controlled substance is involved.

B. Relevance of Alcohol-Related Driving Arrests or Convictions

1. Alcohol Use and Driving

Alcohol is not listed in Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act.6 Therefore, alcohol use disorders are treated as a physical or mental disorder for purposes of determining inadmissibility. As a result, an applicant with an alcohol use disorder will not be deemed inadmissible unless there is current associated harmful behavior or past associated harmful behavior likely to recur. The harmful behavior must be such that it poses, has posed, or is likely to pose a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the applicant or others.

In the course of adjudicating benefit applications, officers frequently encounter criminal histories that include arrests and/or convictions for alcohol-related driving incidents, such as DUI (driving under the influence) and DWI (driving while intoxicated). These histories may or may not rise to the level of a criminal ground of inadmissibility.7 A record of criminal arrests and/or convictions for alcohol-related driving incidents may constitute evidence of a health-related inadmissibility as a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior.

Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is clearly an associated harmful behavior that poses a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the applicant or others. Where a civil surgeon’s mental status evaluation diagnoses the presence of an alcohol use disorder (abuse or dependence), and where there is evidence of harmful behavior associated with the disorder, a Class A medical condition should be certified on Form I-693.

2 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 212(a)(2)(A)(iii).

3 HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] regulations define Director as the director of CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control] or a designee as approved by the Director or Secretary of HHS. See 42 CFR 34.2(g).

4 HHS regulations define Director as the director of CDC or a designee as approved by the Director or Secretary of HHS. See 42 CFR 34.2(g).

5 See Title II of Pub. L. 91-513 (PDF), 84 Stat. 1242, 1247 (October 27, 1970), as amended, codified at 21 U.S.C. 801 et. seq.

6 See Title II of Pub. L. 91-513 (PDF), 84 Stat. 1242, 1247 (October 27, 1970), as amended, codified at 21 U.S.C. 801 et. seq.

7 See INA 212(a)(2).

[292] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II , Section 1182: “Immigration, Inadmissible Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States: …

(3) Security and Related Grounds

(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party

(i) In general

Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for involuntary membership

Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that the membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or is or was solely when under 16 years of age, by operation of law, or for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and whether necessary for such purposes.

(iii) Exception for past membership

Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that—

(I) the membership or affiliation terminated at least—

(a) 2 years before the date of such application, or

(b) 5 years before the date of such application, in the case of an alien whose membership or affiliation was with the party controlling the government of a foreign state that is a totalitarian dictatorship as of such date, and

(II) the alien is not a threat to the security of the United States.

(iv) Exception for close family members

The Attorney General may, in the Attorney General’s discretion, waive the application of clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the parent, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister of a citizen of the United States or a spouse, son, or daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest if the immigrant is not a threat to the security of the United States.

(E) Participants in Nazi persecution, genocide, or the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing

(i) Participation in Nazi persecutions

Any alien who, during the period beginning on March 23, 1933, and ending on May 8, 1945, under the direction of, or in association with—

(I) the Nazi government of Germany,

(II) any government in any area occupied by the military forces of the Nazi government of Germany,

(III) any government established with the assistance or cooperation of the Nazi government of Germany, or

(IV) any government which was an ally of the Nazi government of Germany,

ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion is inadmissible.

[293] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II , Section 1182: “Immigration, Inadmissible Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States …

(4) Public Charge

(A) In General

Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status [to become a legal permanent resident], is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

(B) Factors to Be Taken Into Account

(i) In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s—

(I) age;

(II) health;

(III) family status;

(IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and

(V) education and skills.

(ii) In addition to the factors under clause (i), the consular officer or the Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support under section 1183a of this title for purposes of exclusion under this paragraph.

[294] Webpage: “Public Charge.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed December 12, 2019. <www.uscis.gov>

“For purposes of determining inadmissibility, ‘public charge’ means an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.”

[295] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part V, Section 1227: “Immigration, Deportable Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

“Any alien who, within five years after the date of entry, has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable.”

[296] Webpage: “Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed August 14, 2019. <www.uscis.gov>

The eastern states’ concerns about poor immigrants and the cost of caring for them found expression in the first general federal immigration statute of 1882.5 The 1882 law excluded “any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.”6

In the Act of March 3, 1903 Congress added “professional beggars” as a class of exclusion.10 A 1907 law then added additional language that excluded potential immigrants with a “mental or physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such an alien to earn a living.”11 The Immigration Act of 1917 added “vagrants” to the LPC [likely to become a public charge] provision and this version of it remained substantially unchanged when it was incorporated into the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act [INA].12 The INA left the LPC policy substantively the same, but added language explicitly emphasizing the discretionary authority of administrative officers in the Department of State and the Immigration Service to determine the definition of “LPC.”13 In sum, a version of the LPC provision has been part of federal immigration policy from its foundations and it consistently remained one of the most common grounds for immigrant inadmissibility.14

In the cases they adjudicated, however, the [Immigration and Naturalization] Service continued to consider a variety of factors beyond the applicant’s current financial conditions when making decisions. For example, the Immigration Service’s 1949 regulations reads: “In the absence of a statutory provision, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the amount of money an alien should have. This is only one element to be considered in each case, but generally he should have enough to provide for his reasonable wants and those of accompanying persons dependent upon him until such time as he is likely to find employment and when bound for an interior point, railroad ticket or funds with which to purchase same.”29

Or, as Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Counsel Charles Gordon put it in 1949:

“It is wrong to assume that poverty alone will disqualify an immigrant. Such an assumption is refuted by the epic American story which tells of millions of immigrants—largely the poor and oppressed of other lands—who have found vast opportunities in America… What is more important than immediate assets is the desire to become a productive member of the community, coupled with freedom from serious physical and mental deficiencies.”30

Immigration policies barring the admission of aliens likely to become public charges predate federal immigration regulations and have been a part of U.S. immigration policy since the first general immigration law of 1882. For more than 100 years the LPC provision remained one of the most common reasons for excluding immigrants from the United States. Federal policies providing for the deportation of immigrants who have actually become public charges date to 1891 and also remain part of current immigration law. Deportations of public charges already living in the U.S. have been much less common than LPC exclusions of aliens attempting entry, especially in the years since the first decades of the twentieth century.

[297] Notice: “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds.” U.S. Department of Justice, March 26, 1999. Pages 28689–93. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 28689:

The Department of Justice (Department) is publishing a proposed rule in this issue of the Federal Register which proposes to establish clear standards governing a determination that an alien is inadmissible or ineligible to adjust status, or has become deportable, on public charge grounds. Before the proposed rule becomes final, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) is publishing its field guidance on public charge issues as an attachment to this notice. This is necessary to help alleviate public confusion over the meaning of the term “public charge” in immigration law and its relationship to the receipt of Federal, State, and local public benefits. This field guidance will also provide aliens with better guidance as to the types of public benefits that will and will not be considered in public charge determinations.

DATES: This notice and field guidance are effective May 21, 1999. …

The Service is publishing a rule for notice and comment that defines “public charge” or purposes of both admission/adjustment and deportation. That rule proposes that “public charge” means an alien who has become (for deportation purposes) or who is likely to become (for admission/adjustment purposes) “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either (i) the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or (ii) institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” Institutionalization for short periods of rehabilitation does not constitute such primary dependence.

DATES: This notice and field guidance are effective May 21, 1999.

Page 28692:

The term “public charge” has not been defined in law or regulation and, in the past, the Service has not provided comprehensive guidance on all kinds of benefits that could cause an alien to be considered a public charge. In light of the new laws and the complexity of the federal, state, and local public benefits system, this issue now requires that the Service adopt uniform standards. Accordingly, the Service is publishing a proposed rule for notice and comment, as noted above. The proposed standards take into account the law and public policy decisions concerning alien eligibility for public benefits and public health considerations, as well as past practice by the Service and the Department of State.

It has never been Service policy that any receipt of services or benefits paid for in whole or in part from public funds renders an alien a public charge, or indicates that the alien is likely to become a public charge. The nature of the public program must be considered. For instance, attending public schools, taking advantage of school lunch or other supplemental nutrition programs, or receiving emergency medical care would not make an alien inadmissible as a public charge, despite the use of public funds. While the Service has not previously issued guidance on a program-by-program basis, the Department of State did codify its policy in the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), excluding Food Stamps from consideration for public charge purposes because of its “supplemental” nature.15 The Service is now taking a similar approach by adopting a definition of public charge that focuses on whether the alien is or is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. After extensive consultation with benefit-granting agencies, the Service has determined that the best evidence of whether an alien is primarily dependent on the government for subsistence is either (i) the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or (ii) institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.

The Service is proposing this definition by regulation and adopting it on an interim basis for several reasons. First, confusion about the relationship between the receipt of public benefits and the concept of “public charge” has deterred eligible aliens and their families, including U.S. citizen children, from seeking important health and nutrition benefits that they are legally entitled to receive. This reluctance to access benefits has an adverse impact not just on the potential recipients, but on public health and the general welfare. Second, non-cash benefits (other than institutionalization for long-term care) are by their nature supplemental and do not, alone or in combination, provide sufficient resources to support an individual or family. In addition to receiving non-cash benefits, an alien would have to have either additional income—such as wages, savings, or earned retirement benefits—or public cash assistance. Thus, by focusing on cash assistance for income maintenance, the Service can identify those who are primarily dependent on the government for subsistence without inhibiting access to non-cash benefits that serve important public interests. Finally, certain federal, state, and local benefits are increasingly being made available to families with incomes far above the poverty level, reflecting broad public policy decisions about improving general public health and nutrition, promoting education, and assisting working-poor families in the process of becoming self-sufficient. Thus, participation in such noncash programs is not evidence of poverty or dependence.

In adopting this new definition, the Service does not expect to substantially change the number of aliens who will be found deportable or inadmissible as public charges. First, under the stricter eligibility rules of the welfare reform laws, many legal aliens are no longer eligible to receive certain types of public benefits, so they run no risk of becoming public charges by virtue of receiving such benefits. Many of those who remain eligible for federal, state, and local public benefits are LPRs [lawful permanent residents], refugees, and asylees, who are unlikely to face public charges screening in any case in light of the section 101(a)(13)C) and the statutory exceptions.16 Further, in light of the Matter of B test, deportations on public charge grounds have been rare and are expected to remain so. With respect to admissibility, the new AOS [affidavit of support] has already raised the threshold for many families to demonstrate that a sponsored alien is not likely to become a public charge. In addition, the statutory factors under section 212(a)(4)(B) continue to apply. This, while the Service will not take an alien’s past or current receipt of non-cash benefits such as medical assistance into account for public charge purposes, the alien’s age, health, and resources must be considered (along with the other statutory factors) in determining whether he or she is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence in the future.

The rules governing alien eligibility for federal, state, and local public benefits are complex and subject to change, including significant state-by-state variations. INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] officers are not expected to know the substantive eligibility rules for different public benefit programs. Rather, this guidance and the proposed rule are intended to make public charge determinations simpler and more uniform, while simultaneously providing greater predictability to the public.

[298] Proposed regulation: “Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds.” U.S. Department of Justice, May 26, 1999. Pages 28676–8. <www.gpo.gov>

Page 28677:

Following extensive consultation with benefit-granting agencies, the Department is proposing to define “public charge” to mean an alien who has become (for deportation purposes) or who is likely to become (for admission or adjustment purposes) “primarily dependent on the Government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at Government expense.” Institutionalization for short periods of rehabilitation does not constitute such primary dependence. This interpretation of “public charge” is reasonable because it is based on the plain meaning of the word “charge,” the historical context of public dependency when the public charge immigration provisions were first enacted more than a century ago, and the expertise of the benefit-granting agencies that deal with subsistence issues. It is also consistent with factual situations presented in the public charge case law.

When a word is not defined by statute and legislative history does not provide clear guidance, courts often construe it in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning as contained in the dictionary. (See, such as Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 898 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. granted, 119 S. Ct. 790 (1999) (citations omitted).) The word “charge” has many meanings in the dictionary, but the one that can be applied unambiguously to a person and best clarifies the phrase “become a public charge” is “a person or thing committed or entrusted to the care, custody, management, or support of another.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language 377 (1986). The dictionary gives the following apt sentence as an example of usage: “[H]e entered the poorhouse, becoming a county charge.” Id. (See also 3 Oxford English Dictionary 36 (2d ed. 1989) (definition #13 for “charge”—“The duty or responsibility of taking care of (a person or thing); care, custody, superintendence”).)

This language indicates that a person becomes a public charge when he or she is committed to the care, custody, management, or support of the public. The dictionary definition suggests a complete, or nearly complete, dependence on the Government rather than the mere receipt of some lesser level of financial support. Historically, individuals who became dependent on the Government were institutionalized in asylums or placed in “almshouses” for the poor long before the array of limited-purpose public benefits now available existed. This primary dependence model of public assistance was the backdrop against which the “public charge” concept in immigration law developed in the late 1800s. …

… The USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture], which administers Food Stamps, WIC [Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children], and other nutrition assistance programs, and SSA [Social Security Administration], which administers SSI [Supplemental Security Income] and other programs, and other benefit-granting agencies have concurred with the HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] advice to the Service that receipt of cash assistance for income maintenance is the best evidence of primary dependence on the Government. …

Page 28678:

A person’s mere receipt of any of these forms of cash assistance for income maintenance, or being institutionalized for long-term care, does not necessarily make him or her inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status, or deportable on public charge grounds. As discussed in detail in the next part of this Supplementary Information section, the law requires that a variety of other factors and prerequisites must be considered as well. These additional requirements have been carefully described in both the admissibility and deportation sections of this proposed…. Every public charge decision will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the proposed rule does not create any blanket requirements that individuals who receive public cash assistance or who are institutionalized for long-term care must be removed from the United States or denied admission or adjustment.

[299] Final rule: “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds.” Federal Register, August 14, 2019. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 41292:

Summary: This final rule amends DHS [Department of Homeland Security] regulations by prescribing how DHS will determine whether an alien applying for admission or adjustment of status is inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or the Act), because he or she is likely at any time to become a public charge. The final rule includes definitions of certain terms critical to the public charge determination, such as “public charge” and “public benefit,” which are not defined in the statute, and explains the factors DHS will consider in the totality of the circumstances when making a public charge inadmissibility determination. …

This final rule supersedes the 1999 Interim Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds.

Page 41304:

As discussed in the NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking],39 DHS currently makes public charge determinations in accordance with the 1999 Interim Field Guidance.40 This guidance explains how the agency determines if a person is likely at any time to become a public charge under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), for admission and adjustment of status purposes, and whether a person has become a public charge within five years of entry from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry, and therefore deportable under section 237(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5).41 On May 26, 1999, INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] issued a proposed rule that would have codified these policies in regulation. Ultimately, however, INS did not publish a final rule conclusively addressing these issues.42 DOS [U.S. Department of State] also issued a cable to its consular officers at that time, implementing similar guidance for visa adjudications, and its Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) was similarly updated.43 USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] has continued to follow the 1999 Interim Field Guidance in its adjudications, and DOS has continued following the public charge guidance set forth in the FAM.44

[300] Webpage: “Public Charge.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed January 30, 2020. <www.uscis.gov>

ALERT: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will implement the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds final rule on Feb. 24, 2020, except in Illinois, where the rule remains enjoined by a federal court as of Jan. 30, 2020. The final rule will apply only to applications and petitions postmarked (or submitted electronically) on or after Feb. 24, 2020. For applications and petitions sent by commercial courier (such as UPS, FedEx, and DHL), the postmark date is the date reflected on the courier receipt. When determining whether an alien is likely to become a public charge at any time in the future, DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] will not consider an alien’s application for, certification or approval to receive, or receipt of certain non-cash public benefits before Feb. 24, 2020. Similarly, when determining whether the public benefits condition applies to applications or petitions for extension of stay or change of status, USCIS will only consider public benefits received on or after Feb. 24, 2020.

USCIS will post updated forms and submission instructions on the USCIS website during the week of Feb. 3, 2020, to give applicants, petitioners and others time to review updated procedures and adjust filing methods. For more information, see our news release.

For now, DHS remains enjoined from implementing the final rule in Illinois. If the injunction in Illinois is lifted, USCIS will provide additional public guidance.

[301] Webpage: “Public Charge.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed December 12, 2019. <www.uscis.gov>

“Non-cash or special-purpose cash benefits are generally supplemental in nature and do not make a person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Therefore, past, current, or future receipt of these benefits do not impact a public charge determination.”

[302] In April of 2017, Just Facts wrote to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to ask if the interpretation above was still in effect. On May 16, 2017, Citizenship and Immigration Services replied that this is still “current policy.”

[303] Webpage: “Public Charge.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed December 12, 2019. <www.uscis.gov>

Non-cash or special purpose cash benefits that are not considered for public charge purposes include:

• Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases; use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care

• Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

• Nutrition programs, including Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs

• Housing benefits

• Child care services

• Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

• Emergency disaster relief

• Foster care and adoption assistance

• Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary, or higher education

• Job training programs

• In-kind, community-based programs, services, or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)

[304] Proposed regulation: “Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds.” U.S. Department of Justice, May 26, 1999. Pages 28676–8. <www.gpo.gov>

Page 28679:

Deportation

The provisions on deportation in the proposed rule incorporate the Attorney General’s decision in the leading case, Matter of B–, 3 I. & N. Dec. 323 (AG and BIA 1948 [Attorney General and Board of Immigration Appeals]), that the Service can prove public charge deportability only if there has been a failure to comply with a legally enforceable duty to reimburse the assistance agency for the costs of care. In addition, the benefit agency’s demand for repayment of the specific public benefit must have been made within the alien’s initial 5-year period after entry, unless it is shown that demand would have been futile because there was no one against whom payment could be enforced. Matter of L–, 6 I. & N. Dec. 349 (BIA 1954). Under the proposed definition for public charge previously discussed, only the failure to meet an agency’s demand for repayment of a cash benefit for income maintenance or for the costs of institutionalization for long-term care will be considered for deportation. If the alien can show that the causes for which he or she received one of these types of public cash benefits during his or her initial 5 years after entry arose after entry, he or she will not be deportable on public charge grounds. (See 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5).) The requirements and procedures concerning the demand for the repayment of a public benefit are governed by the specific program rules established by law and administered by the benefit granting agencies, or by State or local governments, not by the Service. This rule does not alter those existing procedures. The Service does not make determinations about which public benefits must be repaid. The Federal, State, and local benefit-granting agencies are responsible for those decisions. The Service may only initiate removal proceedings based on the public charge ground after the benefit agency has chosen to seek repayment, obtained a final judgment, taken all steps to collect on that judgment, and been unsuccessful.

[305] Webpage: “USCIS Announces Final Rule Enforcing Long-Standing Public Charge Inadmissibility Law.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed/updated August 12, 2019. <www.uscis.gov>

Today, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a final rule that clearly defines long-standing law to better ensure that aliens seeking to enter and remain in the United States—either temporarily or permanently—are self-sufficient and rely on their own capabilities and the resources of family members, sponsors, and private organizations rather than on public resources.

This final rule amends DHS regulations by prescribing how DHS will determine whether an alien is inadmissible to the United States based on his or her likelihood of becoming a public charge at any time in the future, as set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. …

DHS has revised the definition of “public charge” to incorporate consideration of more kinds of public benefits received, which the Department believes will better ensure that applicants subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground are self-sufficient. The rule defines the term “public charge” to mean an individual who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months, in the aggregate, within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months). The rule further defines the term “public benefit” to include any cash benefits for income maintenance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), most forms of Medicaid, and certain housing programs.

[306] Final rule: “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds.” Federal Register, August 14, 2019. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 41292:

Summary: This final rule amends DHS [Department of Homeland Security] regulations by prescribing how DHS will determine whether an alien applying for admission or adjustment of status is inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or the Act), because he or she is likely at any time to become a public charge. The final rule includes definitions of certain terms critical to the public charge determination, such as “public charge” and “public benefit,” which are not defined in the statute, and explains the factors DHS will consider in the totality of the circumstances when making a public charge inadmissibility determination.

Pages 41294–41295:

Since 1999, the prevailing approach to public charge inadmissibility has been dictated primarily by the May 26, 1999, Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds (1999 Interim Field Guidance), issued by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).8 Under that approach, “public charge” has been interpreted to mean a person who is “primarily dependent on the Government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at Government expense.”9 As a consequence, an alien’s reliance on or receipt of non-cash benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps; Medicaid; and housing vouchers and other housing subsidies are not currently considered by DHS in determining whether an alien is deemed likely at any time to become a public charge.

DHS is revising its interpretation of “public charge” to incorporate consideration of such benefits, and to better ensure that aliens subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground are self-sufficient, i.e., do not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities, as well as the resources of family members, sponsors, and private organizations.10 This rule redefines the term “public charge” to mean an alien who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months). This rule defines the term “public benefit” to include cash benefits for income maintenance, SNAP, most forms of Medicaid, Section 8 Housing Assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and certain other forms of subsidized housing. DHS has tailored the rule to limit its effects in certain ways, such as for active duty military members and their families, and children in certain contexts.

[307] Complaint: City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, August 13, 2019. <www.courtlistener.com>

Page 1:

Plaintiffs the City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco”) and the County of Santa Clara (“Santa Clara,” and together with San Francisco, the “Counties”) challenge the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS” or the “Department”) final rule on Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, submitted for publication in the Federal Register on August 12, 2019 (the “Final Rule”). See Rule on Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, Federal Register…

[308] Complaint: State of Washington v. United States Department of Homeland Security. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, August 14, 2019. <www.courtlistener.com>

Pages 1–2:

The Department’s Final Rule, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds … effects a radical overhaul of federal immigration law transforming a system that promotes economic mobility among immigrants into one that advantages immigrants with wealth. It does so by penalizing legally present immigrant families who access federally-funded health, nutrition, and housing programs, even briefly. The Rule achieves this sweeping change unlawfully: it expansively redefines the term “public charge”—a previously rare designation that triggers exclusion from the United States—in a manner that is contrary to congressional intent and agency interpretation that has prevailed for nearly 70 years, and contrary to two 1996 federal statutes.

[309] Complaint: State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, August 16, 2019. <www.clearinghouse.net>

Page 1:

The State of California, the District of Columbia, the State of Maine, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the State of Oregon (hereinafter, Plaintiffs) bring this action to challenge unlawful regulations promulgated by Defendants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Acting Secretary of DHS Kevin McAleenan, and Acting Director of USCIS Kenneth Cuccinelli. Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds…. In the Rule, Defendants illegally expand the circumstances in which DHS may deny individuals’ admission to the United States on “public charge” grounds, when seeking an extension of stay, change of visa category, or lawful permanent resident status. The Rule stacks the deck against marginalized populations, such as children, students, individuals with disabilities, older adults, and low-wage working families. The Rule uproots the understanding of public charge as primary dependence on the government, creating new bars that have not been authorized by Congress, such as making a low income a “heavily weighted” negative factor in admissibility. The Rule also penalizes immigrants who use common, non-cash federal public benefit programs—community (i.e. non-institutional) Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and Section 9 Public Housing—for which they are legally eligible.

[310] Complaint: La Clinica de La Raza v. Donald J. Trump. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, August 16, 2019. <www.courtlistener.com>

Page 3:

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to enjoin the implementation of Defendants’ new public charge Regulation in order to prevent irreparable harm to themselves and their communities. Plaintiffs represent health care providers and other nonprofit organizations that seek to protect access to health care, nutrition, housing, and other public benefits for immigrants, including immigrants of color, regardless of their immigration status or financial means. The Regulation has and will continue to divert Plaintiffs’ resources, both to address the harmful effects of the Regulation and to educate immigrant families about those effects, preventing Plaintiffs from carrying out other aspects of their missions and ensuring that their patients, members, and clients do not forgo critical services to lead healthy, productive, and successful lives.

[311] Complaint: State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, August 20, 2019. <ag.ny.gov>

Pages 2–3:

The Department of Homeland Security’s new definition of “public charge” unlawfully and unreasonably assumes that any recipient of certain federal benefits above a de minimis threshold of use will become a drain on public resources. But the history and purpose of the benefits programs that the Rule targets do not support such an assumption. Rather, Congress intended to provide temporary, supplemental benefits to working families to enable them to continue to be productive members of our society. Defendants thus contort the meaning of “public charge” beyond recognition by radically expanding its definition to include individuals who receive benefits—however nominal—and by viewing the receipt of such benefits as evidence of long-term dependency rather than, as Congress intended, a means of empowering individuals to continue contributing to their communities.

[312] Complaint: Make the Road New York v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, August 27, 2019. <ccrjustice.org>

Page 115:

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

a. Issue a declaratory judgment stating that the Rule is unauthorized by law and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States;

b. Vacate and set aside the Rule;

c. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from implementing the Rule or taking any actions to enforce or apply it;

d. Award plaintiffs attorneys’ fees; and

e. Grant such additional relief as the Court considers just.

[313] Complaint: CASA de Maryland, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump. U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, September 16, 2019. <www.law.georgetown.edu>

Pages 2–3:

Plaintiffs CASA de Maryland (CASA) and two of its members, Angel Aguiluz and Monica Camacho Perez, bring this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the final rule issued on August 14, 2019, by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds…. This Rule purports to interpret the term “public charge” as it is used in § 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) … in a way that is contrary to the term’s plain meaning, historical interpretation, and congressional intent and, moreover, that violates constitutional due process and equal protection guarantees. The Rule imposes a new and fatally flawed decisional framework for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to determine whether noncitizens seeking admission to the United States and applicants for lawful-permanent-resident (LPR) status who are living in the United States are likely to become public charges at any point in the future.2 Although DHS casts this framework as better aligning public-charge determinations with Congress’s intent, the opposite is true. Instead, the Rule gives cover to virtually unfettered decision-making and is designed to disproportionately harm non-European immigrants.

[314] Complaint: Cook County, Illinois v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, September 23, 2019. <www.courtlistener.com>

Page 55:

WHEREFORE, with respect to Counts I–III, Plaintiffs Cook County, Illinois, and Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights pray that this Court:

1. Declare that the actions of the Defendants are arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with the law and without observance of procedure required by law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act….

2. Declare the Final Rule unlawful and invalid as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

3. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction, without bond, enjoining Defendants, their officials, agents, employees, and assigns from implementing or enforcing the Final Rule in the State of Illinois.

4. Stay the implementation or enforcement of the Final Rule in the State of Illinois.

5. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and

6. Order such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

[315] Complaint: Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, September 27, 2019. <www.courtlistener.com>

Pages 2–3:

Plaintiffs CASA de Maryland (CASA) and two of its members, Angel Aguiluz and Monica Camacho Perez, bring this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the final rule issued on August 14, 2019, by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds…. This Rule purports to interpret the term “public charge” as it is used in § 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) … in a way that is contrary to the term’s plain meaning, historical interpretation, and congressional intent and, moreover, that violates constitutional due process and equal protection guarantees. The Rule imposes a new and fatally flawed decisional framework for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to determine whether noncitizens seeking admission to the United States and applicants for lawful-permanent-resident (LPR) status who are living in the United States are likely to become public charges at any point in the future.2 Although DHS casts this framework as better aligning public-charge determinations with Congress’s intent, the opposite is true. Instead, the Rule gives cover to virtually unfettered decision-making and is designed to disproportionately harm non-European immigrants.

[316] Ruling: City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, October 11, 2019. Decided 1–0. Majority: Phyllis J. Hamilton. <cases.justia.com>

Page 1: “This order concerns three motions for a preliminary injunction filed in three related actions. Each of the plaintiffs in those actions moved for preliminary injunctive relief. The motions came on for hearing before this court on October 2, 2019.”

Pages 92–93:

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the States and Counties’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED, as explained above. The Organizations’ motion is DENIED, because they do not fall within the zone of interests of the statute forming the basis of their APA [Administrative Procedure Act] claims.

Preliminary Injunction

Defendants U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenen as Acting Secretary of DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security], Kenneth T. Cuccinelli as Acting Director of USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services], and Donald J. Trump, as President of the United States, are hereby enjoined from applying the Rule, in any manner, to any person residing (now or at any time following the issuance of this order) in San Francisco City or County, Santa Clara County, California, Oregon, the District of Columbia, Maine, or Pennsylvania, or to anyone who is part of a household (as defined by the Rule … that includes such a person. The injunction will remain in effect until a resolution of this action on the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2019

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

[317] Webpage: Chief District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Accessed January 28, 2020 at <www.cand.uscourts.gov>

About District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Federal Judicial Service:

Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California

Nominated by William J. Clinton on February 9, 2000, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089, 5105.

Confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 2000, and received commission on May 25, 2000.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 1991–2000

[318] Ruling: State of Washington v. United States Department of Homeland Security. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, October 11, 2019. Decided 1–0. Majority: Rosanna M. Peterson. <www.waed.uscourts.gov>

Page 2:

Fourteen states challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s expansive revision of the Public Charge Rule. Congress and the U.S. Constitution authorize this Court to provide judicial review of agency actions. The Plaintiff States ask the Court to serve as a check on the power asserted by the Department of Homeland Security to alter longstanding definitions of who is deemed a Public Charge. After reviewing extensive briefing and hearing argument, the Court finds that the Plaintiff States have shown that the status quo should be preserved pending resolution of this litigation. 1 Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay the effective date of the Public Charge Rule until the issues can be adjudicated on their merits.

Page 56:

In section 705, Congress expressly created a mechanism for a reviewing court to intervene to suspend an administrative action until a challenge to the legality of that action can be judicially reviewed. … Here, postponing the effective date of the Public Charge Rule, in its entirety, provides the Plaintiff States’ the necessary relief to “prevent irreparable injury,” as section 705 instructs. See Nken, 556 U.S. at 421 (“A stay does not make time stand still, but does hold a ruling in abeyance to allow an appellate court the time necessary to review it.”).

Alternatively, if a reviewing court determines that a section 705 stay is not appropriate or timely, the Court also finds that the Plaintiff States offer substantial evidence to support a preliminary injunction from enforcement of the Public Charge Rule, without geographic limitation.

Just as the remedy under section 705 for administrative actions is to preserve the status quo while the merits of a challenge to administrative action is resolved, an injunction must apply universally to workably maintain the status quo and adequately protect the Plaintiff States from irreparable harm. Limiting the scope of the injunction to the fourteen Plaintiff States would not prevent those harms to the Plaintiff States, for several reasons.

Pages 57–59:

Finally, the Court declines to limit the injunction to apply only in those states within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In addition to the reasons discussed above, a Ninth Circuit-only injunction would deprive eleven of the fourteen Plaintiff States any relief at all. Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Virginia are located in seven other judicial circuits (the First, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits) and would derive no protection from irreparable injury from relief limited to jurisdictions within the Ninth Circuit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Plaintiff States’ Motion for a Section 705 Stay Pending Judicial Review and for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 34, is GRANTED.

2. The Court finds that the Plaintiff States have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, that they would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay of the effective date of the Public Charge Rule or preliminary injunctive relief, that the lack of substantial injury to the opposing party and the public interest favor a stay, and that the balance of equities and the public interest favor an injunction.

3. The Court therefore … STAYS the implementation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Rule entitled Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds… in its entirety, pending entry of a final judgment on the Plaintiff States’ APA claims. The effective date of the Final Rule is POSTPONED pending conclusion of these review proceedings.

4. In the alternative, pursuant to Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court PRELIMINARILY ENJOINS the Federal Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any person in active concert or participation with them, from implementing or enforcing the Rule entitled Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds… in any manner or in any respect, and shall preserve the status quo pursuant to the regulations promulgated under 8 C.F.R. Parts 103, 212, 213, 214, 245, and 248, in effect as of the date of this Order, until further order of the Court.

5. No bond shall be required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel.

DATED October 11, 2019.

s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson

ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON

United States District Judge

[319] Webpage: “Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson.” U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington. Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.waed.uscourts.gov>

Senior Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson

Federal Judicial Service:

U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington

Nominated by Barack Obama on October 13, 2009, to a seat vacated by Frederick L. Van Sickle; Confirmed by the Senate on January 25, 2010, and received commission on January 26, 2010. Served as Chief Judge from January 27, 2011 to January 27, 2016.

Education:

University of North Dakota School, B.A., 1977

University of North Dakota, M.A., 1983

University of North Dakota School of Law, J.D., 1991

[320] Ruling: State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, October 11, 2019. Decided 1–0. Majority: George B. Daniels. <www.proskauerforgood.com>

Pages 23–24:

Relatedly, a nationwide injunction is necessary to accord Plaintiffs parties with complete redress. In particular, an individual should not have to fear that moving from one state to another could result in a denial of adjustment of status. For example, if the injunction were limited to New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, and a New York resident moved to New Jersey where the injunction would not apply, this individual could there be considered a public charge and face serious repercussions simply for crossing state borders. “[F]reedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.” United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 758 (1966) (citations omitted). It has been considered a “right so elementary [that it] was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.” Id; see also Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 105 (1971) (“Our cases have firmly established that the right of interstate travel is constitutionally protected, does not necessarily rest on the Fourteenth amendment, and is assertable against private as well as governmental interference.”) The Supreme Court’s recognition of the preeminence of this right lends further support for a nationwide injunction that would not interfere with individuals’ ability to move from one place to another. See such as Batalla, 279 F. Supp. 3d at 438 (finding nationwide injunction appropriate “partly in light of the simple fact that people move from state to state and job to job”).

Accordingly, this Court grants a nationwide injunction, as well as a stay postponing the effective date of the Rule pending a final ruling on the merits, or further order of the Court.5

VII. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion for issuance of a preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 33), is GRANTED.

Dated: New York, New York

October 11, 2019

SO ORDERED.

George B. Daniels

United States District Judge

[321] Webpage: “Hon. George B. Daniels.” Practising Law Institute. Accessed January 28, 2020 at <www.pli.edu>

Biography

Hon. George B. Daniels was appointed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 24, 2000. With the support of both New York Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Charles E. Schumer, Judge Daniels was nominated by President Clinton for the Federal bench on August 6, 1999.

Judge Daniels is a 1971 graduate of Suffield Academy. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in American Studies from Yale University in 1975. He obtained law degree in 1978 from the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law. He has been admitted to practice law as a member of the New York, California, New Jersey, and District of Columbia Bars.

[322] Ruling: Make the Road New York v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, October 11, 2019. Decided 1–0. Majority: George B. Daniels. <www.courtlistener.com>

Pages 1–2:

Plaintiffs Make the Road New York, African Services Committee, Asian American Federation, Catholic Charities Community Services (Archdiocese of New York), and Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. bring this action against Defendant Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); Kevin K. McAleenan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); USCIS; and DHS. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ promulgation, implementation, and enforcement of a rule, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds … which redefines the term “public charge” and establishes new criteria for determining whether a noncitizen applying for admission into the United States or for adjustment of status is ineligible because he or she is likely to become a “public charge. (See id. 1–3.) Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, (1) a judgment declaring that the Rule is unauthorized and contrary to law, (2) a vacatur of the Rule, and (3) an injunction enjoining Defendants from implementing the Rule. (Id. at 115.)

Plaintiffs now move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendant from implementing or enforcing the Rule, which is scheduled to take effect on October 15, 2019. (See Notice of Mot., ECF No. 38.) Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED1.

Pages 26–27:

Relatedly, a nationwide injunction is necessary to accord Plaintiffs and other interested parties with complete redress. In particular, an individual should not have to fear that moving from one state to another could result in a denial of adjustment of status. …

Accordingly, this Court grants a nationwide injunction, as well as a stay postponing the effective date of the Rule pending a final ruling on the merits, or further order of the Court.4

Plaintiffs’ motion for issuance of a preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 38), is GRANTED.

Dated: New York, New York

October 11, 2019

SO ORDERED.

George B. Daniels

United States District Judge

[323] Ruling: CASA de Maryland, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump. U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, October 14, 2019. Decided 1–0. Majority: Paul W. Grimm. <medicaid.publicrep.org>

Pages 1–2:

Plaintiffs Angel Aguiluz, Monica Camacho Perez (collectively, the “Individual Plaintiffs”), and CASA de Maryland, Inc. (“CASA”) bring this action against Defendants Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Kevin K. McAleenan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, in his official capacity as Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. ECF No. 27. Plaintiffs argue that the Public Charge Rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Pending before me is Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and to postpone the effective date of the Rule. ECF No. 28. The issues have been fully briefed and a hearing was held on the motion.1 For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. DHS is enjoined from enforcing the Public Charge Rule and the effective date of the Rule is postponed on a nationwide basis during the pendency of this case.2

Page 40:

For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion, it is, this 14th day of October, 2019, hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Corrected Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 28, IS GRANTED as follows:

1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, and Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, in his official capacity as Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, are ENJOINED from

a. Enforcing, applying, or treating as effective, or allowing persons under their control to enforce, apply, or treat as effective, the Public Charge Rule; and

b. Implementing, considering in connection with any application, or requiring the use of any new or updated forms whose submission would be required under the Rule, including the new Form I-944, titled “Declaration of Self Sufficiency,” and the updated Form I-485, titled “Application to Register Permanent Residence of Adjust Status”; and,

2. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705, the effective date of the Rule is POSTPONED pending further Order of the Court.

/S/

Paul W. Grimm

United States District Judge

[324] Webpage: “Grimm, Paul William.” Federal Judicial Center. Accessed January 29, 2020 at <www.fjc.gov>

Grimm, Paul William

Born 1951 in Yokohama, Japan

Federal Judicial Service:

Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Nominated by Barack Obama on February 16, 2012, to a seat vacated by Benson Everett Legg. Confirmed by the Senate on December 3, 2012, and received commission on December 6, 2012.

Other Federal Judicial Service:

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, 1997–2012; chief magistrate judge, 2006–2012

[325] Ruling: Cook County, Illinois v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, October 14, 2019. Decided 1–0. Majority: Gary Feinerman. <www.courtlistener.com>

Page 1:

Judge Gary Feinerman …

In this suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) … Cook County and Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Inc. (“ICIRR”) challenge the legality of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) final rule, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds…. Doc. 1. The Final Rule has an effective date of October 15, 2019. Cook County and ICIRR move for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction under Civil Rule 65, or a stay under § 705 of the APA … to bar DHS (the other defendants are ignored for simplicity’s sake) from implementing and enforcing the Rule in the State of Illinois. Doc. 24. At the parties’ request, briefing closed on October 10, 2019, and oral argument was held on October 11, 2019. … The motion is granted, and DHS is enjoined from implementing the Rule in the State of Illinois absent further order of court.

[326] Webpage: “Feinerman, Gary.” Federal Judicial Center. Accessed January 29, 2020 at <www.fjc.gov>

Feinerman, Gary

Born 1965 in Skokie, IL

Federal Judicial Service:

Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Nominated by Barack Obama on February 24, 2010, to a seat vacated by Robert W. Gettleman. Confirmed by the Senate on June 28, 2010, and received commission on June 29, 2010.

Education:

Yale College, B.A., 1987

Stanford Law School, J.D., 1991

[327] Ruling: City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 5, 2019. <www.govinfo.gov>

Pages 1–3:

City and County of San Francisco; [and others] … Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration [and others] … Defendants–Appellants — No. 19-17213 …

State of California; [and others] … Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security [and others] … Defendants–Appellants — No. 19-17214 …

State of Washington; [and others] … Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security [and others] … Defendants–Appellants — No. 19-35914 …

Page 73: “The motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction in Nos. 19-17213 and 19-17214 is GRANTED. The motion for stay of the preliminary injunction in No. 19-35914 is GRANTED. The cases may proceed consistent with this opinion.”

[328] Webpage: “Judicial Victories in Public Charge Cases Give Trump Admin. Confidence for Implementation of Long-Standing Law.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, December 10, 2019. <www.uscis.gov>

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services obtained judicial victories in decisions issued by the Ninth Circuit last week and the Fourth Circuit Monday to stay the injunctions and respect the legal authority vested in the Administration by the U.S. Congress to enforce long-standing law requiring aliens seeking to come or stay in the United States to be self-sufficient.

On Dec. 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted DHS’s [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] motion for a stay of the preliminary injunctions granted by the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California and Eastern District of Washington. On Dec. 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted DHS’s motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

DHS remains bound by a nationwide injunction issued in a case pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and an injunction limited to the state of Illinois pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Related litigation continues before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits.

[329] Ruling: Department of Homeland Security v. New York. U.S. Supreme Court, January 27, 2020. Decided 5–4. Majority: Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas. Concurring: Gorsuch, Thomas. <www.scotusblog.com>

Page 1:

The application for stay presented to Justice Ginsburg and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the District Court’s October 11, 2019 orders granting a preliminary injunction are stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application.

Justice Gorsuch, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring in the grant of stay.

Page 2: “Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois.”

[330] Ruling: Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security v. Cook County, Illinois. U.S. Supreme Court, February 21, 2020. Decided 5–4. Majority: Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas. Dissenting: Sotomayor. <www.supremecourt.gov>

Page 1:

The application for stay presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court is granted, and the District Court’s October 14, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Kagan would deny the application.

Justice Sotomayor, dissenting from the grant of stay.

[331] Webpage: “Public Charge.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed February 22, 2020. <www.uscis.gov>

ALERT: On Feb. 21, 2020, the Supreme Court stayed the statewide injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois affecting Illinois filers. USCIS will implement the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule nationwide, including in Illinois, on Feb. 24, 2020. USCIS will apply the Final Rule to all applications and petitions postmarked (or, if applicable, submitted electronically) on or after that date. For applications and petitions that are sent by commercial courier (for example, UPS, FedEx, or DHL), the postmark date is the date reflected on the courier receipt. USCIS will reject any affected application or petition that does not adhere to the Final Rule, including those submitted by or on behalf of aliens living in Illinois, if postmarked on or after Feb. 24, 2020.

The Final Rule requires applicants for adjustment of status who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility and certain applicants and petitioners seeking extension of stay and change of status to report certain information related to public benefits. Due to litigation-related delays in the Final Rule’s implementation, USCIS is applying this requirement as though it refers to Feb. 24, 2020, rather than October 15, 2019. Please read all references to Oct. 15, 2019, as though they refer to Feb. 24, 2020.

USCIS will not consider, and applicants for adjustment of status do not need to report, the application for, certification or approval to receive, or receipt of certain previously excluded non-cash public benefits (such as SNAP, most forms of Medicaid, and public housing) before Feb. 24, 2020. Similarly, USCIS will not consider as a heavily weighted negative factor receipt of previously included public benefits (such as SSI and TANF) before Feb. 24, 2020 in a public charge inadmissibility determination. In addition, USCIS will not consider, and applicants and petitioners submitting applications and petitions for extension of stay and change of status do not need to report, the receipt of any public benefits received before Feb. 24, 2020.

Certain classes of aliens are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility (such as refugees, asylees, certain VAWA self-petitioners, U petitioners, and T applicants) and therefore, are not subject to the Final Rule.

[332] Final rule: “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds.” Federal Register, August 14, 2019. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 41295: “Finally, DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] notes that the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] also contains a separate public charge ground of deportability.13 This rule does not interpret or change DHS’s implementation of the public charge ground of deportability.”

[333] Webpage: “Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed August 14, 2019. <www.uscis.gov>

[334] Ruling: State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, August 4, 2020. Decided 3–0. Majority: Leval, Hall, Lynch. <cases.justia.com>

Pages 5–6 (of PDF):

In August 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a final rule setting out a new agency interpretation of a longstanding provision of our immigration law that renders inadmissible to the United States any noncitizen who is likely to become a “public charge.” See Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds…. The Rule expands the meaning of “public charge,” with the likely result that significantly more people will be found inadmissible on that basis. Lawsuits challenging the lawfulness of the Rule were quickly filed around the country, including two cases in the Southern District of New York, which we now consider in tandem on appeal.

These two cases—one brought by New York State, New York City, Connecticut, and Vermont, and the other brought by five non-profit organizations that provide legal and social services to non-citizens—raise largely identical challenges to the Rule, centering on the Rule’s validity under the Administrative Procedure Act. After hearing combined oral argument on the Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions filed in both cases, the district court (George B. Daniels, J.) concluded that the Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims and that the other preliminary injunction factors also favored interim relief. The district court enjoined DHS from implementing the Rule throughout the United States in the pair of orders from which DHS now appeals.

We agree that a preliminary injunction is warranted in these cases, but modify the scope of the injunctions to cover only the states of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. The orders of the district court are thus Affirmed as Modified.

[335] Ruling: Cook County, Illinois v. Chad Wolf. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, June 10, 2020. Decided 2–1. Majority: Wood, Rovner. Dissenting: Barrett. <media.ca7.uscourts.gov>

Pages 1–2:

Before Wood, Chief Judge, and Rovner and Barrett, Circuit Judges.

Wood, Chief Judge. Like most people, immigrants to the United States would like greater prosperity for themselves and their families. Nonetheless, it can take time to achieve the American Dream, and the path is not always smooth. Recognizing this, Congress has chosen to make immigrants eligible for various public benefits; state and local governments have done the same. Those benefits include subsidized health insurance, supplemental nutrition benefits, and housing assistance. Historically, with limited exceptions, temporary receipt of these supplemental benefits did not jeopardize an immigrant’s chances of one day adjusting his status to that of a legal permanent resident or a citizen.

Recently, however, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a new rule designed to prevent immigrants whom the Executive Branch deems likely to receive public assistance in any amount, at any point in the future, from entering the country or adjusting their immigration status. The Rule purports to implement the “public-charge” provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act…. States, cities, and nonprofit groups across the country have filed suits seeking to overturn the Rule.

Cook County, Illinois, and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Inc. (ICIRR) brought one of those cases in the Northern District of Illinois. They immediately sought a preliminary injunction against the Rule pending the outcome of the litigation. Finding that the criteria for interim relief were satisfied, the district court granted their motion. We conclude that at least Cook County adequately established its right to bring its claim and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting preliminary injunctive relief. We therefore affirm.

Page 42:

Barrett, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

The plaintiffs have worked hard to show that the statutory term “public charge” is a very narrow one, excluding only those green card applicants likely to be primarily and permanently dependent on public assistance. That argument is belied by the term’s historical meaning—but even more importantly, it is belied by the text of the current statute, which was amended in 1996 to increase the bite of the public charge determination. When the use of “public charge” in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is viewed in the context of these amendments, it becomes very difficult to maintain that the definition adopted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is unreasonable. Recognizing this, the plaintiffs try to cast the 1996 amendments as irrelevant to the meaning of “public charge.” That argument, however, flies in the face of the statute—which means that despite their best efforts, the plaintiffs’ interpretive challenge is an uphill battle that they are unlikely to win.

I therefore disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the plaintiffs’ challenge to DHS’s definition of “public charge” is likely to succeed at Chevron step two. I express no view, however, on the majority’s analysis of the plaintiffs’ other challenges to the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court did not reach them, and the plaintiffs barely briefed them. The preliminary injunction was based solely on the district court’s interpretation of the term “public charge.” Because its analysis was flawed, I would vacate the injunction and remand the case to the district court, where the plaintiffs would be free to develop their other arguments.

[336] Ruling: City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 2, 2020. Decided 2–1. Majority: Schroeder, Fletcher. Dissenting: VanDyke. <cases.justia.com>

Page 4:

In cases in which two district courts issued preliminary injunctions enjoining implementation of the Department of Homeland Security’s redefinition of the term “public charge,” which describes a ground of inadmissibility, the panel: 1) affirmed the preliminary injunction of the District Court for the Northern District of California covering the territory of the plaintiffs; and 2) affirmed in part and vacated in part the preliminary injunction of the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, vacating the portion of the injunction that made it applicable nationwide.

Page 8:

Dissenting, Judge VanDyke, wrote that for the reasons ably articulated by this court in a December 2019 published opinion in this case, by the Fourth Circuit in CASA de Maryland, Inc. v. Trump, 971 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2020), and by a dissenting Seventh Circuit judge in Cook County v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 208, 234–54 (7th Cir. 2020) (Barrett, J., dissenting)—and implied by the Supreme Court’s multiple stays this year of injunctions virtually identical to those the majority today affirms—he must respectfully dissent.

[337] Final rule: “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds; Implementation of Vacatur.” Federal Register, March 15, 2021. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 12221:

In August 2019, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final rule titled, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds.1 The rule was preliminarily enjoined by courts in the Southern District of New York, District of Maryland, Northern District of California, Eastern District of Washington, and Northern District of Illinois.2 Following a series of stays of the preliminary injunctions,3 DHS began applying the rule on February 24, 2020. Since that time, preliminary injunctions against the rule have been affirmed by the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals.4

[338] Ruling: Cook County, Illinois v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, November 2, 2020. Decided 1–0. Majority: Gary Feinerman. <www.clearinghouse.net>

Pages 1–2:

Judge Gary Feinerman …

Cook County and Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Inc. (“ICIRR”) allege in this suit that the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) final rule, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds … is unlawful. Doc. 1. Plaintiffs claim that the Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act … because (1) it exceeds DHS’s authority under the public charge provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act … (2) is not in accordance with law; and (3) is arbitrary and capricious. … ICIRR also claims that the Rule violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. …

On October 14, 2019, this court preliminarily enjoined DHS from enforcing the Final Rule in the State of Illinois, reasoning that the Rule likely violates the APA because it interprets the term “public charge” in a manner incompatible with its statutory meaning. … DHS appealed. The Seventh Circuit denied DHS’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal … but the Supreme Court issued a stay…. Meanwhile, DHS moved to dismiss the suit under Civil Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). … This court denied DHS’s motion and granted ICIRR’s request for extra-record discovery on its equal protection claim. … And this court denied DHS’s motion to certify under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) an interlocutory appeal of the denial of its motion to dismiss the equal protection claim. …

Shortly after this court denied DHS’s motion to dismiss, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, reasoning that the Final Rule likely violates the APA. 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020). Armed with the Seventh Circuit’s decision, Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their APA claims. Doc. 200. They seek a partial judgment under Civil Rule 54(b)—one that would vacate the Rule pursuant to the APA and allow continued litigation on ICIRR’s equal protection claim. Docs. 217–218. Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. A Rule 54(b) judgment is entered, the Final Rule is vacated, DHS’s request to stay the judgment is denied, and ICIRR’s equal protection claim may proceed in this court.

[339] Webpage: “Feinerman, Gary.” Federal Judicial Center. Accessed January 29, 2020 at <www.fjc.gov>

Feinerman, Gary

Born 1965 in Skokie, IL

Federal Judicial Service:

Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Nominated by Barack Obama on February 24, 2010, to a seat vacated by Robert W. Gettleman. Confirmed by the Senate on June 28, 2010, and received commission on June 29, 2010.

Education:

Yale College, B.A., 1987

Stanford Law School, J.D., 1991

[340] Ruling: Cook County, Illinois v. Chad Wolf. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, November 19, 2020. <storage.courtlistener.com>

The following are before the court:

1. Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Request for Immediate Administrative Stay, filed on November 3, 2020, by counsel for appellants.

2. Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Response to Defendants-Appellants’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, filed on November 17, 2020, by counsel.

It Is Ordered that the motion is Granted. The district court’s judgment is Stayed pending resolution of this appeal.

It Is Further Ordered that briefing in this appeal is Suspended pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of the petition for a writ of certiorari in Wolf v. Cook County, No. 20-450. The government shall file a status report within 10 days of a ruling on the petition.

[341] Webpage: “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule: Litigation.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed April 23, 2021. <www.uscis.gov>

History of Court Decisions …

On Nov. 19, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted a stay pending appeal of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’ Nov. 2, 2020, decision that vacated the Public Charge Final Rule. The Nov. 19 stay replaced an administrative stay that had been issued on Nov. 3. The stays allowed DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] to resume implementing the Public Charge Final Rule nationwide.

On Nov. 2, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found the Public Charge Final Rule procedurally and substantively invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act and vacated the Public Charge Final Rule nationwide, effective Nov. 2, 2020. USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] immediately stopped applying the Public Charge Final Rule to all applications and petitions that would have been subject to it. Instead, USCIS applied the 1999 Interim Field Guidance that was in place before the Public Charge Final Rule was implemented on Feb. 24, 2020, to the adjudication of any application for adjustment of status that was pending or received Nov. 2–3, 2020. In addition, on Nov. 2–3, 2020, USCIS adjudicated any application or petition for extension of nonimmigrant stay or change of nonimmigrant status pending or received on Nov. 2, 2020, or Nov. 3, 2020, consistent with regulations in place before the Public Charge Rule was implemented; in other words, the “public benefits condition” was not applied.

[342] Final rule: “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds; Implementation of Vacatur.” Federal Register, March 15, 2021. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 12221: “On November 2, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a Rule 54(b) judgment vacating the rule on the merits.5 On November 3, 2020, the Seventh Circuit granted an administrative stay of the district court’s judgment and, on November 19, 2020, the Seventh Circuit granted a stay pending appeal.”

[343] Ruling: Cook County, Illinois v. Chad Wolf. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, March 9, 2021. <storage.courtlistener.com>

Cook County, Illinois and Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Plaintiffs – Appellees v. Chad F. Wolf, and others, Defendants – Appellants

Upon consideration of the Unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal, filed on March 9, 2021, by counsel for appellants,

It Is Ordered that this case is Dismissed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b).

[344] Press release: “DHS Secretary Statement on the 2019 Public Charge Rule.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, March 9, 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Today, DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas announced that the government will no longer defend the 2019 public charge rule as doing so is neither in the public interest nor an efficient use of limited government resources.

“The 2019 public charge rule was not in keeping with our nation’s values. It penalized those who access health benefits and other government services available to them,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “Consistent with the President’s vision, we will continue to implement reforms that improve our legal immigration system.”

President Biden’s Executive Order on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans called for an immediate review of agency actions on public charge inadmissibility and deportability. DHS’s review, in consultation with the Departments of Justice and State and the federal benefits-granting agencies, is ongoing.

As discussed in DHS’s litigation statement, and consistent with the government’s decision not to defend the rule, the Department of Justice is no longer pursuing appellate review of judicial decisions invalidating or enjoining enforcement of the 2019 public charge rule. Today, the Department of Justice dismissed its pending appeals in the Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit, and is in the process of doing so in the Fourth Circuit. Following the Seventh Circuit dismissal this afternoon, the final judgment from the Northern District of Illinois, which vacated the 2019 public charge rule, went into effect. As a result, the 1999 interim field guidance on the public charge inadmissibility provision (i.e., the policy that was in place before the 2019 public charge rule) is now in effect.

[345] Webpage: “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule: Litigation.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed April 23, 2021. <www.uscis.gov>

History of Court Decisions

On March 9, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit lifted its stay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’ Nov. 2, 2020, decision vacating the Public Charge Final Rule nationwide. USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] immediately stopped applying the Public Charge Final Rule to all pending applications and petitions that would have been subject to the rule. In turn, USCIS is applying the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, which was in place before the Public Charge Final Rule was implemented, to the adjudication of any application for adjustment of status that was pending or received on or after March 9, 2021. In addition, USCIS is adjudicating any application or petition for extension of nonimmigrant stay or change of nonimmigrant status pending or received on or after March 9, 2021, consistent with regulations in place before the Public Charge Rule was implemented; in other words, USCIS is not applying the “public benefits condition.”

[346] Letter from Tracy Renaud (Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) to Interagency Partners, April 12, 2021. <www.uscis.gov>

This letter provides key information about a change in the way the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is administering the public charge ground of inadmissibility. My message to you is simple: The 2019 public charge rule is no longer in effect, and we are seeking your support in communicating this change to the public.

On February 2, 2021, the President issued Executive Order 14012, directing, among other things, the Secretary of Homeland Security, along with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to review their respective agencies’ actions related to the public charge grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. Consistent with the Executive Order, DHS has begun its review, as well as its consultation with other relevant agencies.

As part of its review, OHS determined that continuing to defend the 2019 Public Charge Rule1 (2019 Rule)—pursuant to which the lawful receipt of Medicaid, public housing, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) could lead to a finding of inadmissibility—was neither in the public interest nor an efficient use of limited government resources. …

In compliance with this judgment, DHS is no longer applying the 2019 public charge rule and has removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations.2 DHS has instead reverted to the 1999 interim field guidance issued by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service.3 This is the policy that was in effect prior to the 2019 Rule.

Under the 1999 interim field guidance, DHS will not consider a person’s receipt of Medicaid (except for Medicaid for long-term institutionalization), public housing, or SNAP benefits as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination. In addition, medical treatment or preventive services for COVID-19, including vaccinations, will not be considered for public charge purposes. This policy will help ensure that noncitizens are able to access important government services for which they may be eligible.

[347] Final rule: “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds; Implementation of Vacatur.” Federal Register, March 15, 2021. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 12221:

On March 9, 2021, DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] moved to dismiss its appeal before the Seventh Circuit, and the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal and the Rule 54(b) judgment went into effect. DHS is now implementing the judgment, i.e., the vacatur of the August 2019 rule.

This rule removes from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) the regulatory text that DHS promulgated in the August 2019 rule and restores the regulatory text to appear as it did prior to the issuance of the August 2019 rule.6

[348] Press release: “DHS Publishes Fair and Humane Public Charge Rule.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, September 8, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a final rule, to be published in the Federal Register, that provides clarity and consistency for noncitizens on how DHS will administer the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The rule restores the historical understanding of a “public charge” that had been in place for decades, until the prior Administration began to consider supplemental public health benefits such as Medicaid and nutritional assistance as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination. …

Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) renders a noncitizen inadmissible if they are “likely at any time to become a public charge.”

A noncitizen who is deemed likely to become a “public charge,” meaning that they are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, can be denied admission or lawful permanent residence (known colloquially as a green card). Prior to 2019, almost all non-cash government benefits such as Medicaid or nutrition assistance were excluded from consideration. The 2019 rule, which was ultimately vacated and is no longer in effect, resulted in a drop in enrollments in such programs among individuals who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, such as U.S. citizen children in mixed-status households. The publication of this rule in the Federal Register avoids these effects by formally codifying the historical understanding of the term.

Under this rule, as under the 1999 Interim Field Guidance that was in place for most of the past two decades, a noncitizen would be considered likely to become a public charge if DHS determines that they are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. …

DHS will not consider in public charge determinations benefits received by family members other than the applicant. DHS will also not consider receipt of certain non-cash benefits for which noncitizens may be eligible. These benefits include: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or other nutrition programs, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid (other than for long-term institutionalization), housing benefits, any benefits related to immunizations or testing for communicable diseases, or other supplemental or special-purpose benefits.

[349] Final rule: “ Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility.” Federal Register, September 9, 2022. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 55472:

Agency: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.

Action: Final Rule.

Summary: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its regulations to prescribe how it determines whether noncitizens are inadmissible to the United States because they are likely at any time to become a public charge. Noncitizens who are applicants for visas, admission, and adjustment of status must establish that they are not likely at any time to become a public charge unless Congress has expressly exempted them from this ground of inadmissibility or has otherwise permitted them to seek a waiver of inadmissibility. Under this rule, DHS would determine that a noncitizen is likely at any time to become a public charge if the noncitizen is likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. On August 14, 2019, DHS issued a different rule on this topic, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule (2019 Final Rule), which is no longer in effect. This rule implements a different policy than the 2019 Final Rule.

Dates: This final rule is effective December 23, 2022. This final rule will apply to applications postmarked on or after the effective date.

Page 55473:

In this rule, DHS has declined to include certain aspects of the 2019 Final Rule that in DHS’s view caused undue fear and confusion, such as (1) a complicated and unnecessarily broad definition of “public charge”; (2) mandatory consideration of past, current, and future receipt of certain supplemental public benefits, notwithstanding that most noncitizens subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility would not have been eligible for such benefits at the time of application (and notwithstanding the potential collateral effects of this policy on U.S. citizen children in mixed-status households and noncitizens who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility)….

Page 55474:

This final rule also makes important clarifications and changes as compared to the 1999 Interim Field Guidance. For instance, this rule clarifies DHS’s approach to consideration of disability and long-term institutionalization at government expense; states a bright-line rule against considering the receipt of public benefits by an applicant’s dependents (such as a U.S. citizen child in a mixed-status household)…. Finally, later in this preamble, in response to public comments, DHS further clarifies that primary dependence connotes significant reliance on the government for support, and means something more than dependence that is merely transient or supplementary.

Pages 55636–55637:

An individual’s receipt of public benefits occurs when a public benefit-granting agency provides either public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense to the individual, where the individual is listed as a beneficiary of such benefits. An individual’s application for a public benefit on their own behalf or on behalf of another does not constitute receipt of public benefits by such individual.

Approval for future receipt of a public benefit that an individual applied for on their own behalf or on behalf of another does not constitute receipt of public benefits by such an individual. An individual’s receipt of public benefits solely on behalf of a third party (including a member of the alien’s household as defined in paragraph (f) of this section) does not constitute receipt of public benefits by such individual. The receipt of public benefits solely by a third party (including a member of the alien’s household as defined in paragraph (f) of this section), even if an individual assists with the application process, does not constitute receipt for such individual.

[350] Article: “Federal Government’s Open-Door Immigration Policy on Welfare Under Fire.” By Caroline May. Daily Caller, August 6, 2012. <dailycaller.com>

“In an interview with The Daily Caller, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] spokesman Christopher Bentley explained that … Homeland Security does not keep data on how many people are rejected because they may become public charges. The agency also does not track whether or not individuals becomes public charges once they become U.S. residents.”

[351] In April of 2017, Just Facts wrote to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to ask if Christopher Bentley’s statements above were true and still applicable. On May 16, 2017, Citizenship and Immigration Services replied that it “still does not track the number of denials based on public charge and does not track whether or not individuals become a public charge after becoming a U.S. resident.”

[352] “An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization.” 1st U.S. Congress. Signed into law by George Washington on March 26, 1790. <shec.ashp.cuny.edu>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

[353] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part F (Good Moral Character), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

The Naturalization Act of 1790 introduced the long-standing GMC [good moral character] requirement for naturalization. Any conduct or act that offends the accepted moral character standards of the community in which the applicant resides should be considered without regard to whether the applicant has been arrested or convicted of an offense.

[354] “An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to Repeal the Act Heretofore Passed on That Subject.” 3rd U.S. Congress. Signed into law by George Washington on January 29, 1795. <cdn.loc.gov>

Pages 1–2 (of PDF):

Sec. 1. BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise:—

First. He shall have declared on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district or circuit court of some one of the States, or of the territories north west or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at the time, be a citizen or subject.

Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation, before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

Thirdly. The court admitting such alien, shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

Sec. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, may be admitted to become a citizen, on his declaring on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and, where the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the act intituled “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

[355] “An Act Supplementary to and to Amend the Act, Entitled ‘An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to Repeal the Act Heretofore Passed on That Subject.’ ” 5th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by John Adams on June 18, 1798. <aadha.binghamton.edu>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or of any state, unless … shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, five years, at least, before his admission, and shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare and prove, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction in the case, that he has resided within the United States fourteen years, at least, and within the state or territory where, or for which such court is at the time held, five years, at least, besides conforming to the other declarations, renunciations and proofs, by the said act required…. And provided also, that no alien, who shall be a native, citizen, denizen or subject of any nation or state with whom the United States shall be at war, at the time of his application, shall be then admitted to become a citizen of the United States.

[356] Webpage: “Civil War Facts.” American Battlefield Trust, August 16, 2011. Updated 8/24/21. <www.battlefields.org>

The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. The war ended in Spring, 1865. Robert E. Lee surrendered the last major Confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865. The last battle was fought at Palmito Ranch, Texas, on May 13, 1865. …

The Northern armies were victorious, and the rebellious states returned to the Union.

[357] 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified December 6, 1865. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[358] 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified July 9, 1868. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[359] Article: “Race, Nationality, and Reality: INS Administration of Racial Provisions in U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law Since 1898 (Part 1).” By Marian L. Smith (senior historian for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service). National Archives and Records Administration Prologue, Summer 2002. <www.archives.gov>

The fourteenth amendment declared all persons born within the United States to be U.S. citizens and worked to bestow citizenship on freedmen. Congress went further by amending naturalization requirements in 1870 and extending naturalization eligibility to “aliens being free white persons, and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.”

[360] “An Act to Execute Certain Treaty Stipulations Relating to Chinese.” 47th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882. <www.archives.gov>

Whereas in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof: Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or having so come after the expiration of said ninety days to remain within the United States. …

Sec. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.

[361] Webpage: “Chinese Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Acts.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed April 17, 2017 at <history.state.gov>

American objections to Chinese immigration took many forms, and generally stemmed from economic and cultural tensions, as well as ethnic discrimination. Most Chinese laborers who came to the United States did so in order to send money back to China to support their families there. At the same time, they also had to repay loans to the Chinese merchants who paid their passage to America. These financial pressures left them little choice but to work for whatever wages they could. Non-Chinese laborers often required much higher wages to support their wives and children in the United States, and also generally had a stronger political standing to bargain for higher wages. Therefore many of the non-Chinese workers in the United States came to resent the Chinese laborers, who might squeeze them out of their jobs. Furthermore, as with most immigrant communities, many Chinese settled in their own neighborhoods, and tales spread of Chinatowns as places where large numbers of Chinese men congregated to visit prostitutes, smoke opium, or gamble. Some advocates of anti-Chinese legislation therefore argued that admitting Chinese into the United States lowered the cultural and moral standards of American society. Others used a more overtly racist argument for limiting immigration from East Asia, and expressed concern about the integrity of American racial composition. …

… In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which, per the terms of the Angell Treaty, suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers (skilled or unskilled) for a period of 10 years. The Act also required every Chinese person traveling in or out of the country to carry a certificate identifying his or her status as a laborer, scholar, diplomat, or merchant. The 1882 Act was the first in American history to place broad restrictions on immigration. …

In 1888, Congress took exclusion even further and passed the Scott Act, which made reentry to the United States after a visit to China impossible, even for long-term legal residents. The Chinese Government considered this act a direct insult, but was unable to prevent its passage. In 1892, Congress voted to renew exclusion for ten years in the Geary Act, and in 1902, the prohibition was expanded to cover Hawaii and the Philippines, all over strong objections from the Chinese Government and people. Congress later extended the Exclusion Act indefinitely. …

The Chinese Exclusion Acts were not repealed until 1943, and then only in the interests of aiding the morale of a wartime ally during World War II.

[362] Article: “Race, Nationality, and Reality: INS Administration of Racial Provisions in U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law Since 1898 (Part 1).” By Marian L. Smith (senior historian for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service). National Archives and Records Administration Prologue, Summer 2002. <www.archives.gov>

After extending naturalization to blacks (as Africans) in 1870, Congress banned the naturalization of Chinese in 1882. The Chinese Exclusion Act of that year, which is primarily an immigration law, included a section directing that “hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.”4 The 1882 law clearly directed the courts not to naturalize any Chinese, but it did not explain whether “Chinese” indicated race or nationality.

[363] Article: “Race, Nationality, and Reality: INS Administration of Racial Provisions in U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law Since 1898 (Part 1).” By Marian L. Smith (senior historian for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service). National Archives and Records Administration Prologue, Summer 2002. <www.archives.gov>

Because naturalization remained a judicial function, the courts were left to decide who was or was not a white person, or an alien of African nativity, or person of African descent.

In this question, as in all naturalization matters, the courts had little guidance. The delegation of naturalization authority to “any court of record” in 1790 led to a motley array of more than five thousand high and low courts exercising such jurisdiction by the turn of the twentieth century. Case law was their only guide, for there was no central or national authority to answer judges’ questions regarding the finer points of naturalization law or procedure. Methods adopted by late nineteenth-century courts to determine qualifications for citizenship varied widely. Just as courts in some localities interpreted the “good moral character” requirement differently, judges in different jurisdictions had differing ideas of what constituted “whiteness.” Many thousands of elected county judges across the nation simply relied on their “common understanding” of race, an understanding presumably shared by the local community.

It was the lack of uniformity among naturalization courts and procedure, and the fraud it bred, that underlay Congress’s establishment of the U.S. Naturalization Service by the Basic Naturalization Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 596). The law placed the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization in “charge of all matters concerning the naturalization of aliens,” with the general purpose of promoting uniform naturalization practices nationwide. While this seemed a clear mission, bureau officers would soon learn that influencing the courts—especially nonfederal courts—presented a persistent obstacle. Furthermore, inconsistencies within nationality law would prove difficult to reconcile. Among the most difficult was the issue of racial eligibility to citizenship.

[364] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part E (English and Civics Testing and Exceptions), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

A. Purpose

In general, a naturalization applicant must demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage. An applicant must also demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and principles and form of government of the United States (civics). These are the English and civics requirements for naturalization.1

B. Background

Prior to 1906, an applicant was not required to know English, history, civics, or understand the principles of the constitution to naturalize. If the court determined the applicant was a “thoroughly law-abiding and industrious man, of good moral character,” the applicant became a U.S. citizen.2 As far back as 1908, the former Immigration Service and the Courts determined that a person could not establish the naturalization requirement of showing an attachment to the Constitution unless he or she had some understanding of its provisions.3

In 1940, Congress made amendments to include an English language requirement and certain exemptions based on age and residence, as well as a provision for questioning applicants on their understanding of the principles of the Constitution.4 In 1994, Congress enacted legislation providing an exception to the naturalization educational requirements for applicants who cannot meet the requirements because of a medical disability. Congress also amended the exceptions to the English requirement based on age and residence that are current today.5

On October 1, 2008, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] implemented a redesigned English and civics test. With this redesigned test, USCIS ensures that all applicants have the same testing experience and have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of English and civics.

C. Legal Authorities

• INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 312; 8 CFR 312 – Educational requirements for naturalization

• INA 316; 8 CFR 316 – General requirements for naturalization

1 See INA 312. See 8 CFR 312.

2 See In re Rodriguez, 81 F. 337 (W.D. Tex. 1897).

3 See In re Meakins, 164 F. 334 (E.D. Wash. 1908). See In re Vasicek, 271 F. 326 (E.D. Mo. 1921).

4 See the Nationality Act of 1940, Pub. L. 76-853, 54 Stat. 1137 (October 14, 1940).

5 See the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-416 (October 25, 1994).

[365] Article: “Race, Nationality, and Reality: INS Administration of Racial Provisions in U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law Since 1898 (Part 3).” By Marian L. Smith (senior historian for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service). National Archives and Records Administration Prologue, Summer 2002. <www.archives.gov>

The INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] would not be free of racial considerations, of course, as long as nationality law contained racial requirements for naturalization and immigration law excluded those ineligible to naturalize. … In 1943 Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and made Chinese eligible for naturalization. And in 1946, Congress extended the same eligibility to Filipinos or persons of Filipino descent and “persons of races indigenous to India.”

[366] Article: “The Repeal of Asian Exclusion.” By Jane H. Hong. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, September 2015. <americanhistory.oxfordre.com>

Beginning in World War II, U.S. lawmakers began to dismantle the Asian exclusion regime in response to growing international pressure and scrutiny of America’s racial policies and practices. The Japanese government sought to use the U.S. Asian exclusion laws to disrupt the Sino-American alliance of World War II, causing Washington officials to recognize these laws as a growing impediment to international diplomacy and the war effort. Later, the Soviet Union and other communist powers cited U.S. exclusion policies as evidence of American racial hypocrisy during the Cold War.

A diverse group of actors championed the repeal of Asian exclusion laws over the 1940s and early 1950s. They included former American missionaries to Asia, U.S. and Asian state officials, and Asian and Asian American activists. The movement argued for repeal legislation as an inexpensive way for the United States to demonstrate goodwill, counter foreign criticism, and rehabilitate America’s international image as a liberal democracy. Drawing upon the timely language and logic of geopolitics, advocates lobbied Congressional lawmakers to pass legislation ending the racial exclusion of Asians from immigration and naturalization eligibility, in support of U.S. diplomatic and security interests abroad.

[367] Article: “House Passes Immigration Bill—with a Catch.” By Christopher Drew. Chicago Tribune, October 10, 1986. <www.chicagotribune.com>

The House late Thursday resurrected and speedily passed by a vote of 230–166 a controversial immigration reform bill that had been debated for years and presumed dead for this congressional session. …

The politically sensitive bill would legalize possibly millions of aliens already in the country and would discourage further immigration by levying fines and jail terms on employers who knowingly hire illegals. …

Later, the House dodged a “killer amendment” by a vote of 199–192 that would have stripped the bill of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens now living in the United States. …

The farm-worker dispute had pitted proponents of a stringent crackdown on illegal immigration against mostly Western growers interested in keeping a cheap labor supply to pick perishable crops.

[368] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143:

After years of heated debate involving ethnic and religious groups, labor and agricultural organizations, business interests, and the government, a compromise measure was reached. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for “brief, casual, and innocent” absences, from the beginning of 1982; provided amnesty to seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986; required all amnesty applicants to take courses in English and American government to qualify for permanent residence; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail; prohibited employers from discrimination on the basis of national origins; increased border patrol by 50 percent in 1987 and 1988; and, in a matter unrelated to illegal aliens, introduced a lottery program for 5,000 visas for countries “adversely affected” by provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

[369] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.

[370] Calculated with data from the webpage: “Actions on Senate Bill 1200: “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” 99th U.S. Congress (1985–1986). Accessed April 6, 2017 at <www.congress.gov>

“10/17/1986: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea–Nay Vote. 63–24. Record Vote No: 357. … 10/15/1986: House Agreed to Conference Report by Yea–Nay Vote: 238–173 (Record Vote No: 469).”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 63 / (63 + 24) = 72% Senate
  • 238 / (238 + 173) = 58% House

[371] Public Law 99-603: “Immigration Reform and Control Act.” 99th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. <www.govinfo.gov>

[372] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for ‘brief, casual, and innocent’ absences, from the beginning of 1982….”

[373] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The provisions of new INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] section 245A(a)(4)(B) and (b)(1)(C)(ii), added by section 201(a) of the bill, state that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or the permanent residence status provided in that section if he or she has been convicted of any felony or three or more misdemeanors committed in the United States.

New INA section 245A(d)(2) states that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or permanent residence status provided in that section if “likely to become [a] public charge [ ].” This disqualification could be waived by the Attorney General under certain circumstances. A likelihood that an applicant would become a public charge would exist, for example, if the applicant had failed to demonstrate either a history of employment in the United States of a kind that would provide sufficient means without public cash assistance for the support of the alien and his likely dependents who are not United States citizens or the possession of independent means sufficient by itself for such support for an indefinite period.

[374] Report: “Naturalization Rates Among IRCA Immigrants: A 2009 Update.” By Bryan C. Baker. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 2010. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 provided a path to legal permanent residence and citizenship for several categories of unauthorized immigrants. The two primary groups1 were immigrants who had continuously and unlawfully resided within the U.S. since before January 1, 1982 (“pre-1982s”) and special agricultural workers (“SAWs”), who were required to have worked at least 90 days in agriculture during each of the years ending on May 1, 1984, 1985, and 1986 (Group 1) or solely during the year ending on May 1, 1986 (Group 2).

1 The other categories, Cuban and Haitian immigrants and Registry immigrants, were small by comparison and are not discussed in this Report.

[375] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail….”

[376] Article: “Agriculture.” American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and ‎John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2014. Pages 415–423.

Page 420: “The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act sought to provide a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with the agricultural labor situation, as well as undocumented immigration. An employer sanctions provision in the legislation was intended to hold employers accountable that knowingly hired undocumented laborers.”

[377] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. …

… The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.

[378] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “Because the measure was meant as a one-time resolution of a longstanding problem, a strict deadline for application was established: All applications for legalization were required within one year of May 5, 1987.”

[379] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

A. Purpose

Naturalization is the conferring of U.S. citizenship after birth by any means whatsoever.1 There are various ways to become a U.S. citizen through the process of naturalization. This chapter addresses the general naturalization requirements.2

The applicant has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she meets the requirements for naturalization.

1 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 101(a)(23).

2 See INA 316. See relevant parts in Volume 12 [12 USCIS-PM] for other naturalization provisions and requirements.

[380] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

The following are the general naturalization requirements that an applicant must meet in order to become a U.S. citizen …

The applicant must be a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for at least five years before being eligible for naturalization

The applicant must have continuous residence in the United States as an LPR for at least five years immediately preceding the date of filing the application and up to the time of admission to citizenship

The applicant must be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the five years immediately preceding the date of filing the application

The applicant must have lived within the State or USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence for at least three months prior to the date of filing

[381] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part B (Naturalization Examination), Chapter 2 (Background and Security Checks):

A. Background Investigation

USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] conducts an investigation of the applicant upon his or her filing for naturalization. The investigation consists of certain criminal background and security checks.1 The background and security checks include collecting fingerprints and requesting a “name check” from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). In addition, USCIS conducts other inter-agency criminal background and security checks on all applicants for naturalization. The background and security checks apply to most applicants and must be conducted and completed before the applicant is scheduled for his or her naturalization interview.2

B. Fingerprints

1. Fingerprint Requirement

USCIS must collect fingerprint records as part of the background check process on applicants for naturalization regardless of their age.3 In general, applicants receive a biometric service appointment at a local Application Support Center (ASC) for collection of their biometrics (fingerprints, photographs, and signature).4

USCIS notifies applicants in writing to appear for fingerprinting after filing the naturalization application. Fingerprints are valid for 15 months from the date of processing by the FBI. An applicant abandons his or her naturalization application if the applicant fails to appear for the fingerprinting appointment without good cause and without notifying USCIS.5

Previously, USCIS had waived the fingerprint requirements for applicants 75 years old or older because it was difficult to capture readable fingerprints from this age group. As a result, applicants 75 years old or older were not required to appear at an ASC. Electronic processing of applications and improved technology now allows USCIS to capture fingerprints for applicants of all ages and enhances the ability to confirm identity and perform required background checks.6

Once an ASC collects an applicant’s biometrics, USCIS submits the records to the FBI for a full criminal background check.7 The response from the FBI that a full criminal background check has been completed includes confirmation that:

• The applicant does not have an administrative or a criminal record;

• The applicant has an administrative or a criminal record; or

• The applicant’s submitted fingerprint records have been determined unclassifiable for the purpose of conducting a criminal background check and have been rejected. …

FBI Name Checks

The FBI conducts “name checks” on all naturalization applicants, and disseminates the information contained in the FBI’s files to USCIS in response to the name check requests. The FBI’s National Name Check Program (NNCP) includes a search against the FBI’s Universal Index (UNI), which contains personnel, administrative, applicant, and criminal files compiled for law enforcement purposes. The FBI disseminates the information contained in the FBI’s files to USCIS in response to the name check requests.

The FBI name check must be completed and cleared before an applicant for naturalization is scheduled for his or her naturalization interview. A definitive FBI name check response of “NR” (No Record) or “PR” (Positive Response) is valid for the duration of the application for which they were conducted. Definitive responses used to support other applications are valid for 15 months from the FBI process date. A new name check is required in cases where the final adjudication and naturalization have not occurred within that timeframe or the name check was processed incorrectly.

1 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 335. See 8 CFR 335.1.

2 See 8 CFR 335.2(b).

3 See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 8 CFR 335.1, and 8 CFR 335.2. See Part I, Military Members and their Families, Chapter 6, Required Background Checks [12 USCIS-PM I.6], for guidance on the background and security check procedures for members or veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

4 See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(13)(ii). See Chapter 4, Results of the Naturalization Examination [12 USCIS-PM B.4].

7 See 8 CFR 335.2(b).

[382] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part F (Good Moral Character), Chapter 4 (Permanent Bars to GMC):

A. Murder

An applicant who has been convicted of murder at any time is permanently barred from establishing good moral character (GMC) for naturalization.1

B. Aggravated Felony

In 1996, Congress expanded the definition and type of offense considered an “aggravated felony” in the immigration context.2 An applicant who has been convicted of an “aggravated felony” on or after November 29, 1990, is permanently barred from establishing GMC for naturalization.3

While an applicant who has been convicted of an aggravated felony prior to November 29, 1990, is not permanently barred from naturalization, the officer should consider the seriousness of the underlying offense (aggravated felony) along with the applicant’s present moral character in determining whether the applicant meets the GMC requirement. If the applicant’s actions during the statutory period do not reflect a reform of his or her character, then the applicant may not be able to establish GMC.4

Some offenses require a minimum term of imprisonment of one year to qualify as an aggravated felony in the immigration context. The term of imprisonment is the period of confinement ordered by the court regardless of whether the court suspended the sentence.5 For example, an offense involving theft or a crime of violence is considered an aggravated felony if the term of imprisonment ordered by the court is one year or more, even if the court suspended the entire sentence.6

The table below serves as a quick reference guide listing aggravated felonies in the immigration context. The officer should review the specific statutory language for further information.

“Aggravated Felonies” in the Immigration Context ​

Aggravated Felony​

Citation​

Murder, Rape, or Sexual Abuse of a Minor​

INA 101(a)(43)(A)​

Illicit Trafficking in Controlled Substance​

INA 101(a)(43)(B)​

Illicit Trafficking in Firearms or Destructive Devices​

INA 101(a)(43)(C)​

Money Laundering Offenses (over $10,000)​

INA 101(a)(43)(D)​

Explosive Materials and Firearms Offenses​

INA 101(a)(43)(E)(i)–(iii)​

Crime of Violence (imprisonment term of at least 1 ​yr​)​

INA 101(a)(43)(F)​

Theft Offense (imprisonment term of at least 1 ​yr​)​

INA 101(a)(43)(G)​

Demand for or Receipt of Ransom​

INA 101(a)(43)(H)​

Child Pornography Offense​

INA 101(a)(43)(I)​

Racketeering, Gambling (imprisonment term of at least 1 ​yr)​

INA 101(a)(43)(J)​

Prostitution Offenses (managing, transporting, trafficking)​

INA 101(a)(43)(K)(i)–(iii)​

Gathering or Transmitting Classified Information ​

INA 101(a)(43)(L)(i)–(iii)​

Fraud or Deceit Offenses or Tax Evasion (over $10,000)​

INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), (ii)​

Alien Smuggling​

INA 101(a)(43)(N)​

Illegal Entry or Reentry by Removed Aggravated Felon​

INA 101(a)(43)(O)​

Passport, Document Fraud (imprisonment term of at least 1 ​yr​)​

INA 101(a)(43)(P)​

Failure to Appear Sentence (offense punishable by at least 5 ​yrs​)​

INA 101(a)(43)(Q)​

Bribery, Counterfeiting, Forgery, or Trafficking in Vehicles​

INA 101(a)(43)(R)​

Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, Bribery of Witness​

INA 101(a)(43)(S)​

Failure to Appear to Court (offense punishable by at least 2 ​yrs​)​

INA 101(a)(43)(T)​

Attempt or Conspiracy to Commit an Aggravated Felony​

INA 101(a)(43)(U)​

1 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(1)(i).

2 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 101(a)(43). See the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. 104-208 (PDF), 110 Stat. 3009-546 (September 30, 1996).

3 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(1)(ii).

4 See 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2).

5 See INA 101(a)(43)(B) . See Matter of S-S- (PDF), 21 I&N Dec. 900 (BIA 1997).

6 See INA 101(a)(43)(F) and INA 101(a)(43)(G).

[383] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part F (Good Moral Character), Chapter 5 (Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period):

In addition to the permanent bars to good moral character (GMC), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and corresponding regulations include bars to GMC that are not permanent in nature. USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] refers to these bars as “conditional bars.” These bars are triggered by specific acts, offenses, activities, circumstances, or convictions within the statutory period for naturalization, including the period prior to filing and up to the time of the Oath of Allegiance.1 An offense that does not fall within a permanent or conditional bar to GMC may nonetheless affect an applicant’s ability to establish GMC.2

With regard to bars to GMC requiring a conviction, the officer reviews the relevant federal or state law or regulation of the United States, or law or regulation of any foreign country to determine whether the applicant can establish GMC.

The table below serves as a quick reference guide on the general conditional bars to establishing GMC for acts occurring during the statutory period. The sections and paragraphs that follow the table provide further guidance on each bar and offense.

Conditional Bars to GMC for Acts Committed in Statutory Period

Conviction or admission of one or more CIMTs [crimes involving moral turpitude] (other than political offense), except for one petty offense

Conviction of two or more offenses with combined sentence of 5 years or more (other than political offense) …

Violation of any law on controlled substances, except for simple possession of 30g or less of marijuana …

Incarceration for a total period of 180 days or more, except political offense and ensuing confinement abroad …

False testimony for the purpose of obtaining any immigration benefit …

Engaged in prostitution, attempted or procured to import prostitution, or received proceeds from prostitution …

Involved in smuggling of a person to enter or try to enter the United States in violation of law …

Two or more gambling offenses or derives income principally from illegal gambling activities …

Unlawful acts that adversely reflect upon GMC, unless extenuating circumstances are established …

A. One or More Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

1. Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

“Crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT) is a term used in the immigration context that has no statutory definition. Extensive case law, however, has provided sufficient guidance on whether an offense rises to the level of a CIMT. The courts have held that moral turpitude “refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one’s fellow man or society in general.”3

Whether an offense is a CIMT is largely based on whether the offense involves willful conduct that is morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, the essence of which is a reckless, evil or malicious intent. The Attorney General has decreed that a finding of “moral turpitude” requires that the perpetrator committed a reprehensible act with some form of guilty knowledge.4

The officer should consider the nature of the offense in determining whether it is a CIMT.5 In many cases, the CIMT determination depends on whether the relevant state statute includes one of the elements that involves moral turpitude. For example, an offense or crime may be a CIMT in one state, but a similarly named crime in another state may not be a CIMT because of differences in the definition of the crime or offense. The officer may rely on local USCIS counsel in cases where there is a question about whether a particular offense is a CIMT.

The table below serves as a quick reference guide on the general categories of CIMTs and their respective elements or determining factors. The paragraphs that follow the table provide further guidance on each category.

General Categories of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMTs)

Criminal intent or recklessness, or is defined as morally reprehensible by state (may include statutory rape) …

Involving fraud against the government or an individual (may include theft, forgery, robbery) …

Sexual and family crimes … No one set of principles or elements; see further explanation below (may include spousal or child abuse) …

Crimes against authority of the Government … Presence of fraud is the main determining factor (may include offering a bribe, counterfeiting) …

Crimes against a person involve moral turpitude when the offense contains criminal intent or recklessness or when the crime is defined as morally reprehensible by state statute. Criminal intent or recklessness may be inferred from the presence of unjustified violence or the use of a dangerous weapon. For example, aggravated battery is usually, if not always, a CIMT. Simple assault and battery is not usually considered a CIMT. …

Moral turpitude attaches to any crime against property which involves fraud, whether it entails fraud against the government or against an individual. Certain crimes against property may require guilty knowledge or intent to permanently take property. Petty theft, grand theft, forgery, and robbery are CIMTs in some states. …

Sexual and Family Crimes … It is difficult to discern a distinguishing set of principles that the courts apply to determine whether a particular offense involving sexual and family crimes is a CIMT. In some cases, the presence or absence of violence seems to be an important factor. The presence or absence of criminal intent may also be a determining factor. The CIMT determination depends upon state statutes and the controlling case law and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Offenses such as spousal or child abuse may rise to the level of a CIMT, while an offense involving a domestic simple assault generally does not. An offense relating to indecent exposure or abandonment of a minor child may or may not rise to the level of a CIMT. In general, if the person knew or should have known that the victim was a minor, any intentional sexual contact with a child involves moral turpitude.6

Crimes Against the Authority of the Government … The presence of fraud primarily determines the presence of moral turpitude in crimes against the authority of the government. Offering a bribe to a government official and offenses relating to counterfeiting are generally CIMTs. Offenses relating to possession of counterfeit securities without intent and contempt of court, however, are not generally CIMTs.

2. Committing One or More CIMTs in Statutory Period

An applicant who is convicted of or admits to committing one or more CIMTs during the statutory period cannot establish GMC for naturalization.7 If the applicant has only been convicted of (or admits to) one CIMT, the CIMT must have been committed within the statutory period as well. In cases of multiple CIMTs, only the commission and conviction (or admission) of one CIMT needs to be within the statutory period.

Petty Offense Exception

An applicant who has committed only one CIMT that is a considered a “petty offense,” such as petty theft, may be eligible for an exception if all of the following conditions are met:

• The “petty offense” is the only CIMT the applicant has ever committed;

• The sentence imposed for the offense was 6 months or less; and

• The maximum possible sentence for the offense does not exceed one year.8

The petty offense exception does not apply to an applicant who has been convicted of or who admits to committing more than one CIMT even if only one of the CIMTs was committed during the statutory period. An applicant who has committed more than one petty offense of which only one is a CIMT may be eligible for the petty offense exception.9

Purely Political Offense Exception

This bar to GMC does not apply to a conviction for a CIMT occurring outside of the United States for a purely political offense committed abroad.10

B. Aggregate Sentence of Five Years or More

An applicant may not establish GMC if he or she has been convicted of two or more offenses during the statutory period for which the combined, imposed sentence was 5 years or more.11 The underlying offenses must have been committed within the statutory period.

Purely Political Offense Exception

The GMC bar for having two or more convictions does not apply if the convictions and resulting sentence or imprisonment of 5 years or more occurred outside of the United States for purely political offenses committed abroad.12

C. Controlled Substance Violation

An applicant cannot establish good moral character (GMC) if he or she has violated any controlled substance-related federal or state law or regulation of the United States or law or regulation of any foreign country during the statutory period.13 This includes conspiring to violate or aiding and abetting another person to violate such laws or regulations.

This conditional bar to establishing GMC applies to a conviction for such an offense or an admission to such an offense, or an admission to committing acts that constitute the essential elements of a violation of any controlled substance law.14

D. Imprisonment for 180 Days or More

An applicant cannot establish GMC if he or she is or was imprisoned for an aggregate period of 180 days or more during the statutory period based on a conviction.30 This bar to GMC does not apply if the conviction resulted only in a sentence to a period of probation with no sentence of incarceration for 180 days or more. This bar applies regardless of the reason for the conviction. For example, this bar still applies if the term of imprisonment results from a violation of probation rather than from the original sentence.31

The commission of the offense resulting in conviction and confinement does not need to have occurred during the statutory period for this bar to apply. Only the confinement needs to be within the statutory period for the applicant to be precluded from establishing GMC.

Purely Political Offense Exception

This bar to GMC does not apply to a conviction and resulting confinement of 180 days or more occurring outside of the United States for a purely political offense committed abroad.32

F. Prostitution

An applicant may not establish GMC if he or she has engaged in prostitution, procured or attempted to procure or to import prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or received proceeds from prostitution during the statutory period.39 The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that to “engage in” prostitution, one must have engaged in a regular pattern of behavior or conduct.40 The BIA has also determined that a single act of soliciting prostitution on one’s own behalf is not the same as procurement.41

G. Smuggling of a Person

An applicant is prohibited from establishing GMC if he or she is or was involved in the smuggling of a person or persons by encouraging, inducing, assisting, abetting or aiding any noncitizen to enter or try to enter the United States in violation of law during the statutory period.42

Family Reunification Exception

This bar to GMC does not apply in certain cases where the applicant was involved in the smuggling of his or her spouse, parent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United States in violation of law before May 5, 1988.43

I. Gambling

An applicant who has been convicted of committing two or more gambling offenses or who derives his or her income principally from illegal gambling activities during the statutory period is precluded from establishing GMC.46 The gambling offenses must have been committed within the statutory period. …

L. Unlawful Acts

1. Unlawful Acts Provision

An applicant who has committed, was convicted of, or was imprisoned for an unlawful act during the statutory period may be found to lack GMC if the act adversely reflects on his or her moral character, unless the applicant can demonstrate extenuating circumstances.69 An act is unlawful if it violates a criminal or civil law of the jurisdiction where it was committed. The provision addressing “unlawful acts” does not require the applicant to have been charged with or convicted of the offense.70 The fact that none of the statutorily enumerated bars to GMC applies does not preclude a finding under this provision that the applicant lacks the GMC required for naturalization.71

2. Case-by-Case Analysis

USCIS officers determine on a case-by-case basis whether an unlawful act committed during the statutory period is one that adversely reflects on moral character.72 The officer may make a finding that an applicant did not have GMC due to the commission of an unlawful act evidenced through admission, conviction, or other relevant, reliable evidence in the record.73 The case-by-case analysis must address whether:

• The act is unlawful (meaning the act violates a criminal or civil law in the jurisdiction where committed);

• The act was committed or the person was convicted of or imprisoned for the act during the statutory period;

• The act adversely reflects on the person’s moral character; and

• There is evidence of any extenuating circumstances.74

1 See INA 316(a). See 8 CFR 316.10.

2 See INA 101(f). See Chapter 1, Purpose and Background [12 USCIS-PM F.1].

3 See Medina v. United States, 259 F.3d 220, 227 (4th Cir. 2001), quoting Matter of Danesh (PDF), 19 I&N Dec. 669, 670 (BIA 1988). See Matter of Perez-Contreras (PDF), 20 I&N Dec. 615, 618 (BIA 1992). See Matter of Flores (PDF), 17 I&N Dec. 225 (BIA 1980) (and cases cited therein).

4 See Matter of Silva-Trevino (PDF), 24 I&N Dec. 687, 688, 706 (A.G. 2008).

5 See Matter of Esfandiary (PDF), 16 I&N Dec. 659 (BIA 1979).

6 See Matter of Silva-Trevino (PDF), 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. [Attorney General] 2008 ).

7 See INA 101(f)(3). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(i).

8 See INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(ll).

9 See Matter of Garcia-Hernandez (PDF), 23 I&N Dec. 590, 594–95 (BIA 2003).

10 See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section F, “Purely Political Offense” Exception [12 USCIS-PM F.2(F)].

11 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(ii).

12 See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section F, “Purely Political Offense” Exception [12 USCIS-PM F.2(F)].

13 See 21 U.S.C. 802 for federal definition of “controlled substance.” For good moral character provisions, see INA 101(f)(3), INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and INA 212(a)(2)(C). Also, see 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(iii) and (iv). Note that the conditional bar to GMC for a controlled substance violation does not apply if the violation was for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana. See Subsection 3, Exception for Single Offense of Simple Possession [12 USCIS-PM F.5(C)(3)].

14 An admission must comply with the requirements outlined in Matter of K (PDF), 7 I&N Dec 594 (BIA 1957) (establishing requirements for a valid “admission” of an offense); See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section E, Admission of Certain Criminal Acts [12 USCIS-PM F.2(E)]. …

30 See INA 101(f)(7). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(v).

31 See Matter of Piroglu (PDF), 17 I&N Dec. 578 (BIA 1980).

32 See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section F, “Purely Political Offense” Exception [12 USCIS-PM F.2(F)]. …

39 See INA 101(f)(3) and INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i) and INA 212(a)(2)(D)(ii). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(vii).

40 See Matter of T, 6 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 1955).

41 See Matter of Gonzalez-Zoquiapan, 24 I&N Dec. 549 (BIA 2008).

42 See INA 101(f)(3) and INA 212(a)(6)(E). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(viii).

43 See INA 212(a)(6)(E)(ii). See Section 301 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT90), Pub. L. 101-649 (PDF), 104 Stat. 4978, 5029 (November 29, 1990). …

46 See INA 101(f)(5). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(x) and 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(xi). …

69 See INA 101(f). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii). For cases arising in the Ninth Circuit, in addition to extenuating circumstances, USCIS must also consider and weigh all factors relevant to the determination of GMC, which include education, family background, employment history, financial status, and lack of criminal record. See Hussein v. Barrett, 820 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2016).

70 See United States v. Jean-Baptiste, 395 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2005) (finding that even where a conviction for a crime occurs after naturalization, the applicant lacked the good moral character for naturalization when the crime was committed during the statutory period). Likewise, if the unlawful act is committed outside the statutory period, but the applicant is convicted or imprisoned for the unlawful act during the statutory period, they will be barred from establishing good moral character.

71 See INA 101(f). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii), 8 CFR 316.10(b)(1), and 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2) (other relevant GMC regulations). See United States v. Jean-Baptiste, 395 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2005).

72 See INA 101(f) and INA 316(a)(3). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii).

73 An admission must comply with the requirements outlined in Matter of K (PDF), 7 I&N Dec 594 (BIA 1957) (establishing requirements for a valid “admission” of an offense). See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section C, Definition of Conviction [12 USCIS-PM F.2(C)] and Section E, Admission of Certain Criminal Acts [12 USCIS-PM F.2(E)]. See INA 101(f). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii). Other significant evidence, for example, includes but is not limited to a fine, civil judgment, guilty plea which was later withdrawn after completion of rehabilitation program, voting records, or unexplained discrepancies on tax filings.

74 See, generally, United States v. Jean-Baptiste, 395 F.3d 1190, 1195 (11th Cir. 2005).

[384] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part B (Naturalization Examination), Chapter 3 (Naturalization Interview):

In most cases, the officer conducting the naturalization interview administers the required tests relating to the applicant’s ability to read and write English, and his or her knowledge of U.S. history and government (civics), unless the applicant is exempt.3

3 See Part E, English and Civics Testing and Exceptions [12 USCIS-PM E].

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 8 (Educational Requirements):

In general, applicants for naturalization must demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage. Applicants must also demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and principles and form of government of the United States (civics). These are the English and civics requirements for naturalization.

An applicant may be eligible for an exception to the English requirements if he or she is a certain age and has been an LPR [legal permanent resident] for a certain period of time. In addition, an applicant who has a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment may be eligible for a medical exception of both the English and civics requirements.1

1 See INA 312 and 8 CFR 312. See Part E, English and Civics Testing and Exceptions [12 USCIS-PM E].

[385] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part E (English and Civics Testing and Exceptions), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

A. Purpose

In general, a naturalization applicant must demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage. An applicant must also demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and principles and form of government of the United States (civics). These are the English and civics requirements for naturalization.1

B. Background

Prior to 1906, an applicant was not required to know English, history, civics, or understand the principles of the constitution to naturalize. If the court determined the applicant was a “thoroughly law-abiding and industrious man, of good moral character,” the applicant became a U.S. citizen.2 As far back as 1908, the former Immigration Service and the Courts determined that a person could not establish the naturalization requirement of showing an attachment to the Constitution unless he or she had some understanding of its provisions.3

In 1940, Congress made amendments to include an English language requirement and certain exemptions based on age and residence, as well as a provision for questioning applicants on their understanding of the principles of the Constitution.4 In 1994, Congress enacted legislation providing an exception to the naturalization educational requirements for applicants who cannot meet the requirements because of a medical disability. Congress also amended the exceptions to the English requirement based on age and residence that are current today.5

On October 1, 2008, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] implemented a redesigned English and civics test. With this redesigned test, USCIS ensures that all applicants have the same testing experience and have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of English and civics.

C. Legal Authorities

• INA 312; 8 CFR 312 – Educational requirements for naturalization

• INA 316; 8 CFR 316 – General requirements for naturalization

1 See INA 312. See 8 CFR 312.

2 See In re Rodriguez, 81 F. 337 (W.D. Tex. 1897).

3 See In re Meakins, 164 F. 334 (E.D. Wash. 1908). See In re Vasicek, 271 F. 326 (E.D. Mo. 1921).

4 See the Nationality Act of 1940, Pub. L. 76-853, 54 Stat. 1137 (October 14, 1940).

5 See the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-416 (October 25, 1994).

[386] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part E (English and Civics Testing and Exceptions), Chapter 2 (English and Civics Testing):

A. Educational Requirements

An officer administers a naturalization test to determine whether an applicant meets the English and civics requirements.1 The naturalization test consists of two components:

• English language proficiency, which is determined by the applicant’s ability to read, write, speak and understand English; and

• Knowledge of U.S. history and government, which is determined by a civics test.

An applicant has two opportunities to pass the English and civics tests: the initial examination and the re-examination interview. USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] denies the naturalization application if the applicant fails to pass any portion of the tests after two attempts. In cases where an applicant requests a USCIS hearing on the denial, officers must administer any failed portion of the tests.2

Unless excused by USCIS, the applicant’s failure to appear at the re-examination for testing or to take the tests at an examination or hearing counts as a failed attempt to pass the test.

B. Exceptions

1. Age and Residency Exceptions to English

An applicant is exempt from the English language requirement but is still required to meet the civics requirement if:

• The applicant is age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and has lived as an LPR [lawful permanent resident] in the United States for at least 20 years; or

• The applicant is age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and has lived as an LPR in the United States for at least 15 years.

The applicant may take the civics test in his or her language of choice with the use of an interpreter. …

3. Medical Disability Exception to English and Civics

An applicant who cannot meet the English and civics requirements because of a medical disability may be exempt from the English requirement, the civics requirement, or both requirements. …

D. English Portion of the Test

A naturalization applicant must only demonstrate an ability to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage.6 Ordinary usage means comprehensible and pertinent communication through simple vocabulary and grammar, which may include noticeable errors in pronouncing, constructing, spelling, and understanding completely certain words, phrases, and sentences.

An applicant may ask for words to be repeated or rephrased and may make some errors in pronunciation, spelling, and grammar and still meet the English requirement for naturalization. An officer should repeat and rephrase questions until the officer is satisfied that the applicant either fully understands the question or is unable to understand English.7

1. Speaking Test

An officer determines an applicant’s ability to speak and understand English based on the applicant’s ability to respond to questions normally asked in the course of the naturalization examination. The officer’s questions relate to eligibility and include questions provided in the naturalization application.8 The officer should repeat and rephrase questions during the naturalization examination until the officer is satisfied that the applicant either understands the questions or does not understand English.

An applicant who does not qualify for a waiver of the English requirement must be able to communicate in English about his or her application and eligibility for naturalization. An applicant does not need to understand every word or phrase on the application.

Passing the Speaking Test

If the applicant generally understands and responds meaningfully to questions relevant to his or her naturalization eligibility, then he or she has sufficiently demonstrated the ability to speak English.

Failing the Speaking Test

An applicant fails the speaking test when he or she does not understand sufficient English to be placed under oath or to answer the eligibility questions on his or her naturalization application. The officer must still administer all other parts of the naturalization test, including the portions on reading, writing, and civics.

An officer cannot offer or accept a withdrawal of a naturalization application from an applicant who does not speak English unless the applicant has an interpreter present who is able to clearly understand the consequences of withdrawing the application.9

2. Reading Test

To sufficiently demonstrate the ability to read in English, applicants must read one sentence out of three sentences. The reading test is administered by the officer using standardized reading test forms. Once the applicant reads one of the three sentences correctly, the officer stops the reading test.

Passing the Reading Test

An applicant passes the reading test if the applicant reads one of the three sentences without extended pauses in a manner that the applicant is able to convey the meaning of the sentence and the officer is able to understand the sentence. In general, the applicant must read all content words but may omit short words or make pronunciation or intonation errors that do not interfere with the meaning.

Failing the Reading Test

An applicant fails the reading test if he or she does not successfully read at least one of the three sentences. An applicant fails to read a sentence successfully when he or she:

• Omits a content word or substitutes another word for a content word;

• Pauses for extended periods of time while reading the sentence; or

• Makes pronunciation or intonation errors to the extent that the applicant is not able to convey the meaning of the sentence and the officer is not able to understand the sentence.

3. Writing Test

To sufficiently demonstrate the ability to write in English, the applicant must write one sentence out of three sentences in a manner that the officer understands. The officer dictates the sentence to the applicant using standardized writing test forms. An applicant must not abbreviate any of the words. Once the applicant writes one of the three sentences in a manner that the officer understands, the officer stops the writing test.

An applicant does not fail the writing test because of spelling, capitalization, or punctuation errors, unless the errors interfere with the meaning of the sentence and the officer is unable to understand the sentence.

Passing the Writing Test

The applicant passes the writing test if the applicant is able to convey the meaning of one of the three sentences to the officer. The applicant’s writing sample may have the following:

• Some grammatical, spelling, or capitalization errors;

• Omitted short words that do not interfere with meaning; or

• Numbers spelled out or written as digits.

Failing the Writing Test

An applicant fails the writing test if he or she makes errors to a degree that the applicant does not convey the meaning of the sentence and the officer is not able to understand the sentence.

An applicant fails the writing test if he or she writes the following:

• A different sentence or words;

• An abbreviation for a dictated word;10

• Nothing or only one or two isolated words; or

• A sentence that is completely illegible. …

F. Failure to Meet the English or Civics Requirements

If an applicant fails any portion of the English test, the civics test, or all tests during the initial naturalization examination, USCIS reschedules the applicant to appear for a second examination between 60 and 90 days after the initial examination.19

In cases where the applicant appears for a re-examination, the reexamining officer must not administer the same English or civics test forms administered during the initial examination. The officer must only retest the applicant in those areas that the applicant previously failed. For example, if the applicant passed the English speaking, reading, and civics portions but failed the writing portion during the initial examination, the officer must only administer the English writing test during the re-examination.20

If an applicant fails any portion of the naturalization test a second time, the officer must deny the application based upon the applicant’s failure to meet the educational requirements for naturalization. The officer also must address any other areas of ineligibility in the denial notice. An applicant who refuses to be tested or to respond to individual questions on the reading, writing, or civics test, or fails to respond to eligibility questions because he or she did not understand the questions as asked or rephrased, fails to meet to the educational requirements. An officer should treat an applicant’s refusal to be tested or to respond to test questions as a failure of the test.21

G. Documenting Test Results

All officers administering the English and civics tests are required to record the test results in the applicant’s A-file. Officers are required to complete and provide to each applicant at the end of the naturalization examination the results of the examination and testing, unless the officer serves the applicant with a denial notice at that time.22 The results of the examination include the results of the English and civics tests.

1 USCIS coordinates with external stakeholders to provide instruction and training materials related to the citizenship educational requirements. USCIS provides these educational materials and a list of all naturalization civics test items to applicants for study through the USCIS Citizenship Resource Center site.

2 Only one opportunity to pass the failed portion of the tests is provided at the hearing. See Part B, Naturalization Examination, Chapter 6, USCIS Hearing and Judicial Review, Section B, Review of Timely Filed Hearing Request [12 USCIS-PM B.6(B)]. …

6 See INA 312. See 8 CFR 312.

7 See 8 CFR 335.2(c).

8 See 8 CFR 312.1(c)(1).

9 See Part B, Naturalization Examination, Chapter 4, Results of the Naturalization Examination, Section D, Administrative Closure, Lack of Prosecution, Withdrawal, and Applications Not Held in Abeyance [12 USCIS-PM B.4(D)].

10 An abbreviation for a dictated word may be accepted if the officer has approved the abbreviation. …

19 See 8 CFR 335.3(b) (re-examination no earlier than 60 days from initial examination). See 8 CFR 312.5(a) (re-examination no later than 90 days from initial examination).

20 See 8 CFR 312.5.

21 See 8 CFR 312.5(b).

22 Officers must use Naturalization Interview Results (Form N-652).

[387] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part B (Naturalization Examination), Chapter 3 (Naturalization Interview):

In most cases, the officer conducting the naturalization interview administers the required tests relating to the applicant’s ability to read and write English, and his or her knowledge of U.S. history and government (civics), unless the applicant is exempt.3

3 See Part E, English and Civics Testing and Exceptions [12 USCIS-PM E].

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 8 (Educational Requirements):

In general, applicants for naturalization must demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage. Applicants must also demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and principles and form of government of the United States (civics). These are the English and civics requirements for naturalization.

An applicant may be eligible for an exception to the English requirements if he or she is a certain age and has been an LPR for a certain period of time. In addition, an applicant who has a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment may be eligible for a medical exception of both the English and civics requirements.1

1 See INA 312 and 8 CFR 312. See Part E, English and Civics Testing and Exceptions [12 USCIS-PM E].

[388] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part E (English and Civics Testing and Exceptions), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

A. Purpose

In general, a naturalization applicant must demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage. An applicant must also demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and principles and form of government of the United States (civics). These are the English and civics requirements for naturalization.1

B. Background

Prior to 1906, an applicant was not required to know English, history, civics, or understand the principles of the constitution to naturalize. If the court determined the applicant was a “thoroughly law-abiding and industrious man, of good moral character,” the applicant became a U.S. citizen.2 As far back as 1908, the former Immigration Service and the Courts determined that a person could not establish the naturalization requirement of showing an attachment to the Constitution unless he or she had some understanding of its provisions.3

In 1940, Congress made amendments to include an English language requirement and certain exemptions based on age and residence, as well as a provision for questioning applicants on their understanding of the principles of the Constitution.4 In 1994, Congress enacted legislation providing an exception to the naturalization educational requirements for applicants who cannot meet the requirements because of a medical disability. Congress also amended the exceptions to the English requirement based on age and residence that are current today.5

On October 1, 2008, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] implemented a redesigned English and civics test. With this redesigned test, USCIS ensures that all applicants have the same testing experience and have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of English and civics.

C. Legal Authorities

• INA 312; 8 CFR 312 – Educational requirements for naturalization

• INA 316; 8 CFR 316 – General requirements for naturalization

1 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 312. See 8 CFR 312.

2 See In re Rodriguez, 81 F. 337 (W.D. Tex. 1897).

3 See In re Meakins, 164 F. 334 (E.D. Wash. 1908). See In re Vasicek, 271 F. 326 (E.D. Mo. 1921).

4 See the Nationality Act of 1940, Pub. L. 76-853, 54 Stat. 1137 (October 14, 1940).

5 See the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-416 (October 25, 1994).

[389] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part E (English and Civics Testing and Exceptions), Chapter 2 (English and Civics Testing):

A. Educational Requirements

An officer administers a naturalization test to determine whether an applicant meets the English and civics requirements.

The naturalization test consists of two components:

• English language proficiency, which is determined by the applicant’s ability to read, write, speak and understand English; and

• Knowledge of U.S. history and government, which is determined by a civics test.

An applicant has two opportunities to pass the English and civics tests: the initial examination and the re-examination interview. USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] denies the naturalization application if the applicant fails to pass any portion of the tests after two attempts. In cases where an applicant requests a USCIS hearing on the denial, officers must administer any failed portion of the tests.2

Unless excused by USCIS, the applicant’s failure to appear at the re-examination for testing or to take the tests at an examination or hearing counts as a failed attempt to pass the test.

B. Exceptions

2. Special Consideration for Civics Test

An applicant receives special consideration in the civics test if, at the time of filing the application, the applicant is 65 years of age or older and has been living in the United States for periods totaling at least 20 years subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence.3 An applicant who qualifies for special consideration is administered specific test forms.

3. Medical Disability Exception to English and Civics

An applicant who cannot meet the English and civics requirements because of a medical disability may be exempt from the English requirement, the civics requirement, or both requirements. …

E. Civics Portion of the Test

1. Civics Test

A naturalization applicant must demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, the principles, and the form of government of the United States (civics).11 To sufficiently demonstrate knowledge of civics, an applicant for naturalization must pass a civics test by answering a certain number of questions correctly. USCIS is committed to administering a test that is an instrument of civic learning and fosters civic integration as part of the test preparation process.

A USCIS system randomly selects the test questions and an officer administers the test orally.12 The officer stops the test when the applicant correctly answers the minimum number of questions required to pass the test.

On December 1, 2020, USCIS implemented a revised naturalization civics test (“2020 civics test”) as part of a decennial test review and update process. USCIS received approximately 2,500 comments from the public regarding the 2020 civics test and the policy. Multiple commenters noted that there was little advance notice before implementation of the 2020 civics test, which raised concerns about limited time for study and preparation of training materials and resources. Due to the comments and in keeping with the Executive Order on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans,13 USCIS will revert to the 2008 test.

There are currently two versions of the civics test: the 2020 civics test with 128 questions to study, and the 2008 civics test with 100 questions to study. The date the applicant filed the naturalization application and the date of the initial interview determine which test the applicant may take.

Applicable Test for Applications Filed Before December 1, 2020 or On or After March 1, 2021

An applicant who files for naturalization before December 1, 2020 or on or after March 1, 2021 takes the 2008 civics test.

• Passing the 2008 Civics Test – An applicant passes the civics test if he or she provides a correct answer or provides an alternative phrasing of the correct answer for six of the 10 questions.

• Failing the 2008 Civics Test – An applicant fails the civics test if he or she provides an incorrect answer or fails to respond to five out of the 10 questions.

Applicable Test for Applications Filed On or After December 1, 2020 and Before March 1, 2021

An applicant who files for naturalization on or after December 1, 2020 and before March 1, 2021 may choose to take the 2008 civics test or the 2020 civics test, so long as his or her initial examination (interview) takes place before April 19, 2021. If the applicant has already taken the 2020 civics test at the initial exam and failed, he or she may choose to take either the 2008 civics test or the 2020 civics test at re-examination or N-336 hearing, if applicable.14

In cases where the initial interview takes place on or after April 19, 2021, the applicant takes the 2008 civics test. …

An applicant who chooses to take the 2020 civics test (when applicable, as shown above) is subject to the requirements of the 2020 civics test. To sufficiently demonstrate knowledge of civics with the 2020 civics test, the applicant must answer correctly at least 12 of 20 questions.

• Passing the 2020 Civics Test – An applicant passes the civics test if he or she provides a correct answer or provides an alternative phrasing of the correct answer for at least 12 of the 20 questions.

• Failing the 2020 Civics Test – An applicant fails the civics test if he or she provides an incorrect answer or fails to respond to nine out of the 20 questions.

2. Special Consideration

An officer gives special consideration to an applicant who is 65 years of age or older and who has been living in the United States for periods totaling at least 20 years subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence.16 The age and time requirements must be met at the time of filing the naturalization application.

An applicant who meets the criteria for special consideration passes either the 2008 or the 2020 civics test if he or she provides a correct answer or provides an alternative phrasing of the correct answer for at least six of the 10 test questions from the specially designated list of 20 questions from the applicable test. …

3. Due Consideration

An officer should exercise “due consideration” on a case-by-case basis in choosing subject matters, phrasing questions, and evaluating responses when administering the civics test. The officer’s decision to exercise due consideration should be based on a review of the applicant’s:

• Age;

• Background;

• Level of education;

• Length of residence in the United States;

• Opportunities available and efforts made to acquire the requisite knowledge; and

• Any other relevant factors relating to the applicant’s knowledge and understanding.18

F. Failure to Meet the English or Civics Requirements

If an applicant fails any portion of the English test, the civics test, or all tests during the initial naturalization examination, USCIS reschedules the applicant to appear for a second examination between 60 and 90 days after the initial examination.19

In cases where the applicant appears for a re-examination, the reexamining officer must not administer the same English or civics test forms administered during the initial examination. The officer must only retest the applicant in those areas that the applicant previously failed. For example, if the applicant passed the English speaking, reading, and civics portions but failed the writing portion during the initial examination, the officer must only administer the English writing test during the re-examination.20

If an applicant fails any portion of the naturalization test a second time, the officer must deny the application based upon the applicant’s failure to meet the educational requirements for naturalization. The officer also must address any other areas of ineligibility in the denial notice. An applicant who refuses to be tested or to respond to individual questions on the reading, writing, or civics test, or fails to respond to eligibility questions because he or she did not understand the questions as asked or rephrased, fails to meet to the educational requirements. An officer should treat an applicant’s refusal to be tested or to respond to test questions as a failure of the test.21

G. Documenting Test Results

All officers administering the English and civics tests are required to record the test results in the applicant’s A-file. Officers are required to complete and provide to each applicant at the end of the naturalization examination the results of the examination and testing, unless the officer serves the applicant with a denial notice at that time.22 The results of the examination include the results of the English and civics tests.

2 Only one opportunity to pass the failed portion of the tests is provided at the hearing. See Part B, Naturalization Examination, Chapter 6, USCIS Hearing and Judicial Review, Section B, Review of Timely Filed Hearing Request [12 USCIS-PM B.6(B)].

3 See INA 312(b)(3). …

11 See 8 CFR 312.2.

12 See 8 CFR 312.2(c)(1).

13 See Executive Order 14012 (PDF), signed February 2, 2021.

14 For information on re-examination, see Chapter 3, Naturalization Interview, Section D, Subsequent Re-examination [12 USCIS-PM B.3(D)]. For information on N-336 hearings, see Chapter 6, USCIS Hearing and Judicial Review [12 USCIS-PM B.6]. …

16 See INA 312(b)(3). …

18 See 8 CFR 312.2(c)(2).

19 See 8 CFR 335.3(b) (re-examination no earlier than 60 days from initial examination). See 8 CFR 312.5(a) (re-examination no later than 90 days from initial examination).

20 See 8 CFR 312.5.

21 See 8 CFR 312.5(b).

22 Officers must use Naturalization Interview Results (Form N-652).

[390] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part B (Naturalization Examination), Chapter 3 (Naturalization Interview):

USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] officers have authority to conduct the investigation and examination, to include the naturalization interview.1 The officer should introduce him or herself and explain the purpose of the naturalization examination and place the applicant under oath at the start of the interview.

USCIS’ authority includes the legal authority for officers to:

• Place an applicant under oath;

• Obtain oral and written testimony during an in-person interview;

• Subpoena witnesses;

• Request evidence; and

• Administer the Oath of Allegiance (when delegated by the Field Office Director).

Questions on Eligibility

An officer’s questioning of an applicant during the applicant’s naturalization interview must cover all of the requirements for naturalization.2 In general, the officer’s questions focus on the information in the naturalization application. The officer may ask any questions that are pertinent to the eligibility determination. The officer should provide the applicant with suitable opportunities to respond to questions in all instances.

In general, the officer’s questions may include, but are not limited to, the following questions:

• Biographical information, to include marital history and military service;

• Admission and length of time as a lawful permanent resident (LPR);

• Absences from the United States after becoming an LPR;

• Places of residence and employment history;

• Knowledge of English and of U.S. history and government (civics);

• Moral character and any criminal history;

• Attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution;

• Affiliations or memberships in certain organizations;

• Willingness to take an Oath of Allegiance to the United States; and

• Any other topic pertinent to the eligibility determination.

1 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 335(b). See 8 CFR 335.2.

2 See Part D, General Naturalization Requirements [12 USCIS-PM D].

[391] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part B (Naturalization Examination), Chapter 4 (Results of the Naturalization Examination):

USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] has 120 days from the date of the initial naturalization interview to issue a decision. If the decision is not issued within 120 days of the interview, an applicant may request judicial review of his or her application in district court. The officer must base his or her decision on the laws, regulations, precedent decisions, and governing policies.

The officer may:

• Approve the application;

• Continue the examination without making a decision (if more information is needed), if the applicant needs to be rescheduled, or for other relevant reasons; or

• Deny the application.

The officer must provide the applicant with a notice of results at the end of the interview regardless of the outcome. The notice should address the outcome of the interview and the next steps involved for continued cases.1

General Grounds for Denial of Naturalization Application (Form N-400)​

Failure to Establish …

Citation​

Lawful Admission for Permanent Residence​

INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 316(a)(1)​, ​INA 318​,​ 8 CFR 316.2(a)(2)​

Continuous Residence​

INA 316(a)(2)​, ​INA 316(b)​,​ 8 CFR 316.2(a)(3)​, ​8 CFR 316.5(c)​

Physical Presence​

INA 316(a)​
8 CFR 316.2(a)(4)

3 Months of Residence in State or Service District​

INA 316(a)​
8 CFR 316.2(a)(5)​

Good Moral Character​

INA 316(a)(3)​, ​INA 316(e)​,​INA 101(f)​; ​8 CFR 316.10​

Attachment and Favorable Disposition to the Good Order and Happiness of the ​United States​

INA 316(a)(3)​,
8 CFR 316.11​

Understanding of English (Including ​Reading​, Writing, and Speaking)​

INA 312(a)(1)​
8 CFR 312.1​

Knowledge of ​U.S.​ History and Government​

INA 312(a)(2)​
8 CFR 312.2​

Lack of Prosecution​

INA 335(e)​
8 CFR 335.7​

1 The officer issues a Notice of Examination Results (Form N-652).

[392] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

The following are the general naturalization requirements that an applicant must meet in order to become a U.S. citizen …

The applicant must demonstrate good moral character for five years prior to filing for naturalization, and during the period leading up to the administration of the Oath of Allegiance.

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 9 (Good Moral Character):

One of the requirements for naturalization is good moral character (GMC). An applicant for naturalization must show that he or she has been, and continues to be, a person of good moral character. In general, the applicant must show GMC during the five-year period immediately preceding his or her application for naturalization and up to the time of the Oath of Allegiance. Conduct prior to the five-year period may also impact whether the applicant meets the requirement.1

1 See Part F, Good Moral Character [12 USCIS-PM F].

[393] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part F (Good Moral Character), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

One of the general requirements for naturalization is good moral character (GMC). GMC means character which measures up to the standards of average citizens of the community in which the applicant resides.1 In general, an applicant must show that he or she has been and continues to be a person of GMC during the statutory period prior to filing and up to the time of the Oath of Allegiance.2

The applicable naturalization provision under which the applicant files determines the period during which the applicant must demonstrate GMC.3 The applicant’s conduct outside the GMC period may also impact whether he or she meets the GMC requirement.4

While USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] determines whether an applicant has met the GMC requirement on a case-by-case basis, certain types of criminal conduct automatically preclude applicants from establishing GMC and may make the applicant subject to removal proceedings.5 An applicant may also be found to lack GMC for other types of criminal conduct (or unlawful acts).

An officer’s assessment of whether an applicant meets the GMC requirement includes an officer’s review of:

• The applicant’s record;

• Statements provided in the naturalization application; and

• Oral testimony provided during the interview.

There may be cases that are affected by specific jurisdictional case law. The officer should rely on local USCIS counsel in cases where there is a question about whether a particular offense rises to the level of precluding an applicant from establishing GMC. In addition, the offenses and conduct which affect the GMC determination may also render an applicant removable.

B. Background

The Naturalization Act of 1790 introduced the long-standing GMC requirement for naturalization. Any conduct or act that offends the accepted moral character standards of the community in which the applicant resides should be considered without regard to whether the applicant has been arrested or convicted of an offense.

In general, an applicant for naturalization must establish GMC throughout the requisite periods of continuous residence in the United States. In prescribing specific periods during which GMC must be established, Congress generally intended to make provision for the reformation and eventual naturalization of persons who were guilty of certain past misconduct.

C. Legal Authorities

• INA 101(f) – Good moral character definition

• INA 316; 8 CFR 316 – General naturalization requirements

• INA 316(e); 8 CFR 316.10 – Good moral character requirement

• INA 318 – Prerequisite to Naturalization, burden of proof

1 See 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2). See INA 101(f). See In re Mogus, 73 F.Supp. 150 (W.D. Pa. 1947) (moral standard of average citizen).

2 See INA 316(a). See 8 CFR 316.10(a)(1).

3 See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section A, Applicable Statutory Period [12 USCIS-PM F.2(A)].

4 See INA 316(e). See 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2).

5 See INA 101(f).

[394] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part F (Good Moral Character), Chapter 2 (Adjudicative Factors):

A. Applicable Statutory Period

The applicable period during which an applicant must show that he or she has been a person of good moral character (GMC) depends on the corresponding naturalization provision.1 In general, the statutory period for GMC for an applicant filing under the general naturalization provision starts 5 years prior to the date of filing.2

The statutory period starts 3 years prior to the date of filing for certain spouses of U.S. citizens.3 The period during which certain service members or veterans must show GMC starts 1 or 5 years from the date of filing depending on the military provision.4

In all cases, the applicant must also show that he or she continues to be a person of GMC until the time of his or her naturalization.5

B. Conduct Outside of the Statutory Period

USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] is not limited to reviewing the applicant’s conduct only during the applicable GMC period. An applicant’s conduct prior to the GMC period may affect the applicant’s ability to establish GMC if the applicant’s present conduct does not reflect a reformation of character or the earlier conduct is relevant to the applicant’s present moral character.6

In general, an officer must consider the totality of the circumstances and weigh all factors, favorable and unfavorable, when considering reformation of character in conjunction with GMC within the relevant period.7 The following factors may be relevant in assessing an applicant’s current moral character and reformation of character:

• Family ties and background;

• Absence or presence of other criminal history;

• Education;

• Employment history;

• Other law-abiding behavior (for example meeting financial obligations, paying taxes);

• Community involvement;

• Credibility of the applicant;

• Compliance with probation; and

• Length of time in United States.

C. Definition of Conviction

1. Statutory Definition of Conviction for Immigration Purposes

Most of the criminal offenses that preclude a finding of GMC require a conviction for the disqualifying offense or arrest. A “conviction” for immigration purposes means a formal judgment of guilt entered by the court. A conviction for immigration purposes also exists in cases where the adjudication of guilt is withheld if the following conditions are met:

• A judge or jury has found the noncitizen guilty or the noncitizen entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere8 or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt; and

• The judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or imposed a restraint on the noncitizen’s liberty.9

It is not always clear if the outcome of the arrest resulted in a conviction. Various states have provisions for diminishing the effects of a conviction. In some states, adjudication may be deferred upon a finding or confession of guilt. Some states have a pretrial diversion program whereby the case is removed from the normal criminal proceedings. This way the person may enter into a counseling or treatment program and potentially avoid criminal prosecution.

If the accused is directed to attend a pre-trial diversion or intervention program, where no admission or finding of guilt is required, the order may not count as a conviction for immigration purposes.10

2. Juvenile Convictions

In general, a guilty verdict, ruling, or judgment in a juvenile court does not constitute a conviction for immigration purposes.11 A conviction for a person who is under 18 years of age and who was charged as an adult constitutes a conviction for immigration purposes.

3. Court Martial Convictions

A general “court martial” is defined as a criminal proceeding under the governing laws of the U.S. armed forces. A judgment of guilt by a court martial has the same force and effect as a conviction by a criminal court.12 However, disciplinary actions in lieu of a court martial are not convictions for immigration purposes.

4. Deferrals of Adjudication

In cases where adjudication is deferred, the original finding or confession of guilt and imposition of punishment is sufficient to establish a conviction for immigration purposes because both conditions establishing a conviction are met. If the court does not impose some form of punishment, then it is not considered a conviction even with a finding or confession of guilt. A decision or ruling of nolle prosequi13 does not meet the definition of conviction.

5. Vacated Judgments

If a judgment is vacated for cause due to Constitutional defects, statutory defects, or pre-conviction errors affecting guilt, it is not considered a conviction for immigration purposes. The judgment is considered a conviction for immigration purposes if it was dismissed for any other reason, such as completion of a rehabilitative period (rather than on its merits) or to avoid adverse immigration consequences.14

A conviction vacated where a criminal court failed to advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a plea, which resulted from a defect in the underlying criminal proceeding, is not a conviction for immigration purposes.15

6. Foreign Convictions

USCIS considers a foreign conviction to be a “conviction” in the immigration context if the conviction was the result of an offense deemed to be criminal by United States standards.16 In addition, federal United States standards on sentencing govern the determination of whether the offense is a felony or a misdemeanor regardless of the punishment imposed by the foreign jurisdiction.17 The officer may consult with local USCIS counsel in cases involving foreign convictions.

7. Pardons

An applicant who has received a full and unconditional executive pardon18 prior to the start of the statutory period may establish GMC if the applicant shows that he or she has been reformed and rehabilitated prior to the statutory period.19 If the applicant received a pardon during the statutory period, the applicant may establish GMC if he or she shows evidence of extenuating or exonerating circumstances that would establish his or her GMC.20

Foreign pardons do not eliminate a conviction for immigration purposes.21

8. Expunged Records

Expunged Records and the Underlying Conviction

A record of conviction that has been expunged does not remove the underlying conviction.22 For example, an expunged record of conviction for a controlled substance violation23 or any crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) does not relieve the applicant from the conviction in the immigration context.24 In addition, foreign expungements are still considered convictions for immigration purposes.25

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that a state court action to “expunge, dismiss, cancel, vacate, discharge, or otherwise remove a guilty plea or other record of guilt or conviction by operation of a state rehabilitative statute” has no effect on removing the underlying conviction for immigration purposes.26

The officer may require the applicant to submit evidence of a conviction regardless of whether the record of the conviction has been expunged. It remains the applicant’s responsibility to obtain his or her records regardless of whether they have been expunged or sealed by the court. USCIS may file a motion with the court to obtain a copy of the record in states where the applicant is unable to obtain the record. …

D. Effect of Probation

An officer may not approve a naturalization application while the applicant is on probation, parole, or under a suspended sentence.30 However, an applicant who has satisfactorily completed probation, parole, or a suspended sentence during the relevant statutory period is not automatically precluded from establishing GMC. The fact that an applicant was on probation, parole, or under a suspended sentence during the statutory period, however, may affect the overall GMC determination.

E. Admission of Certain Criminal Acts

An applicant may be unable to establish GMC if he or she admits committing certain offenses even if the applicant has never been formally charged, indicted, arrested or convicted.31 This applies to offenses involving “moral turpitude” or any violation of, or a conspiracy or attempt to violate, any law or regulation relating to a controlled substance.32 When determining whether an applicant committed a particular offense, the officer must review the relevant statute in the jurisdiction where it is alleged to have been committed.

The officer must provide the applicant with a full explanation of the purpose of the questioning stemming from the applicant’s declaration that he or she committed an offense. In order for the applicant’s declaration to be considered an “admission,” it must meet the long held requirements for a valid “admission” of an offense:33

• The officer must provide the applicant the text of the specific law from the jurisdiction where the offense was committed;

• The officer must provide an explanation of the offense and its essential elements in “ordinary” language; and

• The applicant must voluntarily admit to having committed the particular elements of the offense under oath.34

The officer must ensure that the applicant is under oath when taking the sworn statement to record the admission. The sworn statement must cover the requirements for a valid admission, to include the specifics of the act or acts that may prevent the applicant from establishing GMC. The officer may consult with his or her supervisor to ensure that sufficient written testimony has been received from the applicant prior to making a decision on the application.

F. “Purely Political Offense” Exception

There is an exception to certain conditional bars to GMC in cases where the offense was a “purely political offense” that resulted in conviction, or in conviction and imprisonment, outside of the United States.35 Purely political offenses are generally offenses that “resulted in convictions obviously based on fabricated charges or predicated upon repressive measures against racial, religious or political minorities.”36

The “purely political offense” exception applies to the following conditional bars to GMC:36

• Conviction for one or more crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs);38

• Conviction of two or more offenses with a combined sentence of 5 years or more;39 and

• Incarceration for a total period of 180 days or more.40

These conditional bars to GMC do not apply if the underlying conviction was for a “purely political offense” abroad. The officer should rely on local USCIS counsel in cases where there is a question about whether a particular offense should be considered a “purely political offense.”

G. Extenuating Circumstances

Certain conditional bars to GMC should not adversely affect the GMC determination if the applicant shows extenuating circumstances.41 The extenuating circumstance must precede or be contemporaneous with the commission of the offense. USCIS does not consider any conduct or equity (including evidence of reformation or rehabilitation) subsequent to the commission of the offense as an extenuating circumstance.

The “extenuating circumstances” provision applies to the following conditional bars to GMC:42

• Failure to support dependents;43

• Adultery;44

• Unlawful acts.45

These conditional bars to GMC do not apply if the applicant shows extenuating circumstances. The officer should provide the applicant with an opportunity during the interview to provide evidence and testimony of extenuating circumstances in relevant cases.

H. Removability and GMC

Certain permanent and conditional bars to GMC may also render the applicant amenable to removal proceedings.46 This depends on various factors specific to each case. Not all applicants who are found to lack GMC are removable. An applicant may be found to lack GMC and have his or her naturalization application denied under those grounds without DHS issuing a Notice to Appear.47

1 See the relevant Volume 12 [12 USCIS-PM] part for the specific statutory period pertaining to each naturalization provision.

2 See Part D, General Naturalization Requirements, Chapter 1, Purpose and Background, Section B, General Eligibility Requirements [12 USCIS-PM D.1(B)]. See INA 316(a). See 8 CFR 316.2(a)(7).

3 See Part G, Spouses of U.S. Citizens, Chapter 1, Purpose and Background, Section C, Table of General Provisions [12 USCIS-PM G.1(C)]. See INA 319(a) and 8 CFR 319.1(a)(7).

4 See Part I, Military Members and their Families, Chapter 9, Spouses, Children, and Surviving Family Benefits, Section B, Spouses of Military Members [12 USCIS-PM I.9(B)]. See INA 328(c) and INA 329. See 8 CFR 328.2(d) and 8 CFR 329.2(d).

5 See 8 CFR 316.10(a)(1).

6 See INA 316(e). See 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2).

7 See Ralich v. United States, 185 F.2d 784 (1950) (provided false testimony within the statutory period and operated a house of prostitution prior to the statutory period). See Marcantonio v. United States, 185 F.2d 934 (1950) (applicant had rehabilitated his character after multiple arrests before statutory period).

8 The term “nolo contendere” is Latin for “I do not wish to contest.”

9 See INA 101(a)(48)(A).

10 See Matter of Grullon (PDF), 20 I&N Dec. 12 (BIA 1989).

11 See Matter of Devison-Charles (PDF), 22 I&N Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000).

12 See Matter of Rivera-Valencia (PDF), 24 I&N Dec. 484 (BIA 2008).

13 The term “nolle prosequi” is Latin for “we shall no longer prosecute.”

14 See Pickering v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2006).

15 See Matter of Adamiak (PDF), 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006). See Alim v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir 2006).

16 See Matter of Squires (PDF), 17 I&N Dec. 561 (BIA 1980). See Matter of McNaughton (PDF), 16 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 1978).

17 See Lennon v. INS, 527 F.2d 187 (2nd Cir. 1975).

18 Executive pardons are given by the President or a governor of the United States.

19 See 8 CFR 316.10(c)(2)(i).

20 See 8 CFR 316.10(c)(2)(ii).

21 See Marino v. INS, 537 F.2d 686 (2nd Cir. 1976). See Mullen-Cofee v. INS, 976 F.2d 1375 (11th Cir. 1992). See Matter of B-, 7 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 1956) (referring to amnesty).

22 See Matter of Marroquin (PDF), 23 I&N Dec. 705 (A.G. 2005).

23 For cases arising in the Ninth Circuit involving state law convictions for simple possession of a controlled substance, please consult local counsel as the date of the conviction may affect whether possible treatment under the Federal First Offender Act renders the conviction invalid for immigration purposes. See Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir 2011).

24 See 8 CFR 316.10(c)(3)(i) and 8 CFR 316.10(c)(3)(ii).

25 See Danso v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 709 (5th Cir. 2007). See Elkins v. Comfort, 392 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2004).

26 See In re Roldan-Santoyo (PDF), 22 I&N Dec. 512 (BIA 1999).

30 See INA 101(a)(48)(B).

31 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(iv).

32 See Chapter 5, Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period [12 USCIS-PM F.5]. See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(i) (offenses involving “moral turpitude”). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(iii) (violation of controlled substance law).

33 See Matter of K-, 7 I&N Dec. 594 (BIA 1957).

34 See Matter of J-, 2 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 1945).

35 See In re O’Cealleagh (PDF), 23 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 2006) (finding that a CIMT offense must be completely or totally political for “purely political offense” exception to apply).

36 See 22 CFR 40.21(a)(6).

37 See Chapter 5, Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period [12 USCIS-PM F.5], for further guidance on each bar to GMC.

38 See Chapter 5, Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period, Section A, One or More Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude [12 USCIS-PM F.5(A)].

39 See Chapter 5, Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period, Section B, Aggregate Sentence of 5 Years or More [12 USCIS-PM F.5(B)].

40 See Chapter 5, Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period, Section D, Imprisonment for 180 Days or More [12 USCIS-PM F.5(D)].

41 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3).

42 See Chapter 5, Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period [12 USCIS-PM F.5], for further guidance on extenuating circumstances.

43 See Chapter 5, Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period, Section K, Certain Acts in Statutory Period, Subsection 2, Failure to Support Dependents [12 USCIS-PM F.5(K)(2)].

44 See Chapter 5, Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period, Section K, Certain Acts in Statutory Period, Subsection 3, Adultery [12 USCIS-PM F.5(K)(3)].

45 See Chapter 5, Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period, Section L, Unlawful Acts [12 USCIS-PM F.5(L)].

46 See INA 237 (“general classes of deportable aliens”).

47 See INA 318. See Part D, General Naturalization Requirements, Chapter 2, Lawful Permanent Resident Admission for Naturalization, Section F, Removal Proceedings [12 USCIS-PM D.2(F)].

[395] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part F (Good Moral Character), Chapter 5 (Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period):

In addition to the permanent bars to good moral character (GMC), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and corresponding regulations include bars to GMC that are not permanent in nature. USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] refers to these bars as “conditional bars.” These bars are triggered by specific acts, offenses, activities, circumstances, or convictions within the statutory period for naturalization, including the period prior to filing and up to the time of the Oath of Allegiance.1 An offense that does not fall within a permanent or conditional bar to GMC may nonetheless affect an applicant’s ability to establish GMC.2

Conditional Bars to GMC for Acts Committed in Statutory Period

Engaged in prostitution, attempted or procured to import prostitution, or received proceeds from prostitution …

Practiced or is practicing polygamy (the custom of having more than one spouse at the same time) …

Is or was a habitual drunkard …

Willful failure or refusal to support dependents, unless extenuating circumstances are established …

Extramarital affair tending to destroy existing marriage, unless extenuating circumstances are established …

C. Controlled Substance Violation

An applicant cannot establish good moral character (GMC) if he or she has violated any controlled substance-related federal or state law or regulation of the United States or law or regulation of any foreign country during the statutory period.13 This includes conspiring to violate or aiding and abetting another person to violate such laws or regulations. …

3. Exception for Single Offense of Simple Possession27

The conditional bar to GMC for a controlled substance violation does not apply if the violation was for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.28 This exception is also applicable to paraphernalia offenses involving controlled substances as long as the paraphernalia offense is “related to” simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.29

F. Prostitution

An applicant may not establish GMC if he or she has engaged in prostitution, procured or attempted to procure or to import prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or received proceeds from prostitution during the statutory period.39 The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that to “engage in” prostitution, one must have engaged in a regular pattern of behavior or conduct.40 The BIA has also determined that a single act of soliciting prostitution on one’s own behalf is not the same as procurement.41

H. Polygamy

An applicant who has practiced or is practicing polygamy during the statutory period is precluded from establishing GMC.44 Polygamy is the custom of having more than one spouse at the same time.45 The officer should review documents in the file and any documents the applicant brings to the interview for information about the applicant’s marital history, to include any visa petitions or applications, marriage and divorce certificates, and birth certificates of children.

I. Gambling

An applicant who has been convicted of committing two or more gambling offenses or who derives his or her income principally from illegal gambling activities during the statutory period is precluded from establishing GMC.46 The gambling offenses must have been committed within the statutory period.

J. Habitual Drunkard

An applicant who is or was a habitual drunkard during the statutory period is precluded from establishing GMC.47 Certain documents may reveal habitual drunkenness, to include divorce decrees, employment records, and arrest records. In addition, termination of employment, unexplained periods of unemployment, and arrests or multiple convictions for public intoxication or driving under the influence may be indicators that the applicant is or was a habitual drunkard. …

2. Failure to Support Dependents

An applicant who willfully failed or refused to support his or her dependents during the statutory period cannot establish GMC unless the applicant establishes extenuating circumstances.54 The GMC determination for failure to support dependents includes consideration of whether the applicant has complied with his or her child support obligations abroad in cases where it is relevant.55

Even if there is no court-ordered child support, the courts have concluded that parents have a moral and legal obligation to provide support for their minor children, and a willful failure to provide such support demonstrates that the individual lacks GMC.56

An applicant who fails to support dependents may lack GMC if he or she:

• Deserts a minor child;57

• Fails to pay any support;58 or

• Obviously pays an insufficient amount.59

If the applicant has not complied with court-ordered child support and is in arrears, the applicant must identify the length of time of non-payment and the circumstances for the non-payment. An officer should review all court records regarding child support, and non-payment if applicable, in order to determine whether the applicant established GMC.60

Extenuating Circumstances

If the applicant shows extenuating circumstances, a failure to support dependents should not adversely affect the GMC determination.61

The officer should consider the following circumstances:

• An applicant’s unemployment and financial inability to pay the child support;62

• Cause of the unemployment and financial inability to support dependents;

• Evidence of a good-faith effort to reasonably provide for the support of the child;63

• Whether the nonpayment was due to an honest but mistaken belief that the duty to support a minor child had terminated;64 and

• Whether the nonpayment was due to a miscalculation of the court-ordered arrears.65

3. Adultery

An applicant who has an extramarital affair during the statutory period that tended to destroy an existing marriage is precluded from establishing GMC.66

Extenuating Circumstances

If the applicant shows extenuating circumstances, an offense of adultery should not adversely affect the GMC determination.67 Extenuating circumstances may include instances where the applicant divorced his or her spouse but later the divorce was deemed invalid or the applicant and the spouse mutually separated and they were unable to obtain a divorce.68

Failure to File Tax Returns or Pay Taxes in Accordance with Tax Authority

An applicant who fails to file tax returns, if required to do so, or fully pay his or her tax liability, as required under the relevant tax laws, may be precluded from establishing GMC. If there are inconsistencies101 between the record and the applicant’s tax returns, the applicant may be precluded from establishing GMC due to the commission of an unlawful act.102 Once the failure to file tax returns or pay taxes and the relevant law has been identified, the officer must assess on a case-by-case basis whether the applicant is ineligible for naturalization under the unlawful acts provision. If the officer determines that the unlawful conduct violates the standards of an average member of the community, the applicant will not be able to establish GMC. However, recognizing the complexities of filing taxes, there may be instances where the officer may determine that the applicant’s conduct regarding his or her tax return or tax payment did not violate the standards of an average member of the community, or that the applicant established extenuating circumstances. In such cases, the applicant may establish GMC by showing that he or she has corrected all inconsistencies or errors. An example of when an applicant may not be prevented from establishing GMC despite filing taxes incorrectly could be where the applicant is divorced and mistakenly claimed a child as a dependent on his or her tax return for a tax year that the former spouse was entitled to claim the child as a dependent based on the terms of the divorce.

Examples of corrections of such inconsistencies or errors might include a letter from the tax authority indicating that:

• The applicant has filed the appropriate forms and returns; and

• The applicant has paid the required taxes, or has made arrangements for payment and is doing so in accordance with the pertinent tax authority.

1 See INA 316(a). See 8 CFR 316.10.

2 See INA 101(f). See Chapter 1, Purpose and Background [12 USCIS-PM F.1]. …

13 See 21 U.S.C. 802 for federal definition of “controlled substance.” For good moral character provisions, see INA 101(f)(3), INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and INA 212(a)(2)(C). Also, see 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(iii) and (iv). Note that the conditional bar to GMC for a controlled substance violation does not apply if the violation was for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana. See Subsection 3, Exception for Single Offense of Simple Possession [12 USCIS-PM F.5(C)(3)]. …

28 See INA 101(f)(3). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(iii). As explained in subsection 2, the decriminalization of certain activities involving marijuana in certain states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) does not affect the applicability of the controlled substances violation conditional bar to establishing GMC.

29 See Matter of Martinez Espinoza, 25 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 2009), abrogated on other grounds by Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S.Ct. 1980 (U.S. 2015). …

39 See INA 101(f)(3) and INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i) and INA 212(a)(2)(D)(ii). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(vii).

40 See Matter of T, 6 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 1955).

41 See Matter of Gonzalez-Zoquiapan, 24 I&N Dec. 549 (BIA 2008). …

44 See INA 101(f)(3) and INA 212(a)(10)(A). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(ix).

45 Polygamy is not the same as bigamy. Bigamy is the crime of marrying a person while being legally married to someone else. An applicant who has committed bigamy may be susceptible to a denial under the “unlawful acts” provision.

46 See INA 101(f)(5). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(x) and 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(xi).

47 See INA 101(f)(1). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(xii). …

54 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(i). See Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support.

55 See Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance.

56 See Brukiewicz v. Savoretti, 211 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1954). See Petition of Perdiak, 162 F.Supp. 76 (S.D. Cal. 1958). See Petition of Dobric, 189F.Supp. 638 (D. Minn. 1960). See In re Malaszenko, 204 F.Supp. 744 (D.N.J. 1962) (and cases cited). See Petition of Dobric, 189 F.Supp. 638 (D. Minn. 1960). See In re Huymaier, 345 F.Supp. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1972). See In re Valad, 465 F.Supp. 120 (E.D. Va. 1979).

57 See United States. v. Harrison, 180 F.2d 981 (9th Cir. 1950).

58 See In re Malaszenko, 204 F.Supp. 744 (D. N.J. 1962). See In re Mogus, 73 F.Supp. 150 (W.D. Pa. 1947).

59 See In re Halas, 274 F.Supp. 604 (E.D. Pa. 1967). See Petition of Dobric, 189 F.Supp. 638 (D. Minn. 1960).

60 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(i).

61 See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section G, Extenuating Circumstances [12 USCIS-PM F.2(G)].

62 See In re Huymaier, 345 F.Supp. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1972).

63 See Petition of Perdiak, 162 F.Supp. 76 (S.D. Cal. 1958).

64 See In re Valad, 465 F.Supp. 120 (E.D. Va. 1979).

65 See Etape v. Napolitano, 664 F.Supp.2d 498, 517 (D. Md. 2009).

66 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(ii). …

108 Examples of material facts include marital status, number of dependents, and income.

109 Examples of such unlawful acts include attempt to defraud the IRS by avoiding taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C.

[396] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

The following are the general naturalization requirements that an applicant must meet in order to become a U.S. citizen …

The applicant must have an attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and be well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law.

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 7 (Attachment to the Constitution):

An applicant for naturalization must show that he or she has been and continues to be a person attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during the statutorily prescribed period.1 “Attachment” is a stronger term than “well disposed” and implies a depth of conviction, which would lead to active support of the Constitution.2

Attachment includes both an understanding and a mental attitude including willingness to be attached to the principles of the Constitution. An applicant who is hostile to the basic form of government of the United States, or who does not believe in the principles of the Constitution, is not eligible for naturalization.3

1 See INA 316(a). See 8 CFR 316.11.

2 See In re Shanin, 278 F. 739 (D.C. Mass. 1922).

3 See Allan v. United States, 115 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1940).

[397] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part J (Oath of Allegiance), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background): “Before becoming a U.S. citizen, an eligible naturalization applicant must take an oath of renunciation and allegiance (Oath of Allegiance) in a public ceremony.”

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part J (Oath of Allegiance), Chapter 2 (The Oath of Allegiance):

Any applicant who has any titles of heredity or positions of nobility in any foreign state must renounce the title or the position. The applicant must expressly renounce the title in a public ceremony and USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] must record the renunciation as part of the proceedings.5 Failure to renounce the title of position shows a lack of attachment to the Constitution.

In order to renounce a title or position, the applicant must add one of the following phrases to the Oath of Allegiance:

• I further renounce the title of (give title or titles) which I have heretofore held; or

• I further renounce the order of nobility (give the order of nobility) to which I have heretofore belonged.6

An applicant whose country of former nationality or origin abolished the title by law, or who no longer possesses a title, is not required to drop that portion of his or her name that originally designated such title as a part of his or her naturalization.7

5 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 337.

6 See 8 CFR 337.1(d).

7 See Society Vinicole de Champagne v. Mumm, 143 F. 2d 240 (1944).

[398] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 7 (Attachment to the Constitution):

To be admitted to citizenship, naturalization applicants must take the Oath of Allegiance in a public ceremony. At that time, an applicant declares his or her attachment to the United States and its Constitution.4 To be admitted to citizenship:

• The applicant must understand that he or she is taking the Oath freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;

• The applicant must understand that he or she is sincerely and absolutely renouncing all foreign allegiance;

• The applicant must understand that he or she is giving true faith and allegiance to the United States, its Constitution and laws; and

• The applicant must understand that he or she is discharging all duties and obligations of citizenship including military and civil service when required by the law.

The applicant’s true faith and allegiance to the United States includes supporting and defending the principles of the Constitution by demonstrating an acceptance of the democratic, representational process established by the U.S. Constitution, and the willingness to obey the laws which result from that process.5

4 See INA 337. See 8 CFR 337.1. See Part J, Oath of Allegiance [12 USCIS-PM J].

5 The oath requirements may be modified for religious objections or waived for applicants with an inability to comprehend the oath. Prior to November 6, 2000, certain disabled applicants were precluded from naturalization because they could not personally express intent or voluntary assent to the oath requirement. However, subsequent legislation authorized USCIS to waive the oath requirements for anyone who has a medical condition constituting physical or developmental disability or mental impairment that makes him or her unable to understand or communicate an understanding of the meaning of the oath. An applicant for whom USCIS granted an oath waiver is considered to have met the requirement of attachment to the principles of the Constitution of the United States. See Pub. L. 106-448 (PDF) (November 6, 2000). See Part J, Oath of Allegiance, Chapter 3, Oath of Allegiance Modifications and Waivers [12 USCIS-PM J.3].

[399] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part J (Oath of Allegiance), Chapter 2 (The Oath of Allegiance):

In general, naturalization applicants take the following oath in order to complete the naturalization process:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”1

The Oath of Allegiance is administered in the English language, regardless of whether the applicant was eligible for a language waiver. However, an applicant may have a translator to translate the oath during the ceremony. In addition, an applicant may request a modification to the oath because of a religious objection or an inability or unwillingness to take an oath or recite the words “under God.”2 An applicant or a designated representative may request an oath waiver when the applicant is unable to understand the meaning of the oath.

1 See INA 337(a). See 8 CFR 337.1(a).

2 See Chapter 3, Oath of Allegiance Modifications and Waivers [12 USCIS-PM J.3].

[400] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part J (Oath of Allegiance), Chapter 3 (Oath of Allegiance Modifications and Waivers):

The table below serves as a quick reference guide on general requirements for oath modifications and oath waiver. The sections and paragraphs that follow the table provide further guidance on each modification and oath waiver.

Oath of Allegiance Modifications and Waiver​

Request​

Permitted Modifications to Oath​

Testimony or Evidence​

Modified Oath for Religious or Conscientious Objections ​

Deletion of either or both of the following clauses:​

Bearing arms on behalf of the United States if required by law​ [​INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 337(a)(5)(A)​]; and​

Performing noncombatant service in the U.S. armed forces when required by law​ [​INA 337(a)(5)(B)​]​

Must show opposition to clause (or clauses) based on religious training and belief or deeply held moral or ethical code. Applicant may provide an attestation or witness statement. ​

Affirmation of Allegiance in Lieu of Oath​

Substitution of the words “solemnly affirm” for the words “on oath” and no recitation of the words “so help me God”​ [​8 CFR 337.1(b)​] ​

Not Required​

Waiver of the Oath​

Requirement to take the Oath of Allegiance may be waived​

Evaluation by medical professional stating inability to understand (or communicate) the meaning of the oath due to a medical condition​

[401] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 7 (Attachment to the Constitution):

The officer will review an applicant’s record and testimony during the interview on the naturalization application to determine whether he or she was ever a member of or in any way associated (either directly or indirectly) with:

• The Communist Party;

• Any other totalitarian party; or

• A terrorist organization.

Current and previous membership in these organizations may indicate a lack of attachment to the Constitution and an indication that the applicant is not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.15 Membership in these organizations may also raise issues of lawful admission, good moral character,16 or may even render the applicant removable.17

The burden rests on the applicant to prove that he or she has an attachment to the Constitution and that he or she is well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States, among the other naturalization requirements. An applicant who refuses to testify or provide documentation relating to membership in such organizations has not met the burden of proof. USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] may still deny the naturalization application under such grounds in cases where such an applicant was not removed at the end of removal proceedings.18

1. Communist Party Affiliation

An applicant cannot naturalize if any of the following are true within 10 years immediately preceding his or her filing for naturalization and up until the time of the Oath of Allegiance:

• The applicant is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party;

• The applicant is or has advocated communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship;

• The applicant is or has been a member of or affiliated with an organization that advocates communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, either through its own utterance or through any written or printed matter published by such organization;

• The applicant is or has been a subversive, or a member of, or affiliated with, a subversive organization;

• The applicant is knowingly publishing or has published any subversive written or printed matter, or written or printed matter advocating communism;

• The applicant is knowingly circulating or has circulated, or knowingly possesses or has possessed for the purpose of circulating, subversive written or printed matter, or written or printed matter advocating communism; or

• The applicant is or has been a member of, or affiliated with, any organization that publishes or circulates, or that possesses for the purpose of publishing or circulating, any subversive written or printed matter, or any written or printed matter advocating communism.

2. Exemptions to Communist Party Affiliation

The burden is on the applicant to establish eligibility for an exemption. An applicant may be eligible for naturalization if he or she establishes that:

• The applicant’s membership or affiliation was involuntary;

• The applicant’s membership or affiliation was without awareness of the nature or the aims of the organization, and was discontinued when the applicant became aware of the nature or aims of the organization;

• The applicant’s membership or affiliation was terminated prior to his or her attaining the age of 16;

• The applicant’s membership or affiliation was terminated more than 10 years prior to the filing for naturalization;

• The applicant’s membership or affiliation was by operation of law; or

• The applicant’s membership or affiliation was necessary for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living.19

Even if participating without awareness of the nature or the aims of the organization, the applicant’s participation must have been minimal in nature. The applicant must also demonstrate that membership in the covered organization was necessary to obtain the essentials of living like food, shelter, clothing, employment, and an education, which were routinely available to the rest of the population.

For purposes of this exemption, higher education qualifies as an essential of living only if the applicant can establish the existence of special circumstances which convert the need for higher education into a need as basic as the need for food or employment, and that he or she participated only to the minimal extent necessary to receive the essentials of living.

However, unless the applicant can show special circumstances that establish a need for higher education as basic as the need for food or employment, membership to obtain a college education is not excusable for obtaining an essential of living.20

3. Nazi Party Affiliation

Applicants who were affiliated with the Nazi government of Germany or any government occupied by or allied with the Nazi government of Germany, either directly or indirectly, are ineligible for admission into the United States and permanently barred from naturalization.21 The applicant is responsible for providing any evidence or documentation to support a claim that he or she is not ineligible for naturalization based on involvement in the Nazi Party. …

5. Membership or Affiliation with Terrorist Organizations

Information concerning an applicant’s membership in a terrorist organization implicates national security issues. Such information is important in determining the applicant’s eligibility in terms of the good moral character and attachment requirements.

15 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 313 and INA 316. See 8 CFR 316.

16 See Part F, Good Moral Character [12 USCIS-PM F].

17 See INA 237(a)(4).

18 See INA 313. See the Legal Decisions and Opinions of the Office of Immigration Litigation Case Summaries – No. 93–380, Price v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, seeking review of Price v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 962 F.2d 836 (9th Cir. 1992).

19 See INA 313(d).

20 See Langhammer v. Hamilton, 194 F. Supp. 854, 857 (1961).

21 See INA 212(a)(3)(E).

[402] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 7 (Attachment to the Constitution):

An applicant who has engaged in persecution or genocide is permanently barred from naturalization because he or she is precluded from establishing good moral character.22 Additionally, an applicant who engaged in persecution or genocide prior to admission as a lawful permanent resident (LPR) would have been inadmissible. Such an applicant would not have lawfully acquired LPR status in accordance with all applicable provisions and would be ineligible for naturalization.23 Such persons may also be deportable.24

22 See INA 101(a)(42), INA 101(f), and INA 208(b)(2)(A)(i). See Part F, Good Moral Character, Chapter 4, Permanent Bars to Good Moral Character (GMC), Section C, Persecution, Genocide, Torture, or Severe Violations of Religious Freedom [12 USCIS-PM F.4(C)].

23 See INA 318. See Chapter 2, LPR Admission for Naturalization [12 USCIS-PM D.2].

24 See INA 212(a)(3)(E).

[403] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part F (Good Moral Character [GMC]), Chapter 4 (Permanent Bars to GMC):

C. Persecution, Genocide, Torture, or Severe Violations of Religious Freedom

The applicant is responsible for providing any evidence or documentation to support a claim that he or she is not ineligible for naturalization based on involvement in any of the activities addressed in this section.

1. Nazi Persecutions

An applicant who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person or persons in association with the Nazi Government of Germany or any government in an area occupied by or allied with the Nazi government of Germany is permanently barred from establishing GMC for naturalization.7

2. Genocide

An applicant who has ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide, at any time is permanently barred from establishing GMC for naturalization.8 The criminal offense of “genocide” includes any of the following acts committed in time of peace or time of war with the specific intent to destroy in whole or in substantial part a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such:

• Killing members of that group;

• Causing serious bodily injury to members of that group;

• Causing the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;

• Subjecting the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;

• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or

• Transferring by force children of the group to another group.9

3. Torture or Extrajudicial Killings

An applicant who has committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the commission of any act of torture or under color of law of any foreign nation any extrajudicial killing is permanently barred from establishing GMC for naturalization.10

“Torture” is defined as an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his or her custody or physical control.11

An “extrajudicial killing” is defined as a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees, which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.12

4. Particularly Severe Violations of Religious Freedom

An applicant who was responsible for, or directly carried out, particularly severe violations of religious freedom while serving as a foreign government official at any time is not able to establish GMC.13 “Particularly severe violations of religious freedom” are defined as systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom, including violations such as:

• Torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;

• Prolonged detention without charges;

• Causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction or clandestine detention of those persons; or

• Other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons.14

7 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 101(f)(9) and INA 212(a)(3)(E).

8 See INA 101(f)(9) and INA 212(a)(3)(E). See 18 U.S.C. 2340 and 18 U.S.C. 1091(a).

9 See 18 U.S.C. 1091. See Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (78 U.N.T.S. 278 [Dec. 9, 1948]).

10 See INA 101(f)(9) and INA 212(a)(3)(E).

11 See 18 U.S.C. 2340.

12 See 28 U.S.C. 1350 (Note). See Section 3(a) of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991.

13 See INA 101(f)(9) and INA 212(a)(2)(G).

14 See 22 U.S.C. 6402.

[404] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part F (Good Moral Character [GMC]), Chapter 5 (Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period):

An applicant who gives false testimony to obtain any immigration benefit during the statutory period cannot establish GMC.33 False testimony occurs when the applicant deliberately intends to deceive the U.S. Government while under oath in order to obtain an immigration benefit. This holds true regardless of whether the information provided in the false testimony would have impacted the applicant’s eligibility. The statute does not require that the benefit be obtained, only that the false testimony is given in an attempt to obtain the benefit.34

While the most common occurrence of false testimony is failure to disclose a criminal or other adverse record, false testimony can occur in other areas. False testimony may include, but is not limited to, facts about lawful admission, absences, residence, marital status or infidelity, employment, organizational membership, or tax filing information.

2. Three Elements of False Testimony

There are three elements of false testimony established by the Supreme Court that must exist for a naturalization application to be denied on false testimony grounds:35

Oral Statements

The “testimony” must be oral. False statements in a written application and falsified documents, whether or not under oath, do not constitute “testimony.”36 However, false information provided orally under oath to an officer in a question-and-answer statement relating to a written application is “testimony.”37 The oral statement must also be an affirmative misrepresentation. The Supreme Court makes it clear that there is no “false testimony” if facts are merely concealed, to include incomplete but otherwise truthful answers.

Oath

The oral statement must be made under oath in order to constitute false testimony.38 Oral statements to officers that are not under oath do not constitute false testimony.

Subjective Intent to Obtain an Immigration Benefit

The applicant must be providing the false testimony in order to obtain an immigration benefit. False testimony for any other reason does not preclude the applicant from establishing GMC.

33 See INA 101(f)(6). See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(vi).

34 See Matter of R-S-J-, 22 I&N Dec. 863 (BIA 1999).

35 See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 780-81 (1988).

36 See Matter of L-D-E, 8 I&N Dec. 399 (BIA 1959).

37 See Matter of Ngan, 10 I&N Dec. 725 (BIA 1964). See Matter of G-L-T-, 8 I&N Dec. 403 (BIA 1959).

38 See Matter of G-, 6 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 1954).

[405] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part F (Good Moral Character [GMC]), Chapter 5 (Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period):

Unlawful Voting, False Claim to U.S. Citizenship in Order to Register to Vote

An applicant may fail to show GMC if he or she engaged in unlawful voting or falsely claimed U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote or to vote,101 depending on the circumstances of the case.102 For unlawful voting, the applicant’s conduct must be unlawful under the relevant federal, state, or local election law.103 False claims to U.S. citizenship for the purpose of voting or registering to vote are unlawful under federal law.104

Where appropriate, the officer should take a sworn statement regarding the applicant’s testimony on unlawful voting or false claim to citizenship. The officer may also require an applicant to obtain any relevant evidence, such as the voter registration card, applicable voter registration form, and voting record from the relevant board of elections commission.

When there is evidence of one of the aforementioned unlawful acts, as with all unlawful acts, the officer must make an assessment regarding whether the act reflects adversely on moral character and must consider any extenuating circumstances, in addition to the below exception for unlawful voting and false claims to U.S. citizenship for voting.105

GMC Exception for Unlawful Voting and False Claims to U.S. Citizenship Unlawful Acts

In 2000, Congress added an exception for GMC determinations for unlawful voting and false claims to U.S. citizenship.106 An applicant qualifies for an exception if all of the following conditions are met:

• The applicant’s natural or adoptive parents are or were U.S. citizens at the time of the violation;107

• The applicant permanently resided in the United States before reaching the age of 16 years; and​

• The applicant “reasonably believed” at the time of the violation that he or she was a U.S. citizen.

To assess whether the applicant “reasonably believed” that he or she was a U.S. citizen at the time of the violation, the officer must consider the totality of the circumstances in the case, weighing such factors as the length of time the applicant resided in the United States and the age when the applicant became an LPR [lawful permanent resident].

102 See 18 U.S.C. 611 (voting by aliens). See 18 U.S.C. 1015(f) (false claim to U.S. citizenship to vote or register to vote).

103 The officer should consider the controlling statutes in cases involving potential unlawful voting offenses, as some local municipalities permit LPRs or other noncitizens to vote in municipal elections.

104 See 18 U.S.C. 1015(f) (false claim to U.S. citizenship to vote or register to vote). There are exceptions to the false claim to U.S. citizenship unlawful act set forth in INA 101(f). False claims to U.S. citizen status for any purpose or benefit under the law, where an exception does not apply, including for registering to vote or voting, may affect an applicant’s GMC as an unlawful act, as a CIMT, as an aggregate sentence of 5 years or more, or where there was incarceration of the applicant for 180 days or more. See, for example, 18 U.S.C. 1001. See INA 101(f)(3) (one or more CIMTs, INA 101(f)(3) (aggregate sentence of 5 or more years), and INA 101(f)(7) (incarceration for 180 days or more) as discussed in Section A, One or More Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude [12 USCIS-PM F.5(A)] and Section D, Imprisonment for 180 Days or More [12 USCIS-PM F.5(D)].

105 See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii). See United States v. Suarez, 664 F.3d 655, 662 (7th Cir. 2011). See United States v. Lekarczyk, 354 F.Supp.2d 883 (W.D. Wis. 2005). See INA 101(f). See Chapter 2, Adjudicative Factors, Section G, Extenuating Circumstances [12 USCIS-PM F.2(G)].

106 See INA 101(f). These provisions were added by the CCA, but they apply to all applications filed on or after September 30, 1996. See Section 201(a)(2) of the CCA, Pub. L. 106-395 (PDF), 114 Stat. 1631, 1636 (October 30, 2000).

107 As a matter of policy, USCIS has determined that the applicant’s parents had to be U.S. citizens at the time of the unlawful voting or false claim to U.S. citizenship in order to meet the first prong of this exception.

[406] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part A (Citizenship and Naturalization Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Becoming a U.S. Citizen):

Deciding to become a U.S. citizen is one of the most important decisions an immigrant can make. Naturalized U.S. citizens share equally in the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. U.S. citizenship offers immigrants the ability to:

• Vote in Federal elections;

• Travel with a U.S. Passport;

• Run for elective office where citizenship is required;

• Participate on a jury;

• Become eligible for federal and certain law enforcement jobs;

• Obtain certain State and Federal benefits not available to noncitizens;

• Obtain citizenship for minor children born abroad; and

• Expand and expedite their ability to bring family members to the United States.

[407] Webpage: “Civil War Facts.” American Battlefield Trust, August 16, 2011. Updated 8/24/21. <www.battlefields.org>

The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. The war ended in Spring, 1865. Robert E. Lee surrendered the last major Confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865. The last battle was fought at Palmito Ranch, Texas, on May 13, 1865. …

The Northern armies were victorious, and the rebellious states returned to the Union.

[408] 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified December 6, 1865. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[409] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 454:

Well before the war ended, this block, which came to be known as Radicals or Radical Republicans, assumed a more positive role in opposing the reconstruction program and favoring more extreme measures. This group objected to Lincoln’s program on several counts. First, while the program implied the abolition of slavery, it guaranteed neither Negro suffrage nor Negro civil rights. Many Radicals were convinced that the Negro ought to be elevated forcibly to a position of civil, social and political equality with the whites.

Page 459: “The Civil Rights Bill, passed by Congress on March 13, embodied another and more detailed attempt by the Radicals to extend federal guarantees over Negro civil rights.”

Page 460: “[Andrew] Johnson vetoed the bill, cogently presenting the same objections as he had stated against the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, but Congress on April 9 passed the law over his veto.”

[410] “An Act to Protect All Persons in the United States in Their Civil Rights, and Furnish the Means of Their Vindication.” 39th U.S. Congress. Enacted into law on April 9, 1866 when Congress overrode a veto by President Andrew Johnson. <www.visitthecapitol.gov>

Chap. XXXI. — An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties on account of such person having at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court. …

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willfully obstruct, hinder, or prevent any officer, or other person charged with the execution of any warrant or process issued under the provisions of this act … [shall] be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months ….

[411] Webpage: “Andrew Johnson.” White House. Accessed July 24, 2018 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

During the secession crisis, Johnson remained in the Senate even when Tennessee seceded, which made him a hero in the North and a traitor in the eyes of most Southerners. In 1862 President Lincoln appointed him Military Governor of Tennessee, and Johnson used the state as a laboratory for reconstruction. In 1864 the Republicans, contending that their National Union Party was for all loyal men, nominated Johnson, a Southerner and a Democrat, for Vice President.

After Lincoln’s death, President Johnson proceeded to reconstruct the former Confederate States while Congress was not in session in 1865. He pardoned all who would take an oath of allegiance, but required leaders and men of wealth to obtain special Presidential pardons.

[412] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 458: “By early January of 1866, the Radicals were openly formulating their own program, and so preparing for a decisive conflict with the President. … A series of tentative Radical [Republican] measures eventually led to the formulation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, adopted by Congress in June 1866.”

Pages 460–461:

Although the Democratic minority continued to support the [Johnson] administration, the Radical Republican majority promptly passed all important reconstruction measures over Johnson’s veto. …

After some further delay, the Joint Committee on April 30 [1866] reported out a far more comprehensive constitutional amendment, destined to emerge with some modifications as the Fourteenth Amendment. …

These provisions, largely the work of Representative John A. Bingham of Ohio, were intended to remove all doubt as to the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, as Stevens presently made clear in debate.

[413] Book: Processes of Constitutional Decision-Making: Cases and Materials (5th edition). By Paul Brest and others. Aspen Publishers, 2006.

Senator Jacob Howard, Speech Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment

Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866

[Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan was a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. He was the floor manager for the Amendment in the Senate. In this speech, he introduces the Amendment on the floor of the Senate and explains its purposes.]

I can only promise to present to the Senate, in a very succinct way, the views and the motives which influenced th[e] committee, so far as I understand those views and motives, in presenting the report which is now before us for consideration, and the ends it aims to accomplish. …

The first section [of the 14th Amendment] … relates to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, and to the rights and privileges of all persons, whether citizens or others, under the laws of the United States. …

To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature—to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.

Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. States are not affected by them, and it has been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.

Now, sir, there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees….

[414] 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified July 9, 1868. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[415] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part A (Citizenship and Naturalization Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Becoming a U.S. Citizen):

A person may derive or acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. Persons who are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens at birth. Persons who are born in certain territories of the United States also may be citizens at birth. In general, but subject in some cases to other requirements, including residence requirements as of certain dates, this includes persons born in:

• Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899;1

• Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904;2

• Virgin Islands on or after January 17, 1917;3

• Guam born after April 11, 1899;4 or

• Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) on or after November 4, 1986.5

Persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are generally considered nationals but not citizens of the United States.6

In addition, persons who are born outside of the United States may be U.S. citizens at birth if one or both parents were U.S. citizens at their time of birth. Persons who are not U.S. citizens at birth may become U.S. citizens through naturalization. Naturalization is the conferring of U.S. citizenship after birth by any means whatsoever.

1 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 302.

2 See INA 303. If the person was born in the Canal Zone, he or she acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if born between February 26, 1904 and October 1, 1979, and one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth. The Canal Zone ceased to exist on October 1, 1979. See the so-called Torrijos–Carter Treaties (September 7, 1977). If the person was born in the Republic of Panama, but not in the Canal Zone, one parent must have been a U.S. citizen parent employed by the U.S. Government, or by the Panama Railroad Company, at the time of the person’s birth.

3 See INA 306.

4 See INA 307.

5 See Section 303 of the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, Pub. L. 94-241 (PDF), 90 Stat. 263, 266 (March 24, 1976) (48 U.S.C. 1801 note). In addition, certain persons in the CNMI who were born before November 4, 1986, and their children if under age 18 on that date, became U.S. citizens at that time. See Section 301 of Pub. L. 94-241 (PDF), 90 Stat. 263, 265–66 (March 24, 1976) (48 U.S.C. 1801 note). In addition, the Department of State will issue U.S. passports to persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands between January 9, 1978 and November 3, 1986, pursuant to a judicial decision holding that such persons are U.S. citizens. See Sabangan v. Powell, 375 F. 3d 818 (9th Cir. 2004).

6 See INA 308.

[416] Article: “Arriving as Pregnant Tourists, Leaving with American Babies.” By Jennifer Medina. New York Times, March 28, 2011. <www.nytimes.com>

For months, officials say, the house was home to “maternity tourists,” in this case, women from China who had paid tens of thousands of dollars to deliver their babies in the United States, making the infants automatic American citizens. …

Immigration experts say it is impossible to know precisely how widespread “maternity tourism” is. Businesses in China, Mexico and South Korea advertise packages that arrange for doctors, insurance and postpartum care. And the Marmara, a Turkish-owned hotel on the Upper East Side in New York City, has advertised monthlong “baby stays” that come with a stroller. …

The State Department, which grants tourist visas, is not permitted to deny visa applications simply because a woman is pregnant.

[417] Book: U.S. Immigration and Education: Cultural and Policy Issues Across the Lifespan. Edited by Elena L. Grigorenko. Springer, 2013.

Chapter 4: “Parent and Child Citizenship Status and Youth Development. By Xu Zhao and Hirokazu Yoshikawa. Pages 59–76.

Page 63: “U.S.-born citizen children are eligible for federal and state assistance programs regardless of their parents’ documentation or citizenship status.”

[418] “Guide to Public Benefits for Immigrants.” By Daniel Browne and others. City of New York, Public Advocate and the New York Immigration Coalition, November 2008. <www.nyc.gov>

Page 4: “Undocumented immigrants cannot get most state and federal public benefits, but these benefits are still available to their citizen children. For example, if you are an undocumented immigrant, you are not eligible for Food Stamps, but you can apply for Food Stamps for your citizen children.”

Page 5: “For needs-based benefit programs that look at household income (such as food stamps or welfare), an ineligible (PRUCOL [Permanently Residing Under Color of Law]or undocumented) adult can apply for eligible household members (citizen children or qualified immigrant children).”

[419] Webpage: “Government Benefits.” USA.gov. Last updated August 9, 2022. <www.usa.gov>

Get information on government programs that may help you pay for food, housing, health care, and other basic living expenses. …

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal nutrition program. Known previously as “food stamps,” SNAP benefits can help you stretch your food budget if you have a low income. …

To determine if you are eligible for SNAP benefits, you must meet certain requirements. States have income limits for SNAP recipients. They can also factor in your resources, such as money in the bank, to decide if you qualify for SNAP. …

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a federally funded, state-run benefits program. Also known as welfare, TANF helps families achieve independence after experiencing temporary difficulties. …

Medicaid is a federal and state health insurance program for people with a low income.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) offers health coverage to children. To be eligible, the child’s family must have an income that is:

• Too high to qualify for Medicaid

• Too low to afford private coverage …

If your income is too high for Medicaid, your child may still qualify for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). It covers medical and dental care for uninsured children and teens up to age 19.

[420] Booklet: “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Your Guide to Putting the Pieces Together.” Washington, D.C. Department of Human Services, April 18, 2014. <dhs.dc.gov>

Page 14:

Most people can now only get TANF [Temporary Assistance For Needy Families, a.k.a. cash welfare] money for 60 months. …

Some caregivers, like grandparents, aunts, and uncles who are receiving TANF just for children may be able to receive TANF for longer than 60 months (see page 30).

Page 40:

If you do not have papers, but your children do, or your children are U.S. citizens, you can get help for your children. If you only want help for your children, you do not have to tell the worker what type of immigration papers you have. You only need to show social security numbers for the people applying for help. …

If you say that you are “not qualified,” your worker should not ask questions about your [immigration] status. If your worker asks you questions about your status, you do not have to answer. To get information about TANF, Food Stamps, or Medicaid benefits, in your native language see page 40.

[421] Report: “Medicaid: An Overview.” By Alison Mitchell and others. Congressional Research Service. Updated February 22, 2021. <crsreports.congress.gov>

Pages 6–7:

Medicaid is also a means-tested program that is limited to those with financial need. However, the criteria used to determine financial eligibility—income and sometimes resource (i.e., asset) tests—vary by eligibility group.

For most eligibility groups the criteria used to determine eligibility are based on modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) income counting rules. There is no resource or asset test used to determine Medicaid financial eligibility for MAGI-eligible individuals.28

While MAGI applies to most Medicaid-eligible populations, certain populations such as older adults and individuals with disabilities are statutorily exempt from MAGI income counting rules. Instead, Medicaid financial eligibility for MAGI-exempted populations is based on the income counting rules that match the most closely related social program for the group involved (such as SSI [Social Security] program rules for aged, blind, or disabled eligibility groups). For MAGI-exempt eligibility groups, income disregards and assets or resource tests may apply.

[422] Webpage: “FAQ: Eligibility & Benefits.” Pennsylvania State Department of Human Services. Accessed October 11, 2021 at <www.dhs.pa.gov>

I live with my boyfriend or girlfriend – Do I have to include their income?

The CHIP [Children’s Health Insurance Program] application requires that you provide information including income for everyone who lives with you as well as everyone who is expected to be included on your tax return, even if they do not live with you. CHIP has rules that determine who is included and those that are not included when determining eligibility.

My child and I live with my parents – Do I have to include my parent’s income?

Yes, the CHIP application requires that you provide information, including income, for everyone who lives with you as well as everyone who is expected to be included on your tax return even if they do not live with you. CHIP has rules that determine who is included and who is not included when determining eligibility. For example, your parent’s income may be counted when determining eligibility for you and your child if you are claimed as a tax dependent on their tax return.

[423] “MaineCare Eligibility Guide.” Consumers for Affordable Health Care and Maine Equal Justice, September 22, 2021. <www.mainecahc.org>

Page 37:

What income does not count: (partial list)

• Income from other people in the same space who do not meet the other two Non-Magi [modified adjusted gross income] household criteria of being related by birth, marriage or adoption and having legal responsibility. Those not legally responsible are not financially responsible and their income does not count. These other household members also do not count in figuring family size. These individuals may be eligible for MaineCare in a different category and as a separate household.

[424] Article: “Will Having U.S. Citizen Children Prevent Deportation of Undocumented Immigrant?” By Ilona Bray. Nolo. Accessed September 12, 2022 at <www.nolo.com>

Avoiding Deportation Based on U.S. Citizen Children

Another thing that your friends might have heard of is a U.S. government policy known as “prosecutorial discretion” or “deferred action.” Because U.S. immigration enforcement authorities (“ICE”) cannot deport everyone, they typically concentrate their efforts on high priority cases such as criminals, and drop the cases of people with many ties to the United States, including family.

By granting “prosecutorial discretion,” the authorities don’t give the parents a green card or anything like it, but they do promise not to deport them for the present.

Under the Trump Administration, ICE dropped this set of priorities, and attempted to deport virtually any undocumented immigrant with whom it comes into contact. However, among the Biden Harris administration’s first acts was to reestablish enforcement priorities and bring back the possibility of deferred action and prosecutorial discretion. Unfortunately, a federal court struck down that enforcement priority list, and then a higher court put that court‘s order on hold, so the matter remains unsettled. In any case, the government’s approach is still unlikely to return to the harsh days of the Trump era in the near future.

Even an undocumented parent who is placed into removal proceedings might not be out of luck. If he or she has been living in the U.S. a long time, it might be possible to apply for what’s called Cancellation of Removal … based on:

1. having lived (been “continuously physically present”) in the U.S. for at least ten years

2. a showing that removal (“deportation”) from the U.S. would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative or relatives who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents

3. a showing of “good moral character,”

4. and proof of not having been convicted of certain crimes or violated certain laws.

An immigration judge who is convinced can, as a matter of discretion, award the parent lawful permanent U.S. residence.

[425] Directive: “Facilitating Parental Interests in the Course of Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities.” By John Sandweg (Acting Director). U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, August 23, 2013. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 1:

This directive supplements existing ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] enforcement priority memoranda. This Directive establishes ICE policy and procedures to address the placement, monitoring, accommodation, and removal of certain alien parents. The Directive is particularly concerned with the placement, monitoring, accommodation, and removal of alien parents or legal guardians who are: 1) primary caretakers of minor children without regard to the dependent’s citizenship; 2) parent and legal guardians who have a direct interest in family court proceeding involving a minor or child welfare proceedings in the United States; and 3) parents or legal guardians whose minor children are U.S. citizens (USCs) or lawful permanent residents (LPRs).

Page 3:

FODs [Field Office Directors] shall continue to weigh whether an exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be warranted for a given alien and shall consider all relevant factors in this determination, including whether the alien is a parent or legal guardian of a USC or LPR minor, or is a primary caretaker of a minor. While the FODs may exercise prosecutorial discretion at any stage of an enforcement proceeding, it is generally preferable to exercise such discretion as early in the case or proceeding as possible.

[426] Article: “Report: 22% of Deportees Have U.S.-Born Children.” By Daniel Gonzalez. Arizona Republic, April 4, 2012. <www.azcentral.com>

During the first six months of last year, the federal government deported more than 46,000 parents who claimed their children are U.S. citizens, according to a new report that has raised concerns about what happens to children after their parents are expelled. …

ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] statistics show that 74% of the 46,486 parents of U.S.-citizen children deported had been convicted of crimes. Another 13% had been previously removed from the country, and 4% were fugitives—immigrants who failed to comply with deportation orders.

[427] Pamphlet: “I Am a U.S. Citizen. How Do I Help My Relative Become a U.S. Permanent Resident?” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, October 2013. <www.uscis.gov>

Page 1:

As a citizen of the United States, you may help a relative become a lawful permanent resident of the United States by obtaining what is often referred to as a “Green Card.” To do so, you need to sponsor your relative and be able to prove that you have enough income or assets to support your relative(s) when they come to the United States. …

Filing a Form I-130 and proving a qualifying relationship gives your relative a place in line with others waiting to immigrate from the same country or region based on the same type of relationship. When your relative reaches the front of the line, he or she may be eligible to immigrate after passing the required background checks and meeting requirements for admission. …

A U.S. citizen can file a petition for the following relatives:

• Husband or wife;

• Children, married or unmarried.1

A U.S. citizen who is at least 21 years or older may also petition for the following relatives:

• Parents;

• Brothers or sisters.

When you submit your petition, you are required to provide evidence to prove your relationship to the person for whom you are filing. …

Your relative’s place in line will be based on the date you file your petition. So there is an advantage to filing as soon as possible. There is no waiting period for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, which include a U.S. citizen’s spouse, parent, or unmarried child under 21 years of age.

[428] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part B (Adjustment), Chapter 4 (Status and Nonimmigrant Visa Violations):

Any adjustment applicant is ineligible to adjust status [to lawful permanent residency] under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 245(a) if, other than through no fault of his or her own or for technical reasons,1 he or she has ever:

• Failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since entry into the United States,2 or

• Violated the terms of his or her nonimmigrant status.3

The INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8) bars to adjustment do not apply to:

• Immediate relatives….4

4 See INA 201(b). Immediate relatives of a U.S. citizen include the U.S. citizen’s spouse, children (unmarried and under 21 years of age), and parents (if the U.S. citizen is 21 years of age or older). Widow(er)s of U.S. citizens and noncitizens admitted to the United States as a fiancé(e) or child of a fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen may also be considered immediate relatives if they meet certain conditions.

[429] Testimony: “Eroding the Law and Diverting Taxpayer Resources: An Examination of the Administration’s Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program.” By Jan C. Ting (Professor of Law at Temple University, Former Assistant Commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service). U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, April 23, 2015. <www.judiciary.senate.gov>

Page 3:

By executive order in 2012, President Obama offered illegal aliens work authorization and other benefits if they qualified for “deferred action” as “childhood arrivals” (DACA) under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. By another executive order announced on November 20, 2014, those deferred action benefits were extended to “childhood arrivals” regardless of age, and to parents of U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident children (DAPA). Operation of the second executive order has been temporarily enjoined by Federal judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas.

Page 6:

Many DAPA beneficiaries will qualify for green cards when their U.S. citizen minor children attain the age of 21, at which they can sponsor their parents as immediate relatives.

Any alien who qualifies for an immigrant visa which is currently available (always the case for immediate relatives) can apply for and claim it at a U.S. consulate abroad. But if deferred action beneficiaries try to do that, most will be barred from re-entering the U.S. because their illegal presence in the U.S. for more than one year makes them inadmissible for ten years after their departure from the United States.11

There is a statute that allows some aliens who are in the U.S. already to claim an available immigrant visa in the U.S., without departing from the U.S. or triggering the statutory 10-year inadmissibility bar. But that statute providing “adjustment of status” is only available to aliens “admitted or paroled” into the U.S., and those who have entered illicitly without inspection do not qualify.12

Generous exercise of the parole power may clear the pathway to citizenship for deferred action beneficiaries when they qualify for an immigrant visa. The Board of Immigration Appeals, a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice, ruled in 2012 in Matter of Arrabelly, that despite prior illegal presence in the U.S., an alien departing from the U.S. with an advance parole allowing later re-entry is not a departure under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] Sec. 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) which would trigger the 10-year inadmissibility bar.13

So upon returning to the U.S. under an advance parole, the alien having been “paroled” now magically satisfies the threshold requirement of INA Section 245 and qualifies for adjustment of status, and can claim the immediately available immigrant visa without leaving the U.S.

[430] Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Pages 2890–2897. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 2890:

Reconstruction

Mr. Howard. I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The President pro tempore [for the time being]. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard]. …

The President pro tempore. The first amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan will be read.

The Secretary read the amendment, which was in line nine, after the words “section one,” to insert:

All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.

So that the section will read:

Sec. 1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.

Page 2897: “The President pro tempore. The question now is on the amendment of the Senator from Michigan. The amendment was agreed to.”

[431] Webpage: “Jacob Merritt Howard.” Historic Elmwood Cemetery & Foundation. Accessed April 24, 2017 at <www.elmwoodhistoriccemetery.org>

His once familiar name should continue to be honored as one of Michigan’s and the country’s most able and highly influential political figures. … He was Michigan Attorney General from 1855 to 1861. As one of the founders of the Republican Party, he made political and legislative history in Michigan and in our nation’s capitol.

… His most significant body of work was done during the period from 1862 to 1871 while he was the U. S. Senator from Michigan. …

Following the Civil War, his actions led to the creation of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

[432] Congressional Globe, May 23, 1866. Pages 2764–2768. <memory.loc.gov>

Pages 2764–2765:

Mr. Howard. Mr. President, I regret that the state of the health of the honorable Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessenden] who is chairman, on the part of the Senate, of the joint committee of fifteen, is such as to disable him from opening the discussion of this grave and important measure. I was anxious that he should take the lead, and the prominent lead, in the conduct of this discussion, and still entertain the hope that before it closes the Senate will have the benefit of a full and ample statement of his views.

For myself, I can only promise to present to the Senate, in a very succinct way, the views and the motives which influenced that committee, so far as I understand those views and motives, in presenting the report which is now before us for consideration, and the ends it aims to accomplish.

The joint resolution creating that committee entrusted them with a very important inquiry, an inquiry involving a vast deal of attention and labor. They were instructed to inquire into the condition of the insurgent States, and authorized to report by bill or otherwise at their discretion. I believe that I do not overstate the truth when I say that no committee of Congress has ever proceeded with more fidelity and attention to the matter entrusted to them. They have been assiduous in discharging their duty. They have instituted an inquiry, so far as it was practicable for them to do so, into the political and social condition of the insurgent States. …

One result of their investigations has been the joint resolution for the amendment of the Constitution of the United States now under consideration. After most mature deliberation and discussion, reaching through weeks and even months, they came to the conclusion that it was necessary, in order to restore peace and quiet to the country and again to impart vigor and efficiency to the laws, and especially to obtain something in the shape of a security for the future against the recurrence of the enormous evils under which the country has labored for the last four years, that the Constitution of the United States ought to be amended; and the project which they have now submitted is the result of their deliberations upon that subject.

[433] Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Pages 2890–2897. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 2890:

Reconstruction

Mr. Howard. I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The President pro tempore [for the time being]. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard].

Mr. Howard. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are public relations are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

[434] Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Pages 2890–2897. <www.justfacts.com>

NOTE: Below are three examples from this discussion. Click here to read the full record of it.

Page 2890:

Mr. Cowan. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of “citizenship of the United States.” What does it mean? What is its length and breadth ? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If no, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia. or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protection of the laws but; be is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word. …

Page 2897:

Mr. Williams. … In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. …

Mr. Saulsbury. I do not presume that any one will pretend to disguise the fact that the object of this first section is simply to declare that negroes shall be citizens of the United States. There can be no other object in it, I presume, than a further extension of the legislative kindness and beneficence of Congress toward that class of people.

“The poor Indian, whose untutored mind, Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind,”

was not thought of. I say this not meaning it to be any reflection upon the honorable committee who reported the amendment, because for all the gentlemen composing it I have a high respect personally ; but that is evidently the object. I have no doubt myself of the correctness of the position, as a question of law, taken by the honorable Senator from Wisconsin ; but I feel disposed to vote against this amendment, because if these negroes are to be made citizens of the United States, I can see no reason in justice or in right why the Indians should not be made citizens. If our citizens are to be increased in this wholesale manner, I cannot turn my back upon that persecuted race, among whom are many intelligent, educated men, and embrace as fellow-citizens the negro race.

[435] Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Pages 2890–2897. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 2895:

Mr. Howard. … I concur entirely with the honorable senator from Illinois, in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. That question has long since been adjudicated, so far as the usage of the Government is concerned. The Government of the United States have always regarded and treated the Indian tribes within our limits as foreign Powers, so far as the treaty-making power is concerned, and so far especially as the commercial power is concerned, for in the very Constitution itself there is a provision that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce, not only with foreign nations and among the states, but also with the Indian tribes. …

But it is useless, it seems to me, Mr. President, to enlarge further upon the question of the real political power of Indians or of Indian tribes. Our legislation has always recognized them as sovereign Powers. The Indian who is still connected by his tribal relation with the government of his tribe is subject for crimes committed against the laws or usages of the tribe to the tribe itself, and not to any foreign or other tribunal. I believe that has been the uniform course of decision on that subject. The United States courts have no power to punish an Indian who is connected with a tribe for a crime committed by him upon another member of the same tribe.

Mr. Fessenden. Within the territory.

Mr. Howard. Yes, sir. Why? Because the jurisdiction of the nation intervenes and ousts what would otherwise be perhaps a right of jurisdiction of the United Staten. But the great objection to the amendment to the amendment is that it is an unconscious attempt on the part of my friend from Wisconsin to naturalize all the Indians within the limits of the United States. I do not agree to that. I am not quite so liberal in my views. I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my follow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do.

[436] 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified July 9, 1868. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[437] Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Pages 2890–2897. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 2890:

Reconstruction

Mr. Howard. I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The President pro tempore [for the time being]. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard]. …

The President pro tempore. The first amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan will be read.

The Secretary read the amendment, which was in line nine, after the words “section one,” to insert:

All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.

So that the section will read:

Sec. 1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.

Page 2897: “The President pro tempore. The question now is on the amendment of the Senator from Michigan. The amendment was agreed to.”

[438] Calculated with data from the report: “U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Total Dips to Lowest Level in a Decade.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and others. Pew Research Center, November 27, 2018. Updated 6/25/19. <www.pewresearch.org>

Page 12:

Most unauthorized immigrants live with spouses, partners, their children or other relatives. In 2016, 5.6 million children younger than 18 were living with unauthorized immigrant parents.5 Of these, 675,000 were unauthorized immigrants themselves, a number that has fallen by half since 2007. The other 5 million children were born in the U.S., a number that rose from 4.5 million in 2007.

5 More than 99% of the U.S.-born and unauthorized immigrant children live with their unauthorized immigrant parents or live in households where the only adult(s) are a related unauthorized immigrant or a related couple where one or both spouses/partners are unauthorized immigrants. See Methodology for details.

Page 48:

Small modifications to these definitions are made in defining “U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants” and “unauthorized immigrant children.” First, these groups comprise all individuals under 18 who are the child of an unauthorized immigrant in the household even if the child is a parent or spouse/partner themselves. More than 99% of individuals classified as children of unauthorized immigrants fit this definition. Then, individuals under 18 who live in households where the only adult(s) are an unauthorized immigrant or a couple in which one or both are unauthorized immigrants; further, an adult is a relative of the child. This group accounts for about 45,000 of the 5 million U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrant in 2016 and about 4,000 of the 675,000 unauthorized immigrant children. Finally, the 5 million U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants include about 10,000 children who are actually lawful immigrants with an unauthorized immigrant parent.

CALCULATION: (5,600,000 – 675,000) / 5,600,000 = 88%

[439] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1324a: “Unlawful Employment of Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Making Employment of Unauthorized Aliens Unlawful

(1) In General

It is unlawful for a person or other entity—

(A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3)) with respect to such employment, or

(B)

(i) to hire for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) or

(ii) if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 1802 of title 29), to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b).

(2) Continuing Employment

It is unlawful for a person or other entity, after hiring an alien for employment in accordance with paragraph (1), to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is (or has become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.

(3) Defense

A person or entity that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of subsection (b) with respect to the hiring, recruiting, or referral for employment of an alien in the United States has established an affirmative defense that the person or entity has not violated paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such hiring, recruiting, or referral.

(4) Use of Labor Through Contract

For purposes of this section, a person or other entity who uses a contract, subcontract, or exchange, entered into, renegotiated, or extended after November 6, 1986, to obtain the labor of an alien in the United States knowing that the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3)) with respect to performing such labor, shall be considered to have hired the alien for employment in the United States in violation of paragraph (1)(A). …

(h) Miscellaneous Provisions

(3) Definition of Unauthorized Alien

As used in this section, the term “unauthorized alien” means, with respect to the employment of an alien at a particular time, that the alien is not at that time either (A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (B) authorized to be so employed by this chapter or by the Attorney General.

[440] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail….”

[441] Article: “Agriculture.” American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and ‎John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2014. Pages 415–423.

Page 420: “The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act sought to provide a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with the agricultural labor situation, as well as undocumented immigration. An employer sanctions provision in the legislation was intended to hold employers accountable that knowingly hired undocumented laborers.”

[442] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background): “IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] … for the first time in history, required U.S. employers to verify all newly hired employees’ work authorization in the United States. This is sometimes called the employer sanctions program or the I-9 program.”

[443] Justice Manual. U.S. Department of Justice. Updated January 17, 2020. <www.justice.gov>

Criminal Resource Manual, Section 1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 (<www.justice.gov>):

Unlawful Entry, Failure To Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud

Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.

[444] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1325: “Immigration, General Penalty Provisions, Improper Entry by Alien.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Improper Time or Place; Avoidance of Examination or Inspection; Misrepresentation and Concealment of Facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(B) Improper Time or Place; Civil Penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—

(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

(C) Marriage Fraud

Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.

(D) Immigration-Related Entrepreneurship Fraud

Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

[445] Ruling: Plyler v. Doe. U.S. Supreme Court, June 15, 1982. Decided 5–4. Majority: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens. Concurring (all separately): Marshall Blackmun, Powell. Dissenting: Burger, White, Rehnquist, O’Connor. <www.law.cornell.edu>

Majority:

Since the late 19th century, the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime … and those who have entered unlawfully are subject to deportation… But despite the existence of these legal restrictions, a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering the United States, and now live within various States, including the State of Texas.

[446] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 1:

Congress has long supported efforts to identify, detain, and remove noncitizens1 who have been convicted of crimes in the United States. More generally, all unauthorized aliens2 within the United States are potentially subject to removal, and “interior enforcement” (i.e., alien removals originating from within the United States) is a basic element of immigration control. …

2 In this report, the terms “alien” and “foreign national” are used interchangeably.

Pages 2–3:

The unauthorized alien population includes not only persons who entered without inspection or overstayed the terms of their temporary visas but also persons who have what some refer to as a “quasi-legal” status (such as temporary protected status, parole, deferred action) that affords them relief from immediate removal. Hence, not all unauthorized aliens living in the United States are subject to removal. Most unauthorized aliens, however, are removable; but few have been convicted of a crime and are classified as criminal aliens (unlawful presence in the United States itself is a civil violation, not a criminal offense).9

9 Unlawful presence is only a criminal offense when an alien is found in the United States after having been formally removed or after departing the country while a removal order was outstanding. See CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R43892, Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends, by Alison Siskin.

Page 19: “[A]rrests for civil immigration violations are for the purpose of placing individuals into removal proceedings, whereas arrests for criminal violations can lead to criminal prosecution.”

Page 22:

Civil immigration offense: A violation of federal immigration law under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the most common being residing in the United States without authorization. A person cannot be sent to prison for a civil immigration offense. They can be penalized by being deported from the United States, which technically is not classified as punishment.

[447] Ruling: Gonzales v. City of Peoria. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 16, 1983. <law.justia.com>

Several of the policy statements use the term “illegal alien,” which obscures the distinction between the civil and the criminal violations. In some instances, that term has been used by the City to mean an alien who has illegally entered the country, which is a criminal violation under section 1325. In others, it has meant an alien who is illegally present in the United States, which is only a civil violation. There are numerous reasons why a person could be illegally present in the United States without having entered in violation of section 1325. Examples include expiration of a visitor’s visa, change of student status, or acquisition of prohibited employment.

[448] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part V, Section 1227: “Immigration, Deportable Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Classes of Deportable Aliens

Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens:

(1) Inadmissible at Time of Entry or of Adjustment of Status or Violates Status

(A) Inadmissible Aliens

Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable.

(B) Present in Violation of Law

Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 1201(i) of this title, is deportable.

[449] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II , Section 1182: “Immigration, Inadmissible Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States …

(6) Illegal Entrants and Immigration Violators

(A) Aliens Present Without Admission or Parole

(i) In General

An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for Certain Battered Women and Children

Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien who demonstrates that—

(I) the alien is a VAWA [Violence Against Women Act] self-petitioner;

(II)

(a) the alien has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent, or by a member of the spouse’s or parent’s family residing in the same household as the alien and the spouse or parent consented or acquiesced to such battery or cruelty, or (b) the alien’s child has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent of the alien (without the active participation of the alien in the battery or cruelty) or by a member of the spouse’s or parent’s family residing in the same household as the alien when the spouse or parent consented to or acquiesced in such battery or cruelty and the alien did not actively participate in such battery or cruelty, and

(III) there was a substantial connection between the battery or cruelty described in subclause (I) or (II) and the alien’s unlawful entry into the United States.

[450] Webpage: “Basic Information on Enforcement.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 1, 2017. <www.epa.gov>

Enforcing environmental laws is a central part of EPA’s [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] Strategic Plan to protect human health and the environment. EPA works to ensure compliance with environmental requirements. When warranted, EPA will take civil or criminal enforcement action against violators of environmental laws. Learn more about our enforcement goals. …

• Environmental civil liability is strict; it arises simply through the existence of the environmental violation. It does not take into consideration what the responsible party knew about the law or regulation they violated. …

To be found civilly liable for violating environmental laws the standard of proof is based upon “the preponderance of the evidence.” This means that the evidence presented is convincing and more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is a greater than 50 percent chance that the evidence is true.

The defendant in a civil suit can either be found liable, following a trial, or reach a mutually agreed-upon settlement with the government. The defendant is then required to meet all of the terms of the settlement, but does not have to acknowledge that he violated the law.

If a civil defendant is found liable or agrees to a settlement, the result can be:

• a monetary penalty

• injunctive relief (actions required to correct the violation and come into compliance, such as install pollution control equipment), and/or

• additional actions taken to improve the environment

[451] Press release: “Providence Woman To Face Civil Violation Hearing For Allegedly Tossing Powdery Substance In U.S. Attorney’s Office Reception Area Resulting In Providence Fire Department Hazmat Response.” U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Rhode Island, October 15, 2014. <www.justice.gov>

Coalatta A. Cooper, 55, of Providence, will be summonsed to U.S. District Court in Providence, on a date to be determined by the court, to answer to a civil violation charging her with disturbance on federal property, announced United States Attorney Peter F. Neronha.

Ms. Cooper is being summonsed as a result of an incident inside the lobby area of the U.S. Attorney’s Office on Wednesday, where it is alleged that Ms. Cooper intentionally spread a white powdery substance which led to the evacuation of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and a response by the Providence Fire and Police Departments. Ms. Cooper was immediately detained by a Federal Protection Service contract security guard assigned to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Preliminary test results showed the powdery substance to be non-toxic. Ms. Cooper, the Federal Protection Service contract security guard and two Federal Protection Service officers were transported to Rhode Island Hospital as a precautionary measure to ensure they had not been contaminated by a toxic substance.

[452] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 1:

Congress has long supported efforts to identify, detain, and remove noncitizens1 who have been convicted of crimes in the United States. More generally, all unauthorized aliens2 within the United States are potentially subject to removal, and “interior enforcement” (i.e., alien removals originating from within the United States) is a basic element of immigration control. …

2 In this report, the terms “alien” and “foreign national” are used interchangeably.

Pages 2–3:

The unauthorized alien population includes not only persons who entered without inspection or overstayed the terms of their temporary visas but also persons who have what some refer to as a “quasi-legal” status (such as temporary protected status, parole, deferred action) that affords them relief from immediate removal. Hence, not all unauthorized aliens living in the United States are subject to removal. Most unauthorized aliens, however, are removable; but few have been convicted of a crime and are classified as criminal aliens (unlawful presence in the United States itself is a civil violation, not a criminal offense).9

9 Unlawful presence is only a criminal offense when an alien is found in the United States after having been formally removed or after departing the country while a removal order was outstanding. See CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R43892, Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends, by Alison Siskin.

Page 19: “[A]rrests for civil immigration violations are for the purpose of placing individuals into removal proceedings, whereas arrests for criminal violations can lead to criminal prosecution.”

Page 22:

Civil immigration offense: A violation of federal immigration law under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the most common being residing in the United States without authorization. A person cannot be sent to prison for a civil immigration offense. They can be penalized by being deported from the United States, which technically is not classified as punishment. …

Removable alien: An alien subject to formal removal (deportation) from the United States. This includes aliens who are inadmissible under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] §212 or deportable under INA §237, including nonimmigrant aliens who enter legally but violate the terms of their visas or overstay their visas. Most removable aliens have never been convicted of a criminal offense.

[453] Ruling: Gonzales v. City of Peoria. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 16, 1983. <law.justia.com>

Several of the policy statements use the term “illegal alien,” which obscures the distinction between the civil and the criminal violations. In some instances, that term has been used by the City to mean an alien who has illegally entered the country, which is a criminal violation under section 1325. In others, it has meant an alien who is illegally present in the United States, which is only a civil violation. There are numerous reasons why a person could be illegally present in the United States without having entered in violation of section 1325. Examples include expiration of a visitor’s visa, change of student status, or acquisition of prohibited employment.

[454] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part V, Section 1227: “Immigration, Deportable Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Classes of Deportable Aliens

Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens:

(1) Inadmissible at Time of Entry or of Adjustment of Status or Violates Status

(A) Inadmissible Aliens

Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable.

(B) Present in Violation of Law

Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 1201(i) of this title, is deportable.

[455] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II , Section 1182: “Immigration, Inadmissible Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States …

(6) Illegal Entrants and Immigration Violators

(A) Aliens Present Without Admission or Parole

(i) In General

An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for Certain Battered Women and Children

Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien who demonstrates that—

(I) the alien is a VAWA [Violence Against Women Act] self-petitioner;

(II)

(a) the alien has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent, or by a member of the spouse’s or parent’s family residing in the same household as the alien and the spouse or parent consented or acquiesced to such battery or cruelty, or (b) the alien’s child has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent of the alien (without the active participation of the alien in the battery or cruelty) or by a member of the spouse’s or parent’s family residing in the same household as the alien when the spouse or parent consented to or acquiesced in such battery or cruelty and the alien did not actively participate in such battery or cruelty, and

(III) there was a substantial connection between the battery or cruelty described in subclause (I) or (II) and the alien’s unlawful entry into the United States.

[456] Directive: “Facilitating Parental Interests in the Course of Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities.” By John Sandweg (Acting Director). U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, August 23, 2013. <www.justfacts.com>

5.6. Coordinating Care or Travel of Minor Children Pending Removal of a Parent or Legal Guardian.

1) Where detained alien parents or legal guardians who maintain their parental rights are subject to a final order of removal and ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is effectuating their removal, FODs [Field Office Directors] or their appropriate designees should accommodate, to the extent practicable, the detained parent or legal guardian’s individual efforts to make provisions for their minor children. Such provisions may include the parent or legal guardian’s attempt to arrange guardianship for his/her minor children to remain in the United States, or to obtain travel documents for their child(ren) to accompany them to their country of removal.

2) FODs will coordinate, to the extent practicable, within their local detention facilities and within the Field Office to afford detained alien parents or legal guardians access to counsel, consulates and consular officials, courts and/or family members in the weeks preceding removal in order to execute signed documents (such as powers of attorney, passport applications, appointments of guardians or other permissions), purchase airline tickets, and make other necessary preparations prior to removal.

3) In addition, the FOD may, subject to security considerations, provide sufficient notice of the removal itinerary to the detainee or through the detained alien’s attorney or other representative, so that coordinated travel arrangements may be made for the alien’s minor child(ren).

5.7. Facilitation of Return.

1) If a lawfully removed alien (or his or her attorney, family member, consular official or other representative) provides to ICE verifiable evidence indicating that he or she has a hearing or hearings related to his or her termination of parental or legal guardianship rights before a family court or child welfare authority in the United States, and the court or child welfare authority has determined that the removed parent or legal guardian must be physically present, rather than participating via other means, ICE may, on a case-by-case basis, while taking into account security and public safety considerations, facilitate the return of the alien to the United States by grant of parole for the sole purpose of participation in the termination of parental rights proceedings.

[457] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part V, Section 1229: “Initiation of Removal Proceedings.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

d) Prompt Initiation of Removal

(1) In the case of an alien who is convicted of an offense which makes the alien deportable, the Attorney General shall begin any removal proceeding as expeditiously as possible after the date of the conviction.

[458] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Pages 2–3:

U.S. immigration law identifies certain crimes that make an alien ineligible for admission to the United States and/or subject to removal. Such crimes include crimes of “moral turpitude”; crimes involving controlled substances; certain firearm offenses; and crimes related to espionage, sabotage, and related offenses.6 Yet the term “criminal alien” is not specifically defined in immigration law or regulation, and people use it to refer to several different types of noncitizen offenders. At the broadest level, a “criminal alien” is any noncitizen who has ever been convicted of a crime in the United States. …

• All criminal aliens include both unauthorized aliens, most of whom are potentially removable, and legal aliens10 who may or may not be removable depending on specific crimes committed. This population contains the set of criminal aliens who are removable on the basis of specific crimes committed.

• Criminal aliens who have been convicted of removable criminal offenses are subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) even if they are otherwise legally present.11 For example, a legal permanent resident (LPR) convicted of cocaine possession is subject to removal,12 but an LPR convicted of public intoxication is not. This population also includes aggravated felons.

6 Whether a crime involves moral turpitude has been determined by judicial and administrative case law rather than a statutory definition. In general, if a crime manifests an element of baseness or depravity under current mores, it involves moral turpitude. For a fuller discussion, see (archived) CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RL32480, “Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity.” …

9 Unlawful presence is only a criminal offense when an alien is found in the United States after having been formally removed or after departing the country while a removal order was outstanding. See CRS Report R43892, Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends, by Alison Siskin.

10 Legal aliens include aliens admitted as lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and aliens admitted on temporary visas, including tourists, temporary workers, and foreign students.

11 Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act … enumerates a list of criminal offenses that make aliens subject to removal. Criminal offenses in the context of immigration law cover violations of federal, state, or, in some cases, foreign criminal law. …

13 Aggravated felonies refer to a class of serious criminal alien offenses created per INA §101(a)(43) and include murder, drug trafficking, or illegal trafficking in firearms or destructive devices. Subsequent measures passed by Congress expanded the definition of aggravated felonies and created additional criminal grounds for removal.

[459] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part V, Section 1227: “Immigration, Deportable Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(2) Criminal Offenses

(A) General Crimes

(i) Crimes of Moral Turpitude Any alien who—

(I) is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status under section 1255(j) of this title) after the date of admission, and

(II) is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed,

is deportable.

(ii) Multiple Criminal Convictions Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, regardless of whether confined therefor and regardless of whether the convictions were in a single trial, is deportable.

(iii) Aggravated Felony Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.

(iv) High Speed Flight Any alien who is convicted of a violation of section 758 of title 18 (relating to high speed flight from an immigration checkpoint) is deportable.

(v) Failure to Register as a Sex Offender Any alien who is convicted under section 2250 of title 18 is deportable.

(vi) Waiver Authorized Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) shall not apply in the case of an alien with respect to a criminal conviction if the alien subsequent to the criminal conviction has been granted a full and unconditional pardon by the President of the United States or by the Governor of any of the several States.

(B) Controlled Substances

(i) Conviction Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable.

(ii) Drug Abusers and Addicts Any alien who is, or at any time after admission has been, a drug abuser or addict is deportable.

(C) Certain Firearm Offenses Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted under any law of purchasing, selling, offering for sale, exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying, or of attempting or conspiring to purchase, sell, offer for sale, exchange, use, own, possess, or carry, any weapon, part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device (as defined in section 921(a) of title 18) in violation of any law is deportable.

(D) Miscellaneous Crimes Any alien who at any time has been convicted (the judgment on such conviction becoming final) of, or has been so convicted of a conspiracy or attempt to violate—

(i) any offense under chapter 37 (relating to espionage), chapter 105 (relating to sabotage), or chapter 115 (relating to treason and sedition) of title 18 for which a term of imprisonment of five or more years may be imposed;

(ii) any offense under section 871 or 960 of title 18;

(iii) a violation of any provision of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.) [now 50 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.] or the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.) [now 50 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.]; or

(iv) a violation of section 1185 or 1328 of this title,

is deportable.

(E) Crimes of Domestic Violence, Stalking, or Violation of Protection Order, Crimes Against Children and

(i) Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Child Abuse Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of a crime of domestic violence, a crime of stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment is deportable. For purposes of this clause, the term “crime of domestic violence” means any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18) against a person committed by a current or former spouse of the person, by an individual with whom the person shares a child in common, by an individual who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the person as a spouse, by an individual similarly situated to a spouse of the person under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction where the offense occurs, or by any other individual against a person who is protected from that individual’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the United States or any State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local government.

(ii) Violators of Protection Orders Any alien who at any time after admission is enjoined under a protection order issued by a court and whom the court determines has engaged in conduct that violates the portion of a protection order that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to the person or persons for whom the protection order was issued is deportable. For purposes of this clause, the term “protection order” means any injunction issued for the purpose of preventing violent or threatening acts of domestic violence, including temporary or final orders issued by civil or criminal courts (other than support or child custody orders or provisions) whether obtained by filing an independent action or as a pendente lite order in another proceeding.

(F) Trafficking Any alien described in section 1182(a)(2)(H) of this title is deportable.

(3) Failure to Register and Falsification of Documents

(A) Change of Address An alien who has failed to comply with the provisions of section 1305 of this title is deportable, unless the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.

(B) Failure to Register or Falsification of Documents Any Alien Who at Any Time Has Been Convicted—

(i) under section 1306(c) of this title or under section 36(c) of the Alien Registration Act, 1940,

(ii) of a violation of, or an attempt or a conspiracy to violate, any provision of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), or

(iii) of a violation of, or an attempt or a conspiracy to violate, section 1546 of title 18 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other entry documents),

is deportable.

(C) Document Fraud

(i) In general An alien who is the subject of a final order for violation of section 1324c of this title is deportable.

(ii) Waiver authorized The Attorney General may waive clause (i) in the case of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if no previous civil money penalty was imposed against the alien under section 1324c of this title and the offense was incurred solely to assist, aid, or support the alien’s spouse or child (and no other individual). No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Attorney General to grant or deny a waiver under this clause.

(D) Falsely Claiming Citizenship

(i) In General Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any Federal or State law is deportable.

(ii) Exception In the case of an alien making a representation described in clause (i), if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of making such representation that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be deportable under any provision of this subsection based on such representation.

(4) Security and Related Grounds

(A) In General Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in—

(i) any activity to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,

is deportable.

(B) Terrorist Activities Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.

(C) Foreign policy

(i) In General An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.

(ii) Exceptions The exceptions described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 1182(a)(3)(C) of this title shall apply to deportability under clause (i) in the same manner as they apply to inadmissibility under section 1182(a)(3)(C)(i) of this title.

(D) Participated in Nazi Persecution, Genocide, or the Commission of Any Act of Torture or Extrajudicial Killing Any alien described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 1182(a)(3)(E) of this title is deportable.

(E) Participated in the Commission of Severe Violations of Religious Freedom Any alien described in section 1182(a)(2)(G) of this title is deportable.

(F) Recruitment or Use of Child Soldiers Any alien who has engaged in the recruitment or use of child soldiers in violation of section 2442 of title 18 is deportable.

(5) Public Charge Any alien who, within five years after the date of entry, has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable.

(6) Unlawful Voters

(A) In General Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is deportable.

(B) Exception In the case of an alien who voted in a Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum) in violation of a lawful restriction of voting to citizens, if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of such violation that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be deportable under any provision of this subsection based on such violation. …

[460] Book: The Economics of Immigration. By Cynthia Bansak, Nicole B. Simpson, and Madeline Zavodny. Routledge, 2015.

Page 115:

Unauthorized immigrants typically earn less than other immigrants and experience slower wage growth over time. This is true even after accounting for unauthorized immigrants’ relatively low levels of education (such as Borjas and Tienda, 1993). Unauthorized immigrants may be less willing than legal immigrants to invest in destination-specific human capital because such investments may not pay off if they are deported. They also may be largely limited to low-skill, low-wage jobs in particular sectors of the economy, such as agriculture, construction and private household services, where more employers are willing to overlook their lack of legal status. Unauthorized immigrants may have less bargaining power in the labor market. They may also have smaller social networks than legal immigrants. All of these factors may reduce unauthorized immigrants’ ability to move into better jobs over time unless they are able to obtain legal status.

[461] Book: Economics of International Migration. Volume 1A: The Immigrants. Edited by Barry R. Chiswick and Paul W. Miller. Elsevier, 2015.

Chapter 13: “Undocumented Immigrants and Human Trafficking.” By Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny. Pages 659–716.

Page 683:

Unauthorized immigrants are likely to be less substitutable than legal immigrants for natives for a number of reasons. Fewer employers may be willing to hire unauthorized immigrants, especially in countries that impose sanctions on employers who hire them.26 Because unauthorized immigrants have limited labor market opportunities, skilled workers are less willing to migrate illegally than unskilled workers (Chiswick, 1988a).

[462] Book: Immigration in America Today: An Encyclopedia. By James Loucky, Jeanne Armstrong, and Lawrence J. Estrada. Greenwood Press, 2006.

Page 334: “The standard of living is higher in the United States in comparison to most sending countries. For example, a typical Mexican worker earns one-tenth as much as his American counterpart, and numerous American businesses are willing to hire cheap, compliant labor from abroad.”

[463] Preliminary report: “Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens.” By Edward H. Levi (Attorney General) and others. U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies, December 1976. <www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov>

Page 71:

During recent years, along with the high population growth rate, there has been a major movement of people within Mexico from rural areas into Mexico City and northern border towns. Mexico City, for example, 15 to 20 years ago had a population of approximately 1-1/2 million. It has now burgeoned to an estimated 10–13 million.

Conditions in the U.S. border towns appear to be particularly relevant. Economic conditions there are unfavorable, unemployment being estimated in the 30 to 40 percent range, and wages at the subsistence level. While there is variance from town to town for those employed, wages are never more than one-third the minimum in the United States.

[464] Book: Invisible Work, Invisible Workers: The Informal Economy in Europe and the US. By Madeleine Leonard. St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

Page 79: “As long as illegal immigrants are willing to work for low wages with no access to employment protection, there will be a demand for illegal immigrant labour. In Greece, migrant workers without a permit are paid less than half the minimum wage paid to Greek workers doing equivalent work (Mingione, 1987).”

[465] Book: Immigration in America Today: An Encyclopedia. By James Loucky, Jeanne Armstrong, and Lawrence J. Estrada. Greenwood Press, 2006.

Page 334: “[N]umerous American businesses are willing to hire cheap, compliant labor from abroad. … While the agricultural sector remains a strong pull, the service industry sector increasingly appreciates the undocumented immigrants’ flexibility and willingness to accept low job security combined with high variability in working hours and working days per week.”

[466] Book: Immigration in America Today: An Encyclopedia. By James Loucky, Jeanne Armstrong, and Lawrence J. Estrada. Greenwood Press, 2006.

Page 334: “In addition, the fact that these workers have no legal avenue and no state or federal protection and are unlikely to organize into unions also makes undocumented immigrants attractive to employers (Andreas 2000).”

[467] Book: The Mexican Americans. By Alma M. García. Greenwood Press, 1982.

Pages 37–38:

Operation Wetback

With the end of World War II, the United States took center stage in global politics. Immigration policies emerged as a cornerstone of U.S. relations with such countries as Mexico. … Employers actively recruited undocumented workers to work in canneries, construction, and service industries. Since these workers were not protected by the Bracero Program, employers could pay lower wages than those established by the program. Undocumented workers who were trying to escape the conditions of poverty in Mexico accepted such arrangements, although they lived in constant fear of deportation. The flow of Mexican immigrants increased as the Mexican economy worsened. Although Mexico experienced a certain degree of economic development after World War II, a large number of working-class Mexicans remained outside the reach of economic improvements. Wages could not match skyrocketing inflation rates; population rates increased geometrically. Large numbers of Mexicans migrated to urban centers in search of a better living. Few of these migrants found respite from their deteriorating economic circumstances, with urban poverty reaching new and tragic heights. These conditions pushed Mexicans toward the United States and ultimately fueled anti-immigrant sentiments.

Throughout the agricultural fields of Texas, California, and the Southwest in general, employers welcomed this new flow of undocumented workers. In his classic 1971 study, Los Mojados: The Wetback Story, sociologist Julian Samora records the lives of these undocumented Mexican workers. Samora describes their daily living and working conditions, stressing that employers favored undocumented workers whom they could pay the lowest wages, house them in worse than dilapidated housing, and, in general, maintain them under conditions that would have been in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Bracero Program.

Despite such terrible living and working conditions, the stream of undocumented workers continued to increase dramatically. Border crossings, as in the past, did not pose insurmountable difficulties because long stretches of the U.S.–Mexico border were difficult to patrol. Once in the United States, undocumented workers found it relatively easy to travel throughout the Southwest in search of work, blending in with documented Mexicans and American-born Mexicans and avoiding apprehension by the authorities. Employers themselves often assisted the workers in avoiding the Border Patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

[468] Book: Invisible Work, Invisible Workers: The Informal Economy in Europe and the US. By Madeleine Leonard. St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

Page 79:

German law is very harsh on the employers of illegal foreigners if work conditions are more hazardous than the norm for German workers. This is in response to the recognition that illegal foreigners are likely to be in a desperate situation having no access to social security, hence they must be able to find employment regardless of working conditions. Since safety regulations are quite costly in Germany, employers can violate these regulations and evade taxes and social security contributions by employing illegal foreigners. However, detection is treated seriously with employers facing up to three years in prison or costly fines (Wenig, 1990a). Many states have introduced legalization programmes for clandestine workers.

However, from his research in France, Barou (1987) argues that many undocumented workers do not want to be legalized in case they risk losing their illegal jobs which often have not been declared.

[469] Book: Economics of International Migration (Volume 1A, The Immigrants). Edited by Barry R. Chiswick and Paul W. Miller. Elsevier, 2015.

Chapter 13: “Undocumented Immigrants and Human Trafficking.” By Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny. Pages 659–716.

Page 686: “Unauthorized immigrants are more likely to work off the books than legal immigrants, further reducing how much they pay in taxes.”

[470] Report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Page 2:

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of people living in the U.S. who were foreign born and not U.S. citizens was 21.7 million in January 2009. Of these, 12.6 million individuals were not legal permanent residents of the U.S. We refer to this group as other immigrants (other than legal permanent resident immigrants). …

… Finally, OCACT [Office of the Chief Actuary] estimates 3.9 million other immigrants worked in the underground economy in 2010.

[471] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Page 242: “In addition to the potential for worker abuse, injury, and exploitation, another secondary economic effect of informal, unreported work is that employers may prefer immigrants to competing native workers when only the immigrants can be employed under arrangements in which payroll taxes are ignored and labor regulations are not observed.”

[472] Book: Invisible Work, Invisible Workers: The Informal Economy in Europe and the US. By Madeleine Leonard. St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

Page 79: “Since safety regulations are quite costly in Germany, employers can violate these regulations and evade taxes and social security contributions by employing illegal foreigners.”

[473] Paper: “The Cost of Worker Misclassification in New York State.” By Linda H. Donahue, James Ryan Lamare, and Fred B. Kotler. Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, February 1, 2007. <ecommons.cornell.edu>

Page 6: “In an employer–employee relationship, the employer must withhold income taxes, withhold and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, pay unemployment tax on wages paid, provide workers’ compensation insurance, pay minimum wage and overtime wages, and include employees in employee benefit plans.”

Page 8:

Construction is an expanding but fiercely competitive contract industry, characterized by slim profit margins, high injury and comp rates, comprised largely of numerous small to medium-sized companies whose numbers and size may make them more likely to operate beyond the view of state regulators. It is labor intensive, its jobs are temporary, and many jobs, particularly in unlicensed trades, can be broken down into piece work. It is a lucrative employment source for immigrant, often undocumented, workers and unscrupulous employers use their workers’ alleged independent contractor status to circumvent employer obligations under federal immigration laws. And the construction workforce is mobile—making it difficult for regulators to track down particular employers. All the elements are present throughout the industry, but misclassification and “under the table” practices operate with particular impunity in the large and expanding residential and commercial sectors.

[474] Article: “House Passes Immigration Bill—with a Catch.” By Christopher Drew. Chicago Tribune, October 10, 1986. <articles.chicagotribune.com>

The House late Thursday resurrected and speedily passed by a vote of 230–166 a controversial immigration reform bill that had been debated for years and presumed dead for this congressional session. …

The politically sensitive bill would legalize possibly millions of aliens already in the country and would discourage further immigration by levying fines and jail terms on employers who knowingly hire illegals. …

Later, the House dodged a “killer amendment” by a vote of 199–192 that would have stripped the bill of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens now living in the United States. …

The farm-worker dispute had pitted proponents of a stringent crackdown on illegal immigration against mostly Western growers interested in keeping a cheap labor supply to pick perishable crops.

[475] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143:

After years of heated debate involving ethnic and religious groups, labor and agricultural organizations, business interests, and the government, a compromise measure was reached. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for “brief, casual, and innocent” absences, from the beginning of 1982; provided amnesty to seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986; required all amnesty applicants to take courses in English and American government to qualify for permanent residence; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail; prohibited employers from discrimination on the basis of national origins; increased border patrol by 50 percent in 1987 and 1988; and, in a matter unrelated to illegal aliens, introduced a lottery program for 5,000 visas for countries “adversely affected” by provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

[476] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.

[477] Report: “Naturalization Rates among IRCA Immigrants: A 2009 Update.” By Bryan C. Baker. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 2010. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1: “Nearly 2.7 million persons became LPRs [lawful permanent residents] under IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act], including 1.6 million pre-1982s and 1.1 million SAWs [special agricultural workers].”

[478] Article: “Agriculture.” American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and ‎John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2014. Pages 415–423.

Page 420: “The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act sought to provide a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with the agricultural labor situation, as well as undocumented immigration. … Verification of citizenship status became a lasting requirement for all new hires.”

[479] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background): “IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] … for the first time in history, required U.S. employers to verify all newly hired employees’ work authorization in the United States. This is sometimes called the employer sanctions program or the I-9 program.”

[480] Report: “Identity Fraud, Prevalence and Links to Alien Illegal Activities.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, June 25, 2002. <www.gao.gov>

Page 8:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 198615 made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. IRCA requires employers to comply with an employment verification process intended to provide employers with a means to avoid hiring unauthorized aliens. The process requires newly hired employees to present documentation establishing their identity and eligibility to work. From a list of 27 acceptable documents, employees have the choice of presenting 1 document establishing both identity and eligibility to work (such as an INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] permanent resident card) or 1 document establishing identity (such as a driver’s license) and 1 establishing eligibility to work (such as a Social Security card). Generally, employers cannot require the employees to present a specific document. Employers are to review the document or documents that an employee presents and complete an Employment Eligibility Form, INS Form I-9. On the form, employers are to certify that they have reviewed the documents and that the documents appear genuine and relate to the individual. Employers are expected to judge whether the documents are obviously fraudulent. INS is responsible for checking employer compliance with IRCA’s verification requirements.

[481] Report: “Employment Verification: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, but Significant Challenges Remain.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, December 2010. <www.gao.gov>

Page 7:

There are 26 documents that are acceptable for the employment verification process. Six of these documents establish both identity and employment eligibility (such as U.S. passport or permanent resident card); 12 documents establish identity only (such as driver’s license); and 8 documents establish employment eligibility only (such as Social Security card without the legend “Not Valid for Employment”). For verification purposes, employees may present either a single document from the first category or a combination of two documents, one from the identity category and one from the employment eligibility category.

[482] Report: “Employment Verification: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, but Significant Challenges Remain.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, December 2010. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 6–7:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire immigrants who were unauthorized to work in the United States.11 IRCA established an employment verification process—the Form I-9 process—that required employers to review documents presented by new employees to establish their identity and employment eligibility.12 Employers are required to certify that they have reviewed the documents presented by their employees and that the documents reasonably appear genuine and relate to the individual presenting them. Like all employers, employers participating in E-Verify are required to retain Form I-9s for all newly hired employees in accordance with IRCA.

[483] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail….”

[484] Article: “Agriculture.” American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and ‎John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2014. Pages 415–423.

Page 420: “The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act sought to provide a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with the agricultural labor situation, as well as undocumented immigration. An employer sanctions provision in the legislation was intended to hold employers accountable that knowingly hired undocumented laborers.”

[485] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. …

… The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.

[486] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

In 1981 this administration asked the Congress to pass a comprehensive legislative package, including employer sanctions, other measures to increase enforcement of the immigration laws, and legalization. The act provides these three essential components. The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.

[487] Book: Immigration in America Today: An Encyclopedia. By James Loucky, Jeanne Armstrong, and Lawrence J. Estrada. Greenwood Press, 2006.

Page 334: “For example, a typical Mexican worker earns one-tenth as much as his American counterpart, and numerous American businesses are willing to hire cheap, compliant labor from abroad. These businesses are seldom punished for hiring undocumented immigrants because our country lacks a viable system to verify the eligibility of new workers.”

[488] Report: “E-Verify History and Milestones.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, November 15, 2013. <www.e-verify.gov>

Page 3:

Basic Pilot Improved and Renamed E-Verify

2007

The Basic Pilot Program was renamed E-Verify. Along with the new name, the program added more features including an automatic flagging system that prompts employers to double-check the data entered into the web interface for those cases that are about to result in a mismatch. This change reduced data entry errors and initial mismatches by approximately 30 percent.

The launch of E-Verify also marked the addition of photo matching. Photo matching is the first step in incorporating biometric data into the web interface. Photo matching was developed for employees presenting a Permanent Resident Card or Employment Authorization Document, and allows the employer to match the photo on an employee’s document with the photo in USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] records.

[489] Report: “Employment Verification: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, but Significant Challenges Remain.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, December 2010. <www.gao.gov>

Page 2: “E-Verify provides employers a tool for detecting common types of fraudulent identity documents. The goals of E-Verify are to (1) reduce the employment of individuals unauthorized to work, (2) reduce discrimination, (3) protect employee civil liberties and privacy, and (4) prevent undue burden on employers.”

[490] Report: “Employment Verification: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, but Significant Challenges Remain.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, December 2010. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 2–3:

In June 2008, we testified that USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] and SSA [Social Security Administration] had taken actions to enhance the E-Verify program but continued to face challenges.4 One challenge was related to USCIS’s ability to reduce instances in which work authorized employees are not automatically confirmed by E-Verify. This situation could occur for several reasons, such as employees not updating their naturalization status in SSA databases in a timely manner or not informing SSA of a change in name. For the purposes of this report, we collectively refer to these situations—as well as those in which employers inadvertently make errors in data entry when making E-Verify queries, in which employees provide inconsistent personal information to government agencies, and in which government databases contain errors unrelated to an employer’s or employee’s action—as erroneous tentative nonconfirmations (TNC).

Page 16: “USCIS has reduced TNCs from 8 percent during the time period June 2004 through March 2007 to almost 2.6 percent in fiscal year 2009 by expanding the number of databases queried through E-Verify and instituting quality control procedures to address data entry errors.”

Page 53:

USCIS’s actions to improve the accuracy of E-Verify have included adding tools to help identify fraudulent documents, expanding the number of databases queried through E-Verify, and instituting quality control procedures to screen for data entry errors. However, USCIS can further improve the accuracy of E-Verify by taking additional actions to help prevent erroneous TNCs attributable to name mismatches, particularly for individuals—often foreign-born, naturalized, or both—who have multiple or hyphenated surnames. Disseminating information to employees on the importance of providing consistent name information to employers, SSA, and DHS [Department of Homeland Security] can help better ensure data accuracy and reduce the appearance of discrimination toward certain cultural groups because of the disparate impact of these kinds of erroneous TNCs on such groups.

[491] “FY 2021–2023 Annual Performance Report.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 63–64:

Mission Program Goal

Ensure lawful employment and the protection of American workers by providing efficient and accurate confirmation of employment eligibility information.

Mission Program Description

The electronic employment eligibility verification E-Verify program enables enrolled employers to confirm the work authorization of their newly hired employees quickly and easily. E-Verify is an Internet-based system that compares information from an employee’s Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to records available to DHS to confirm employment eligibility within seconds. …

Percent of workers determined to be Employment Authorized after an initial mismatch … FY 2021 … Result [=] 0.13%

[492] Report: “Employment Verification: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, but Significant Challenges Remain.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, December 2010. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 21–24:

[I]dentity fraud remains a challenge in part because employers may not be able to determine if employees are presenting genuine identity and employment eligibility documents that are borrowed or stolen.33 E-Verify is to confirm all employees as employment authorized as long as the information entered into E-Verify matches DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] and SSA [Social Security Administration] records. E-Verify also cannot detect cases in which an unscrupulous employer assists unauthorized employees by, for example, providing them with legitimate documents or ignoring a mismatch between the photograph that appears on the employee’s permanent resident card and DHS’s digital photograph of that individual. Of the 97.4 percent of employees who were confirmed as work authorized by E-Verify in fiscal year 2009, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] is unable to determine how many employees E-Verify incorrectly confirmed as authorized to work in the United States. Based on statistical models of E-Verify data for the period covering April through June 2008, Westat estimated that 6.2 percent of employees were not authorized to work in the United States, and that slightly over half of these employees were incorrectly confirmed by E-Verify. This may indicate identity theft, employer fraud, or both.

USCIS has taken actions to address fraud, most notably with the fiscal year 2007 implementation of the photo matching tool, which seeks to reduce fraud associated with the use of genuine documents in which the original photograph is substituted for another. The photo matching tool places the burden on employers to determine whether the photograph on the employee’s permanent resident card or employment authorization document matches the digitally stored photograph within DHS databases. If the employer determines that the photos do not match, E-Verify rules require that the employer indicate in the system that the photographs do not match, the employee is to receive a TNC [tentative nonconfirmation], and the employee is to be provided with an opportunity to contest the TNC. According to USCIS, from October 2009 to August 2010, there were 393,574 cases that initiated E-Verify’s photo matching tool. Of these cases, employers indicated that 1,569 employees’ photos did not match. These nonmatch cases resulted in one contested TNC. USCIS told us that it is unable to determine what percentage of the 1,569 cases involves identity fraud because some individuals may not contest their TNC and USCIS does not have additional information on these cases.

However, ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officials in Arizona told us that unscrupulous employers have learned that the photo matching tool accepts only two documents—permanent resident cards and employment authorization documents, which are heavily protected from tampering and counterfeiting—and, therefore, employers ask employees whom they believe are not work authorized to provide other identity documents that will not trigger the photo matching tool. Senior ICE officials told us that while ICE does not track statistics on documents used to satisfy the Form I-9 requirements, they believe because of the small number of security features on most state driver’s licenses, they are becoming increasingly popular for use as documentation for the Form I-9. While employers are not permitted to ask employees to provide specific types of documents for E-Verify under federal law, the ICE officials said that they know of instances in which employers directed employees to provide driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification. They said this has led to an increase in the fraudulent use of other documents, which are not part of the photo matching tool. Based on site visit data for October 2007 through June 2008, Westat’s 2009 report indicated that driver’s licenses were presented as one form of identification in 53 percent of the cases resulting in TNCs.

USCIS incorporated passport photographs and seeks to incorporate driver’s licenses into the E-Verify database to help address the issue of identity fraud. In September 2010, pursuant to a signed agreement with the State Department, USCIS gained access to photographs of passport holders in State Department records and incorporated these into E-Verify. USCIS has also been negotiating with the Motor Vehicle Association in one state to pilot the use of driver’s license data for E-Verify. USCIS reported that this pilot will begin in 2011.34 Because of individual state privacy laws, USCIS said that it has been unable to negotiate with additional states to share driver’s license data or photographs. USCIS has also identified additional tools to help combat identity theft. For example, USCIS is planning to develop a program that would allow victims of identity theft to “lock” their Social Security numbers within E-Verify until they need them to obtain employment authorization.35 According to USCIS, this program remains in the planning stages and is expected to be completed from fiscal years 2011 through 2012.

Despite these efforts, identity fraud continues to be a challenge for E-Verify as well as for current employment verification processes. We have previously reported that weaknesses in the Form I-9 system, such as difficulty in detecting document and identity fraud and the large number of acceptable documents for proving work eligibility, have undermined the effectiveness of the employment verification process.36 Because E-Verify is an automated system based on the Form I-9, it possesses the same inherent weaknesses. One example of this was demonstrated in an enforcement action taken in December 2006 by ICE against a meat processing plant that participated in E-Verify. During this investigation, ICE found that approximately 1,340 employees—all of whom ICE believes were processed through E-Verify—were not authorized to work in the United States. Of the 1,340 unauthorized workers, 274 were charged with identity theft, including the use of valid Social Security numbers belonging to others to get jobs. ICE arrested one individual with immigration violation charges related to document fraud through this investigation.

To help combat identity fraud, the use of biometrics has been included in proposed legislation before Congress as an element of comprehensive immigration reform. Leading biometric technologies include facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, hand geometry, and iris recognition. These technologies help to create a verifiable link between identity and authorizing documents and supplement the employer’s review of documents on the Form I-9. However, implementing a biometric system has its own set of challenges. For example, the costs of biometric technology include the engineering efforts to design, develop, test, and implement the system, as well as the costs to employers for purchasing and maintaining the hardware and software. In some cases employers might not have access to the necessary office equipment to use such technology. In addition, according to CRCL [Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties], representatives of civil liberties groups, privacy experts, and government agencies have expressed concerns about issues such as the adequacy of protections for the use of biometric data. These are important issues that policymakers are currently considering. Resolving these issues will be important if this technology is to be effectively implemented in combating identity fraud in the employment verification process.

[493] Press release: “New Security Enhancement Helps E-Verify Deter Employee Fraud.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, November 18, 2013. <www.uscis.gov>

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas today announced an enhancement to the E-Verify program that will help combat identity fraud by identifying and deterring fraudulent use of Social Security numbers (SSNs) for employment eligibility verification.

This enhancement provides a critical safeguard to the E-Verify system by detecting and preventing potential fraudulent use of SSNs to gain work authorization. An employer, for example, may enter information into E-Verify that appears valid—such as a matching name, date of birth, and SSN—but was in fact stolen, borrowed or purchased from another individual. This new safeguard now enables USCIS to lock a SSN that appears to have been misused, protecting it from further potential misuse in E-Verify. …

The new enhancement strengthens the E-Verify program by implementing standards that have proven effective in protecting individual identity. Just like a credit card company will lock a card that appears to have been stolen, USCIS may now lock SSNs in E-Verify that appear to have been used fraudulently. USCIS will use a combination of algorithms, detection reports and analysis to identify patterns of fraudulent SSN use and then lock the number in E-Verify. This will help deter and prevent fraudulent use of SSNs in the E-Verify system. …

… In fiscal year (FY) 2013, E-Verify was used to authorize workers in the U.S. more than 25 million times, representing a nearly 20 percent increase from FY 2012.

[494] Press release: “Senators Reintroduce Bill To Help Businesses Comply With Worker Eligibility Laws.” U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, January 28, 2021. <www.grassley.senate.gov>

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reintroduced legislation to help businesses comply with immigration laws by certifying the legal status of their workforce. The Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act would permanently authorize and expand the E-Verify program, an internet–based system that assists employers in determining whether current or prospective employees are authorized to work in the United States. The bill requires employers to use the program to determine workers’ eligibility.

Grassley’s bill is cosponsored by senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John Thune (R-S.D.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). …

Currently, employers voluntarily submit information from an employee’s Form I-9 to the Department of Homeland Security through the E-Verify system, which works in partnership with the Social Security Administration to determine worker eligibility. There is no cost for employers to use E-Verify. More than 750,000 businesses use the program today.

E-Verify was established in 1996 as a pilot program with employers in five states allowed to participate. The pilot program was reauthorized in 2001, expanded to employers in every state in 2003 under Grassley-authored legislation and reauthorized several times since 2008.

The Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act does the following:

• Permanently reauthorizes the E-Verify program that was created in 1996.

• Makes the program mandatory for all employers within one year of date of enactment, requires federal contractors and agencies to use the program immediately, and directs “critical employers,” as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, to use the system within 30 days of designation.

• Increases penalties for employers who illegally hire undocumented workers.

• Reduces the liability that employers face if they participate in E-Verify when it involves the wrongful termination of an individual.

• Allows employers to use E-Verify before a person is hired if consent is provided by the employee.

• Requires employers to check the status of all current employees within 3 years.

• Requires employers to terminate the employment of those found unauthorized to work due to a check through E-Verify.

• Helps ensure that the Social Security Administration catches multiple uses of Social Security numbers by requiring them to develop algorithms to detect anomalies.

• Establishes a demonstration project in a rural area or area without internet capabilities to assist small businesses in complying with the participation requirement.

• Amends the criminal code to make clear that defendants who possess or otherwise use identity information not their own without lawful authority and in the commission of another felony is still punishable for aggravated identity fraud, regardless of the defendant’s “knowledge” of the victim.

• Requires employers to re-verify an employee’s immigration status if the employment authorization is due to expire.

• Establishes an Employer Compliance Inspection Center (ECIC) within ICE to streamline program audits and review compliance with worker eligibility laws.

[495] Senate Bill 1196: “Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act.” U.S. Senate, 112th Congress (2011–2012). Accessed May 5, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] (Introduced 06/14/2011)

Committees

Senate – Judiciary

Latest Action

Senate – 06/14/2011 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Summary

Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act – Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to make the E-Verify program permanent.

Requires: (1) federal departments, agencies, contractors, and critical employers to participate in E-Verify; (2) all U.S. employers to participate in E-Verify within one year of enactment of this Act; and (3) employers using a contract, subcontract, or exchange to obtain labor to certify that they utilize E-Verify.

Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to require the E-Verify participation of an employer or class of employers if the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe that the employer is or has been in material violation of the employment eligibility verification process under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Treats an employer’s failure to use E-Verify as a violation of the INA requirement to verify employment eligibility and creates a reputable presumption that the employer knowingly hired, recruited, or referred an illegal alien.

Increases civil and criminal penalties for specified hiring-related violations.

[496] Senate Bill 202: “Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act.” U.S. Senate, 113th Congress (2013–2014). Accessed May 5, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] (Introduced 01/31/2013)

Committees

Senate – Judiciary

Latest Action

Senate – 01/31/2013 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Summary

Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act – Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to make the E-Verify program permanent.

Requires: (1) federal departments, agencies, contractors, and critical employers to participate in E-Verify; (2) all U.S. employers to participate in E-Verify within one year of enactment of this Act; and (3) employers using a contract, subcontract, or exchange to obtain labor to certify that they utilize E-Verify.

Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to require the E-Verify participation of an employer or class of employers if the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe that the employer is or has been in material violation of the employment eligibility verification process under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Treats an employer’s failure to use E-Verify as a violation of the INA requirement to verify employment eligibility and creates a reputable presumption that the employer knowingly hired, recruited, or referred an illegal alien.

Increases civil and criminal penalties for specified hiring-related violations.

[497] Senate Bill 1032: “Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act.” U.S. Senate, 114th Congress (2015–2016). Accessed May 5, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] (Introduced 04/21/2015)

Committees

Senate – Judiciary

Latest Action

Senate – 04/21/2015 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Summary

Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to make the E-Verify program permanent.

Requires: (1) federal departments, agencies, contractors, and critical employers to participate in E-Verify; (2) all U.S. employers to participate in E-Verify within one year of enactment of this Act; and (3) employers using a contract, subcontract, or exchange to obtain labor to certify that they utilize E-Verify.

Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to require the E-Verify participation of an employer or class of employers if the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe that the employer is or has been in material violation of the employment eligibility verification process under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Treats an employer’s failure to use E-Verify as a violation of the INA requirement to verify employment eligibility and creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer knowingly hired, recruited, or referred an illegal alien.

Increases civil and criminal penalties for specified hiring-related violations.

[498] Senate Bill 179: “Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act.” U.S. Senate, 115th Congress (2017–2018). Accessed May 5, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] (Introduced 01/20/2017)

Committees

Senate – Judiciary

Latest Action

Senate – 01/20/2017 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Summary

This bill amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to make the E-Verify program permanent.

The bill requires: (1) federal agencies, contractors, and critical employers to participate in E-Verify; (2) all U.S. employers to participate in E-Verify within one year of enactment of this Act; and (3) employers using a contract, subcontract, or exchange to obtain labor to certify that they utilize E-Verify.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shall require the E-Verify participation of an employer or class of employers if DHS has reasonable cause to believe that the employer is or has been in material violation of the employment eligibility verification process under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

An employer’s failure to use E-Verify shall be treated as a violation of the INA requirement to verify employment eligibility and creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer knowingly hired, recruited, or referred an illegal alien.

The bill: (1) increases civil and criminal penalties for specified hiring-related violations, and (2) establishes a good faith civil penalty exemption/reduction for certain hiring-related violations

[499] Senate Bill 556: “Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act.” U.S. Senate, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed May 5, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] (Introduced 02/26/2019)

Committees

Senate – Judiciary

Latest Action

Senate – 02/26/2019 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Summary

This bill expands the E-Verify program by requiring all employers to use it, and permanently reauthorizes the program. Currently, E-Verify use is voluntary for most employers, although some states mandate its use.

All employers shall use E-Verify to confirm the identity and employment eligibility of all recruited, referred, or hired individuals, including current employees who were never verified under the program. Failure to use E-Verify shall create a rebuttable presumption that the employer is violating immigration law.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shall generate weekly reports about individuals who have received a final non-confirmation of employment eligibility. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shall use the report to enforce immigration laws.

DHS shall establish a program to help certain small businesses verify employee eligibility. DHS shall also update E-Verify’s design to help prevent and detect fraud and identity theft.

The bill increases civil and criminal penalties for hiring unauthorized aliens. DHS shall debar repeat offenders and those criminally convicted from holding federal contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.

[500] Senate Bill 71: “Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act.” U.S. Senate, 117th Congress (2021–2022). Accessed May 5, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] (Introduced 01/27/2021)

Committees

Senate – Judiciary

Latest Action

Senate – 01/27/2021 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Summary

This bill expands the E-Verify program by requiring all employers to use it and permanently reauthorizes the program. Currently, E-Verify use is voluntary for most employers, although some states mandate its use.

All employers shall use E-Verify to confirm the identity and employment eligibility of all recruited, referred, or hired individuals, including current employees who were never verified under the program. Failure to use E-Verify shall create a rebuttable presumption that the employer is violating immigration law.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services shall generate weekly reports about individuals who have received a final nonconfirmation of employment eligibility. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shall use the report to enforce immigration laws.

DHS shall establish a program to help certain small businesses verify employee eligibility. DHS shall also update E-Verify’s design to help prevent and detect fraud and identity theft.

The bill increases civil and criminal penalties for hiring unauthorized aliens. DHS shall debar repeat offenders and those criminally convicted from holding federal contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.

[501] Entry: “visa.” Macmillan Dictionary. Accessed October 7, 2022 at <www.macmillandictionary.com>

“an official document or mark in your passport that allows you to enter or leave a country for a specific purpose or period of time”

[502] Webpage: “What is a U.S. Visa?” U.S. Department of State. Accessed October 7, 2022 at <travel.state.gov>

A citizen of a foreign country who seeks to enter the United States generally must first obtain a U.S. visa, which is placed in the traveler’s passport, a travel document issued by the traveler’s country of citizenship.

Certain international travelers may be eligible to travel to the United States without a visa if they meet the requirements for visa-free travel. The Visa section of this website is all about U.S. visas for foreign citizens to travel to the United States.

[503] Report: “Nonimmigrant Admissions to the United States: 2015.” By John Teke and Waleed Navarro. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 2–3:

Documentary Requirements

Visa Required. Most classes of nonimmigrants are required to obtain a visa to enter the United States. In these cases, foreign nationals must fill out an Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application, Form DS-160, or a Nonimmigrant Visa Application, Form DS-156. In addition, applicants aged 14 to 79 years are generally required to visit a U.S. embassy or consulate and be interviewed by a consular official. Possession of a valid visa does not guarantee admission. A CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] officer determines if the nonimmigrant may enter the United States and the authorized duration of stay.

Mexican Tourist and Business Admissions. Mexican nationals who meet the requirements for a B1/B2 visa (temporary visitor for business or pleasure), have a valid Mexican passport, demonstrate that they will return to Mexico upon completion of their stay, and reside in close proximity to the U.S./Mexico border may be eligible for a Border Crossing Card (BCC) or “laser visa.” The BCC is a machine-readable card that is valid for 10 years and contains fingerprint and other biometric data. Those who reside in the interior areas of Mexico are issued visas affixed to their passports.

To be admitted to the U.S.–Mexico border zone (up to 25 or 75 miles from the border, depending on the entry location) without a Form I–94 as a nonimmigrant visitor, a Mexican national must be in possession of a BCC or a passport and valid visa, or for a Mexican national who is a member of the Texas Band of Kickapoo Indians or Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, a Form I–872 American Indian Card. Generally, Mexican nationals are required to present a BCC or a valid passport with a valid nonimmigrant visa, unless exempt. Mexican nationals with BCCs or Form I-872 are generally authorized to travel within the border zone for up to 30 days at a time without having to obtain a Form I–94. Also, Mexicans entering the United States with a passport and visa may remain in the border zone for up to 72 hours without having to obtain an I–94. However, Mexican nationals traveling beyond these specified zones, who will remain beyond the time periods indicated above, or who seek entry for purposes other than as a temporary visitor for business or pleasure, are required to obtain and complete a Form I–94.

Canadian Tourist and Business Admissions. Canadian short-term business and tourist visitors to the United States are required to possess a valid Canadian passport or other Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)-approved form of identification,5 but they generally are not required to obtain a visa or apply for travel authorization through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).

Visa Waiver Program. The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows nationals of designated countries to travel to the United States as tourists or business travelers without a visa for periods not to exceed 90 days. Qualified nationals of VWP countries must be admissible to the United States and not have violated the terms of any previous admission under the VWP; possess a valid machine-readable passport; travel on an approved carrier and possess a round trip ticket if arriving by air or sea; obtain travel authorization through ESTA; and waive their right to contest an immigration officer’s determination of admissibility and the right to contest removal, other than on the basis of an application for asylum. Nationals of VWP countries must obtain a visa if they are traveling to the United States for a purpose other than tourism or business or if their stay will exceed 90 days.

As of fiscal year 2015, 38 countries participated in the VWP: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, South Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Chile, whose admission to the VWP was March 31, 2014.

Waiver Program (GCVWP) permits nationals of designated countries and geographic areas to be admitted to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) without a visa. Admissions under the GCVWP may not exceed 45 days in Guam and/or CNMI. In 2014, Australia, Brunei, Hong Kong,6 Japan, Malaysia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom participated in the GCVWP.7

5 WHTI-approved travel documents include an Enhanced Driver’s License, Enhanced Identification Card, or Trusted Traveler Program card.

6 Eligibility for Hong Kong includes citizens of the former colony of Hong Kong who are in possession of the United Kingdom passport that states “British National Overseas” or holders of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) travel document. Both of these travel documents must be in conjunction with a Hong Kong Identification Card.

7 On November 28, 2009, the GCVWP replaced the Guam Visa Waiver Program (GVWP) which permitted nationals of participating countries to be admitted to Guam without a visa. Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, South Korea, Singapore, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Vanuatu were included in the GVWP when it ended.

[504] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page ii: “Legal Temporary Resident or Visitor: A noncitizen of the United States who is admitted to the country with a temporary visa or who is allowed to enter without a visa. People in those categories include visitors who are in the United States for short periods and temporary residents who are in the United States for longer, although time-limited, stays.”

[505] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 1: “Noncitizens include … legal nonimmigrants who are admitted on temporary visas for a specific purpose and a limited period of time….”

[506] Webpage: “Ineligibilities and Grounds for Refusals.” U.S. State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual. Accessed October 7, 2022 at <fam.state.gov>

a. Basis for Refusal: The basis on which applicants must be denied visas are established by law, as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). INA 214(b) and 221(g) are common bases for refusal. Other grounds for refusal are found in INA 212 (INA 212(a), 212(e) and 212(f)). (Note: The Department generally uses the term “ineligibilities” to refer to these grounds for refusal; the Department of Homeland Security usually refers to these grounds as “inadmissabilities.”)

b. Summary of Grounds for Refusal (by Section of Law): See paragraph c for a list by category.

(1) INA 212(a)(1): Health and medical-related grounds …

(2) INA 212(a)(2): Criminal and related grounds …

(3) INA 212(a)(3): Security and related grounds …

(4) INA 212(a)(4): Public charge …

(5) INA 212(a)(5): Labor certification, qualification …

(6) INA 212(a)(6): Illegal entrants, immigration violators, misrepresentation …

(7) INA 212(a)(7): Documentation requirements …

(8) INA 212(a)(8): Ineligible for citizenship …

(9) INA 212(a)(9): Previously removed, unlawfully present, unlawfully present after previous immigration violations …

(10) INA 212(a)(10): Other miscellaneous grounds …

(11) INA 212(e): Former exchange visitors …

(12) INA 212(f): Presidential Proclamations and sanctioned activity …

(13) INA 214(b): Presumption of immigrant status …

(14) INA 221(g): Application does not comply with INA …

(15) INA 222(g): Nonimmigrant overstay, application not in country of nationality …

[507] For more details about visa eligibility criteria, see the section of this research on visitors and temporary residents.

[508] “Fiscal Year 2020 Entry/Exit Overstay Report.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, September 30, 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page iii:

An overstay is a nonimmigrant lawfully admitted to the United States for an authorized period, but remained in the United States beyond his or her authorized period of admission. The authorized admission period can be a fixed period; or for the duration of a certain activity, such as the period during which a foreign student is pursuing a full course of study or any authorized technical/practical training. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) identifies two types of overstays: 1) individuals for whom no departure was recorded (Suspected In-Country Overstays), and 2) individuals whose departure was recorded after their authorized period of admission expired (Out-of-Country Overstays).

Pages 7–8:

An overstay is a nonimmigrant who was lawfully admitted to the United States for an authorized period but stayed in the United States beyond his or her authorized admission period. Nonimmigrants admitted for “duration of status,” who fail to maintain their status, may also be considered overstays. “Duration of status” is a term used for foreign nationals who are admitted for the duration of a specific program or activity, which may be variable, instead of for a set timeframe.16 The authorized admission period ends when the foreign national has accomplished the purpose for which they were admitted, or is no longer engaged in authorized activities pertaining to that purpose. For example, a student who enters the United States for a program that runs for four years must leave when the program is completed, change to another immigration status, or go on to pursue another program of study.

16 For example, “duration of status” for F nonimmigrants is defined as “the time during which an F-1 student is pursuing a full course of study at an [approved] educational institution … or engaging in authorized practical training following completion of studies....”

[509] “Fiscal Year 2019 Entry/Exit Overstay Report.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 17, 2019. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages iv–v:

This report presents the overstay rates of nonimmigrants who overstay and remain in the United States beyond their authorized period of admission with no evidence of an extension to their period of admission or adjustment to another immigration status. Rates are provided for the following major categories:

Total Overstay Rate

CBP determined there were 55,928,990 in-scope nonimmigrant admissions1 to the United States through air or sea ports with expected departures occurring in FY [fiscal year] 2019 [10/1/18 – 9/30/19*], which represents the majority of air and sea annual nonimmigrant admissions. Of this number, CBP calculated a total overstay rate of 1.21 percent, or 676,422 overstay events. In other words, 98.79 percent of the in-scope nonimmigrant entries departed the United States on time and in accordance with the terms of their admission.

This report breaks down the overstay rates further to provide a better picture of those overstays who remain in the United States beyond their period of admission and for whom there is no identifiable evidence of a departure, an extension of period of admission, or transition to another immigration status. At the end of FY 2019, there were 574,740 Suspected In-Country Overstays. The overall Suspected In-Country Overstay rate for this scope of travelers is 1.03 percent of the expected departures.

Due to continuing departures and adjustments of status by individuals in this population, by the end of December 2019 the number of Suspected In-Country Overstays for FY 2019 decreased to 497,272 reducing the Suspected In-Country Overstay rate to 0.89 percent. As of the end of December 2019, DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] was able to confirm the departures or adjustment of status of more than 99.11 percent of nonimmigrants scheduled to depart in FY 2019 via air and sea POEs [Port of Entry].

1 See Appendix A for a full list defining “in-scope nonimmigrant classes of admission.”

Page vi:

The FY 2019 report covers the same classes of admission as the FY 2018 Entry and Exit Overstay Report.3 These classes include those traveling to the United States temporarily for business and pleasure, including those from VWP [Visa Waiver Program]-designated countries, traveling under an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), student travelers, worker classifications, and other classes of nonimmigrant admission.4 These classes of admission account for 97 percent5 of all air and sea port nonimmigrant admissions to the United States in FY 2019. The only excluded classes are diplomats, crewmembers, aliens in transit, and section 1367 special protected classes (Appendix B).6

5 Appendix B details the 3 percent not accounted for in this report. More than 95 percent of that total are the C or D category (in-transit aliens/airline crewmembers) whose records are difficult to quantify due to the frequency of arrivals and departures close together in time. CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] will continue to improve its ability to report these numbers.

NOTE: “The fiscal year of the Treasury begins on October 1 of each year and ends on September 30 of the following year.” [United States Code Title 31, Subtitle II, Chapter 11, Section 1102: “Fiscal Year.” Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>]

[510] “Fiscal Year 2020 Entry/Exit Overstay Report.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, September 30, 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages iii–iv:

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the FY 2020 data represents an anomaly when compared with the prevailing trend of decreasing Expected Departures and Overstay. Expected Departures in FY 2020 (46,195,116) were 17.40 percent lower than in FY 2019 (55,928,990) and were 6,124,522 less than the five-year consolidated report average of 52,319,638. The drop in Expected Departure count increased FY 2020 Overstay Rates. The decrease in the Expected Departure population can be attributed to a multitude of factors including travel restrictions enacted in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. This report presents the overstay rates of those who remained in the United States beyond their authorized period of admission with no evidence of an extension to their period of admission or adjustment to another immigration status. Rates are provided for the following major categories:

Total Overstay Rate

CBP determined there were 46,195,116 in-scope nonimmigrant admissions1 to the United States through air or sea POEs [points of entry] with expected departures occurring in FY [fiscal year] 2020 [10/1/19 – 9/30/20*], which represents the majority of air and sea annual nonimmigrant admissions. Of this number, CBP calculated a total overstay rate of 1.48 percent, or 684,499 overstay events. In other words, 98.52 percent of the in-scope nonimmigrant entries departed the United States on time and in accordance with the terms of their admission.

This report breaks down the overstay rates further to provide a better picture of those overstays who remain in the United States beyond their period of admission and for whom there is no identifiable evidence of a departure, an extension of period of admission, or transition to another immigration status. At the end of FY 2020, there were 584,885 Suspected In-Country Overstays. The overall Suspected In-Country Overstay rate for this scope of travelers is 1.27 percent of the expected departures.

Due to continuing departures and adjustments of status by individuals in this population, by the end of December 2020 the number of Suspected In-Country Overstays for FY 2020 decreased to 566,993, resulting in the Suspected In-Country Overstay rate of 1.23 percent. As of the end of December 2020, DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] has been able to confirm the departures or adjustment of status of more than 98.77 percent of nonimmigrants scheduled to depart in FY 2020 via air and sea POEs.

1 See Appendix A for a full list defining “in-scope nonimmigrant classes of admission.”

Page v:

The FY 2020 report covers the same classes of admission as the FY 2019 Entry and Exit Overstay Report.3 These classes include those traveling to the United States temporarily for business and pleasure, including those from VWP [Visa Waiver Program]-designated countries, traveling under an Electronic System for Travel Authorization, student travelers, worker classifications, and other classes of nonimmigrant admission.4 The only excluded classes are diplomats, crewmembers, noncitizens in transit, and section 1367 special protected classes (Appendix B).5

NOTE: “The fiscal year of the Treasury begins on October 1 of each year and ends on September 30 of the following year.” [United States Code Title 31, Subtitle II, Chapter 11, Section 1102: “Fiscal Year.” Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>]

[511] Webpage: “DHS Measures on the Border to Limit the Further Spread of Coronavirus.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, October 19, 2020. Last updated 3/8/21. <www.dhs.gov>

In order to limit the further spread of coronavirus, the U.S. has reached agreements with both Canada and Mexico to limit all non-essential travel across borders. Working closely and collaboratively, the Department of Homeland Security is part of a North American approach to stop the spread of the virus. …

These measures were originally implemented on April 20, 2020 and have been extended by 30 day increments throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic….

“Non-essential” travel includes travel that is considered tourism or recreational in nature.

[512] Report: “Covid-19: Federal Travel Restrictions and Quarantine Measures.” By Edward C. Liu. Congressional Research Service. Updated May 28, 2020. <crsreports.congress.gov>

Pages 1–2:

In response to the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the federal government has taken several actions to deter persons with potential COVID-19 infection from entering the country. …

To deter the entry of aliens into the United States who may have been exposed to COVID-19, President Trump has invoked his authority over alien entry under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). That provision allows the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens, or any class of aliens” whose entry he “finds … would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Under this authority, President Trump has issued several proclamations to restrict the entry of aliens who were recently present in countries affected by COVID-19.

A Proclamation on January 31, 2020, generally suspended the entry of any foreign national who had been in mainland China at some point within the prior 14 days. But lawful permanent residents (LPRs), most immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs, and certain other groups, such as some airplane and ship crew members, are exempt from this restriction, as are those with prior presence in Hong Kong or Macau. On February 29, 2020, President Trump issued a second Proclamation that similarly suspends the entry of any foreign national who has been in Iran within the prior 14 days, in addition to making minor amendments to the earlier Proclamation. In March 2020, President Trump issued two Proclamations imposing the same restrictions on foreign nationals who have been in the Schengen Area of the European Union, Ireland, or the United Kingdom within the prior 14 days. On May 24, 2020, the President issued another proclamation invoking Section 212(f) to restrict the entry of the same categories of noncitizens from Brazil. To be clear, none of the restrictions in these proclamations applies to U.S. citizens, LPRs, most immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and certain other groups specifically exempted in the proclamations.

[513] Calculated with data from: “Fiscal Year 2019 Entry/Exit Overstay Report.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 17, 2019. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 31:

This section presents the change in the FY 2018 Suspected In-Country Overstay rates by major class of admission overtime. Table 7 provides a three-, six-, nine-, and twelve-month snapshot of the Published FY 2018 Entry and Exit Overstay Report, Suspected In-Country Overstay figures and the associated rates.

At the end of FY 2018, the overall Suspected In-Country Overstay number—i.e., those for whom DHS did not have evidence of a departure or transition to another immigration status—was 569,604 or 1.04 percent. As of September 30, 2019, the number of Suspected In-Country Overstays had further decreased to 324,593 rendering the FY 2018 Suspected In-Country Overstay rate 0.59 percent.

Page 36:

Below are the tabulated rates from the Fiscal Year 2018 Entry and Exit Overstay Report. The inclusion of these tables is for reference only. The FY 2018 Report provides data on expected departures and overstays, by country, for foreign travelers to the United States who entered as nonimmigrants through an air or sea port of entry (POE) and who were expected to depart in FY 2018 (October 1, 2017 – September 30, 2018). It does this by examining the number of entries, by country, for foreign travelers who arrived as nonimmigrants during this time as of October 1, 2018.

NOTES:

  • “The fiscal year of the Treasury begins on October 1 of each year and ends on September 30 of the following year.” [United States Code Title 31, Subtitle II, Chapter 11, Section 1102: “Fiscal Year.” Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>]
  • As of November 11, 2022, Just Facts was unable to update these data because the 2020 Entry/Exit Overstay Report contains an error that duplicates the previous year’s data, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has not responded to a request from Just Facts for updated figures.

CALCULATION: 569,604 / 1.04% = 54,769,615

[514] “Fiscal Year 2020 Entry/Exit Overstay Report.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, September 30, 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 4:

There are major physical, logistical, and operational obstacles to collecting an individual’s biographic and biometric data upon departure. Due to the existing limitations in collecting departure data in the land environment, this report provides limited departure and overstay information for land POEs [points of entry]. CBP’s [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] ongoing efforts, described in this report, will continue to improve the existing process and availability of departure data.

[515] “Fiscal Year 2018 Entry/Exit Overstay Report.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 17, 2019. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 3:

Travelers arrive at land POEs [points of entry] via various modes of transportation, including cars, trains, buses, bicycles, trucks, and on foot. There are major physical, logistical, and operational obstacles to collecting an individual’s biographic and biometric data upon departure. Due to the existing limitations in collecting departure data in the land environment, this report provides limited departure and overstay information for land POEs; when used, it is primarily to match records of individuals arriving by air and sea to those that may have subsequently departed by land to Canada. CBP’s [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] ongoing efforts, described in this report, will continue to improve the existing process and availability of departure data.

[516] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Page 46: “As of 2015, approximately one third (33 percent) of the nearly 2,000 mile southwest border is covered by primary pedestrian and vehicle fencing.”

[517] Article: “From Germany to Mexico: How America’s Source of Immigrants Has Changed Over a Century.” By Jens Manuel Krogstad and Michael Keegan. Pew Research, October 7, 2015. <www.pewresearch.org>

“Mexico, which shares a nearly 2,000-mile border with the U.S., is the source of the largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States.”

[518] Report: “Efforts by DHS to Estimate Southwest Border Security Between Ports of Entry.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September 2017. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 5:

Illegal crossings primarily result in one of four potential outcomes: (1) a failed attempt resulting in an apprehension, (2) a detected successful entry or known got away, (3) a detected turn back, or (4) an undetected, presumably successful entry or unknown got away.

Since 2006, CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] agents at the southwest land border have reported on turn backs and got aways. A got away is defined as a subject who, after making an illegal entry, is not turned back or apprehended, and is no longer being actively pursued by USBP [U.S. Border Patrol] agents. A turn back is defined as a subject who, after making an illegal entry into the United States, returns to the country from which he or she entered, not resulting in an apprehension or got away.

Since 2014, USBP agents use standard border-wide definitions for determining when to report a subject as a got away or turn back. Some subjects are observed directly as evading apprehension or turning back; others are acknowledged as got aways or turn backs after agents follow evidence that indicate entries have occurred such as foot sign, sensor activations, interviews with apprehended subjects, camera views, and communication between and among stations and sectors. The scope of these data includes all areas of the southwest land border at or below the northernmost law enforcement posture (typically a USBP checkpoint) within a given area of responsibility, and those individuals apprehended less than 30 days after entering the United States.

In an effort to maintain reliable best practices, command staff at all southern border stations ensure all agents are aware of and utilize proper definitions for apprehensions, got aways and turn backs at their respective stations. They also ensure the necessary communication takes place between and among sectors and stations to minimize doublecounting when subjects cross more than one station’s area of responsibility. In addition to station-level safeguards, designated USBP Headquarters components validate data integrity by utilizing various data quality reports.

[519] Public Law 114-328: “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.” 114th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Donald Trump on December 23, 2016. <www.congress.gov>

Title X, Subtitle G, Section 1092:

Border Security Metrics

(b) Metrics for Securing the Border Between Ports of Entry.—

(1) In General.—No later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall develop metrics, informed by situational awareness, to measure the effectiveness of security between ports of entry. The Secretary shall annually implement the metrics developed under this subsection, which shall include the following:

(A) Estimates, using alternative methodologies where appropriate, including recidivism data, survey data, known-flow data, and technologically-measured data, of the following:

(i) The rate of apprehension of attempted unlawful border crossers.

(ii) The number of detected unlawful entries.

(iii) The number of estimated undetected unlawful entries.

(iv) Turn backs.

(v) Got aways. …

(E) The number of apprehensions in each U.S. Border Patrol sector. …

(3) Manner of Collection.—The data collected to inform the metrics developed in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be collected and reported in a consistent and standardized manner across all U.S. Border Patrol sectors, informed by situational awareness. …

(f) Data Transparency.—The Secretary shall—

(1) in accordance with applicable privacy laws, make data related to apprehensions, inadmissible aliens, drug seizures, and other enforcement actions available to the public, law enforcement communities, and academic research communities; and

(2) provide the Office of Immigration Statistics of the Department of Homeland Security with unfettered access to the data referred to in paragraph (1).

(g) Evaluation by the Government Accountability Office and the Secretary.—

(1) Metrics Report.—

(A) Mandatory Disclosures.—The Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and the Comptroller of the United States an annual report containing the metrics required under this section and the data and methodology used to develop such metrics. …

(3) State of the Border Report.—Not later than 60 days after the end of each fiscal year through fiscal year 2026, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a ‘‘State of the Border’’ report that—

(A) provides trends for each metric under this section for the last ten fiscal years, to the greatest extent possible;

(B) provides selected analysis into related aspects of illegal flow rates, including undocumented migrant flows and stock estimation techniques;

(C) provides selected analysis into related aspects of legal flow rates; and

(D) includes any other information that the Secretary determines appropriate.

[520] Report: “Efforts by DHS to Estimate Southwest Border Security Between Ports of Entry.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September 2017. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

Securing the southwest land border against illegal immigration, smuggling of drugs and other contraband, and terrorist activities is a key part of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) mission, and a top priority for the White House, Congress, and the American public. On January 25, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order on “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” reflecting these concerns.

In light of the effort and resources the Department has devoted to border security in recent decades, as well as the sustained public attention to the southwest border, Congress has directed the Department to provide more detailed reporting on southwest border security. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 directs the Department to publish “metrics developed to measure the effectiveness of security between the ports of entry, including the methodology and data supporting the resulting measures.”1

[521] United States Code Title 31, Subtitle II, Chapter 11, Section 1102: “Fiscal Year.” Accessed November 16, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

“The fiscal year of the Treasury begins on October 1 of each year and ends on September 30 of the following year.”

[522] “Department of Homeland Security Border Security Metrics Report: 2021.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 7, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 7:

Many outcome metrics are difficult to measure directly because some intending border crossers actively seek to evade detection, and some flows are undetected and therefore can never be measured directly. This challenge is nearly universal when measuring unlawful activities, which is why law enforcement agencies typically rely on crime reports as indicators of total criminal activities, for example. Measuring border security outcomes is also difficult because of the diversity and complexity of the enforcement mission along the United States’ 6,000 miles of land borders, 95,000 miles of coastline, and 350 POEs [points of entry]. Moreover, enforcement outcomes only partially depend on border security policies, since immigration flows also reflect numerous factors outside of enforcement agencies’ control, including the broader set of U.S. immigration policies and numerous economic, demographic, and other structural factors.

Historically, DHS and the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) addressed these measurement challenges by relying on noncitizen apprehensions (an output metric) as a proxy measure of unlawful entries between POEs (an outcome metric).

[523] Report: “Efforts by DHS to Estimate Southwest Border Security Between Ports of Entry.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September 2017. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

While DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] employs a number of concrete metrics to track border security operations, it is difficult to precisely quantify illegal flows because illegal border crossers actively seek to evade detection, and some flows are undetected. As a result, any effort to quantify illegal flows or calculate an overall enforcement success rate must rely on one or more estimation techniques. Measurement is also difficult because of the diversity and complexity of the enforcement mission along the United States’ 2,000-mile land border with Mexico.

For many years, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service addressed these challenges by relying on alien apprehensions as its proxy measure of illegal immigration between ports of entry. More recently, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) and DHS have initiated a number of new estimation strategies to better model unknown flows.2 Some of this research remains a work in progress as DHS is not yet able to validate certain modeling assumptions or to quantify the uncertainty around its new estimation techniques.

Page 2: “Estimated enforcement outcomes describe the bottom line number: how many people succeed in crossing the border illegally between POEs [points of entry]? … USBP’s count of migrant apprehensions serves as a long-standing proxy measure of illegal flows.”

[524] Report: “Modeling the Impact of Border-Enforcement Measures.” By Elina Treyger and others. RAND Corporation under contract with U.S. Department of Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center, 2020. <www.rand.org>

Page 12:

[T]he metrics problem means that we do not have available measures of either the detection and apprehension rates or the total flow. These unobserved metrics, however, are closely tied to the level and changes in an available metric: apprehensions made by the Border Patrol. Although historically, apprehensions were viewed as a proxy for total illegal migration flows (a valid assumption if the apprehension rate does not change), they can also be seen as a proxy for the apprehension rate (a valid assumption if the total flow does not change).

[525] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Southwest Border Sectors: Total Encounters by Fiscal Year (Oct. 1st through Sept. 30th).” U.S. Border Patrol, August 10, 2021. <www.cbp.gov>

b) Report: “Nationwide Enforcement Encounters: Title 8 Enforcement Actions and Title 42 Expulsions FY2021.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified December 2, 2021. <www.cbp.gov>

Table: “U.S. Border Patrol Monthly Enforcement Encounters 2021: Title 42 Expulsions and Title 8 Apprehensions”

c) Report: “Nationwide Enforcement Encounters: Title 8 Enforcement Actions and Title 42 Expulsions 2022.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified October 14, 2022. <www.cbp.gov>

Table: “USBP [U.S. Border Patrol] Monthly Enforcement Encounters: Title 8 apprehensions and Title 42 Expulsions”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[526] Calculated with data from:

a) “Department of Homeland Security Border Security Metrics Report: 2021.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 7, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 16: “Table 2b. USBP Detected Got Aways between POEs [points of entry] by Border”

b) Report: “Intensifying Conditions at the Southwest Border Are Negatively Impacting CBP and ICE Employees’ Health and Morale.” By Joseph V. Cuffari (PhD). Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, May 3, 2023.

Page 10: “In FY 2019, 150,090 gotaways were recorded along the Southwest border. In FY 2021, this number rose by 159 percent, to 389,155. In FY 2022, CBP recorded more than 600,000 gotaways.”

c) Video: “Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security.” U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, April 28, 2022. <judiciary.house.gov>

Time marker 3:37:54: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas: “In fiscal year of 2021, there were 389,155 gotaways.”

d) Article: “Border Officials Count 599,000 ‘Gotaway’ Migrants in Fiscal Year 2022: Source.” By Ronn Blitzer and Bill Melugin. Fox News, October 2, 2022. <www.foxnews.com>

“U.S. officials are aware of at least 599,000 migrants who crossed the southern border and evaded authorities in Fiscal Year 2022, a Customs and Border Protection source told Fox News.”

e) Article: “Former Border Chief: Mayorkas Underreported Gotaway Data in Senate Hearing.” By Bethany Blankley. Center Square, November 2, 2023. <highlandcountypress.com>

NOTES:

  • As of November 11, 2022, U.S. Border Patrol has not published the data for 2021 and 2022. Thus, Just Facts is using data provided by U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials to the U.S. Congress for 2021 and Fox News for 2022.
  • An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[527] “Department of Homeland Security Border Security Metrics Report: 2021.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 7, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 10:

Since 2014, USBP [U.S. Border Patrol] has implemented a standard, Southwest Border-wide methodology for determining when to report a subject as a got away. Some subjects are observed directly as evading apprehension or turning back; others are acknowledged as got aways or turn backs after agents follow evidence that indicate entries have occurred such as foot sign (i.e., tracks), sensor activations, interviews with apprehended subjects, camera views, and communication between and among stations and sectors. The scope of these data includes all areas of the Southwest Border at or below the northernmost law enforcement posture (typically a USBP checkpoint) within a given area of responsibility, and those individuals apprehended less than 30 days after entering the United States.

In an effort to maintain reliable best practices, command staff at all Southwest Border stations ensure all agents are aware of and utilize proper definitions for apprehensions, got aways and turn backs at their respective stations. They also ensure the necessary communication takes place between and among sectors and stations to minimize doublecounting when subjects cross more than one station’s area of responsibility. In addition to station-level safeguards, designated USBP Headquarters components validate data integrity by utilizing various data quality reports.

… Over the past several years, DHS has invested millions of dollars in technology that has facilitated the ability to see and detect more at the border. Improvements in situational awareness give DHS an ever-increasing, real-time ability to understand how much illegal activity agents are encountering at the immediate border and their ability to respond. As a result, despite the fact that overall border entries are substantially lower today than in any previous fiscal year, agents are currently interdicting slightly lower percentages of the total known flow. This observation reflects USBP’s increased domain awareness—that through technological advances, the agency has improved its awareness of illegal entry attempts (known got aways)—rather than experienced a reduction in enforcement effectiveness. Increasing situational awareness narrows the gap between the known and unknown flow and puts DHS in a position to build ever better observational estimates of border security.

An additional methodological limitation is that the estimated count of got aways aggregates potentially subjective observations from thousands of individual agents. USBP has taken a number of steps to establish reliable turn back and got away methodologies, as discussed above.

Page 12:

The number of detected unlawful entries is calculated as the sum of turn backs, got aways, and apprehensions. Turn backs are defined as subjects who, after making an illegal entry into the United States, return to the country from which they entered, not resulting in an apprehension or got away. Got aways are defined as subjects who, after making an illegal entry, are not turned back or apprehended, and are no longer being actively pursued by USBP [U.S. Border Patrol] agents. Apprehensions are defined as inadmissable aliens arrested by USBP.

Turn backs and got aways are observational estimates; USBP records total and by-sector estimates of turn backs and got aways based on direct and indirect observations as described above. Apprehensions are calculated based on nationwide DHS administrative data and are not limited to the Southwest Border; USBP apprehension data are considered a reliable count of apprehensions.

The primary limitation to detected unlawful entries is that this metric incorporates turn back and got away estimates that aggregate potentially subjective observations from thousands of individual agents. USBP has taken steps to address this problem by establishing consistent and reliable turn back and got away methodologies, as discussed above.

Pages 15–16:

§ 1092(b)(1)(A)(iv) Turn Backs

Definition

Turn backs – An estimate of the number of subjects who, after making an unlawful entry into the United States, return to the country from which they entered, not resulting in an apprehension or got away.

Turn backs are an output metric that USBP uses for tactical decision-making.

Turn backs also contribute to several other border security metrics, including detected unlawful entries, discussed above, and the unlawful border crossing effectiveness rate, discussed below.

Methodology and Limitations

Turn backs are a nationwide observational estimate; USBP records total and by-sector estimates of turn backs based on direct and indirect observations as described above.

The primary limitation to detected turn backs is that the estimate aggregates potentially subjective observations from thousands of individual agents. USBP has taken steps to address this problem by establishing consistent and reliable turn back and got away methodologies, as discussed above. In addition, some unlawful border crossers might enter the United States to drop off drug loads or to act as decoys to lure agents away from a certain area and then return to Mexico, and therefore may be misidentified as turn backs.6 However, USBP believes these instances are too infrequent to have a substantial impact on the total number of turn backs. …

§ 1092(b)(1)(A)(v) Got Aways

Definition

Got aways – An estimate of the number of subjects who, after making an illegal entry, are not turned back or apprehended, and are no longer being actively pursued by USBP agents.

Total successful unlawful entries – An estimate of the total number of subjects who cross the border unlawfully and who enter the United States without being apprehended.

Methodology and Limitations

Got aways are an observational estimate; USBP records total and by-sector estimates of got aways based on direct and indirect observations as described above. Got aways are recorded by USBP at all borders; see Table 2b. …

The primary methodological limitation of got aways is that the estimate aggregates potentially subjective observations from thousands of individual agents. USBP has taken steps to address this problem by establishing consistent and reliable turn back and got away methodologies, as discussed above.

Conceptually, the got aways metric is limited to flows observed (directly or indirectly); the metric is not a comprehensive measure of successful unlawful entries. USBP’s recent work to increase situational awareness, including using Geospatial Intelligence, gives the Department growing confidence in its count of got aways. As situational awareness continues to improve, observed got aways will become an increasingly comprehensive measure of successful unlawful entries. USBP and DHS are working to refine USBP’s observational methodology and to more precisely describe the gap between observed and unobserved got aways.

[528] Report: “Intensifying Conditions at the Southwest Border Are Negatively Impacting CBP and ICE Employees’ Health and Morale.” By Joseph V. Cuffari (Ph.D.). Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, May 3, 2023.

Page 10:

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, when CBP encounters migrants it must determine their admissibility to the U.S. During our site visits to the Southwest border, Border Patrol agents shared how managing the increasing encounters can result in less enforcement. This is reflected in Border Patrol’s number of “gotaways”—a person who is not turned back or apprehended after making an illegal entry—observed along the border. Gotaways occur when cameras or sensors detect migrants crossing the border, but no one is found, or no agents are available to respond. Gotaways are observational estimates and rely on agents identifying migrants as crossing illegally and tracking them to the point where they cannot be apprehended; however, an unknown number of migrants evade detection. Therefore, the actual number of “gotaway” migrants is unknown.

[529] Calculated with data from:

a) “Southwest Border Deaths By Fiscal Year.” U.S. Border Patrol, August 10, 2021. <www.cbp.gov>

b) Article: “Border Patrol Tallies Record 557 Migrant Deaths on US–Mexico Border in 2021 Fiscal Year.” By Geneva Sands. CNN, October 29, 2021. <www.cnn.com>

c) Article: “Record 856 Migrants Die at Southern Border in Fiscal Year 2022: CBP.” By Griff Jenkins, Bill Melugin, and Timothy H.J. Nerozzi. Fox News, October 22, 2022. <www.foxnews.com>

NOTES:

  • As of November 11, 2022, U.S. Border Patrol has not published the data for 2021 and 2022 nor responded to Just Facts’ Freedom of Information Act request for it. Thus, Just Facts is using data provided by U.S. Border Patrol to CNN for 2021 and Fox News for 2022. See this Just Facts article for more detail.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[530] Webpage: “CBP Enforcement Statistics Fiscal Year 2022.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified August 15, 2022. <www.cbp.gov>

U.S. Border Patrol Recidivism Rates

FY 15

FY 16

FY 17

FY 18

FY 19

FY 20

FY 21

Recidivism5

14%

12%

10%

11%

7%

26%

27%

5 Recidivism refers to percentage of individuals apprehended more than one time by the Border Patrol within a fiscal year. Beginning in March FY20, USBP [U.S. Border Patrol] encounters statistics and recidivism calculations include both Title 8 Apprehensions and Title 42 Expulsions.

[531] Constructed with data from:

a) Webpage: “CBP Enforcement Statistics Fiscal Year 2022.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified October 6, 2022. <www.cbp.gov>

b) Webpage: “CBP Enforcement Statistics Fiscal Year 2018.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified November 27, 2019. <www.cbp.gov>

[532] Calculated with data from the report: “DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] Border Barrier Funding.” By William L. Painter and Audrey Singer. U.S. Congressional Research Service. Updated January 29, 2020. <www.everycrsreport.com>

Page 2 (of PDF): “There has not been an authoritative compilation of data on the level of federal investment in border barriers over time. This is in part due to the evolving structure of the appropriations for agencies charged with protecting the border… Funding was not specifically designated for border barrier construction until FY2006.”

Pages 7–8:

Table I. CBP [Customs and Border Protection]-Reported Data on Border Barrier Funding, FY2007–FY2016 … Millions of Nominal Dollars of Budget Authority … Tactical Infrastructure (TI) Program Total … Total [=] 3,034 … Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Summary of Historical Spending for TI and Wall Programs,” email attachment sent to CRS [Congressional Research Servce] November 26, 2018. … Tactical infrastructure includes roads, pedestrian and vehicle fencing, lighting, low-water crossings, bridges, drainage structures, marine ramps, and other supporting structures. It does not include ports of entry.

CBP has indicated in follow-up communications that no further historical data are available, as barrier construction was conducted by several entities within CBP, and not centrally tracked. In addition, the definitions of tactical infrastructure may allow for inclusion of some elements only peripherally related to border barriers. Taking these factors into account, given the limited mileage constructed prior to FY2007 … the above data present the best available understanding of appropriations and spending on border barriers in the 2007–2016 period.

CALCULATION: 3.034 billion spent 2007 through 2016 / 10 years = $303 million/year

[533] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Page 1:

As the agency responsible for securing U.S. borders to prevent acts of terrorism and the unlawful movement of people, illegal drugs, and other contraband across U.S. borders, CBP [Customs and Border Protection] spent approximately $2.4 billion between fiscal years 2007 and 2015 to deploy tactical infrastructure (TI)—fencing, gates, roads, bridges, lighting, and drainage infrastructure—along the nearly 2,000 mile southwest border. …

Pedestrian fencing is primarily intended to slow down and deter pedestrians from crossing the border. Vehicle fencing, which is intended to resist vehicles engaged in drug trafficking and alien smuggling operations, is typically used in rural or isolated locations that have a low occurrence of illegal pedestrian traffic.

Page 13: “Border Patrol, within CBP, is the federal agency with primary responsibility for securing the national borders by detecting, interdicting, and disrupting illegal cross-border activities between the designated U.S. land border ports of entry.”

Page 14: “Within each sector, station, and zone, Border Patrol agents’ primary mission is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, and to detect, interdict, and apprehend those who attempt to enter illegally or smuggle any person or contraband across the nation’s borders.”

Page 16:

Patrol roads and bridges are intended to facilitate the “operational mobility” FOC [Foundational Operational Capabilities] by enabling agents to efficiently traverse their areas of responsibility. Other resources that Border Patrol deploys, including surveillance technology, facilitate domain awareness, and do so by providing persistent surveillance capabilities along the border. …

From fiscal year 2007 to 2015, CBP spent approximately $2.4 billion on TI on the southwestern border—about 95 percent, or $2.3 billion was spent on constructing pedestrian and vehicle fencing.27 In addition, CBP officials reported that TI operations and maintenance requirements totaled approximately $450 million during this same period.

27 CBP officials stated CBP did not track funding for acquisition and sustainment for border fencing prior to implementation of the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

[534] Calculated with the dataset: “Table 3.2. Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures [Billions of dollars].” U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2022. <apps.bea.gov>

Year

Total Expenditures

2007

3,047.8

2008

3,384.5

2009

3,738.0

2010

3,965.3

2011

3,978.8

2012

3,902.1

2013

3,857.8

2014

3,965.0

2015

4,053.6

2016

4,201.1

Total

$38,094 †

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

CALCULATION: $3.034 billion on tactical infrastructure from 2007 through 2016 / $38,094.0 billion total federal spending from 2007 through 2016 = 0.008%

[535] Calculated with data from:

a) Report: “Southwest Border: Information on Federal Agencies’ Process for Acquiring Private Land for Barriers.” By Rebecca Gambler. U.S. Government Accountability Office, November 2020. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 38–39: “Table 7: Summary of Existing Primary Border Barriers as of October 2016, New and Replacement Primary Barriers Erected from October 2016 to June 2020, and Primary Barriers Under Construction and Proposed Along Southwest Border … Miles of Primary Pedestrian Barriersa … Total all sectors … Barriers existing as of the end of fiscal year 2016 [=] 352.5 … Barriers completed from October 2016 to June 2020 … New [=] 48.3 … a Pedestrian barriers are primarily intended to slow down and deter pedestrians from crossing the border.”

b) Webpage: “Border Wall System – Frequently Asked Questions.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified December 21, 2018. <www.cbp.gov>

“The length of the Southwest border with Mexico is approximately 1,954 miles.”

CALCULATION:

  • 352.5 + 48.3 = 400.8 miles of pedestrian barrier
  • 400.8 miles of pedestrian barrier / 1,954 miles of border = 21%

[536] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 20–21:

According to Border Patrol officials, pedestrian fencing is intended to divert illegal entrants—which include migrants and criminal organizations that engage in illicit cross-border activities—to areas of the border where agents can execute their METs [Mission Essential Tasks] and interdict illicit-cross border activities more effectively.29 Border Patrol officials told us that populated urban environments offer an advantageous setting for illegal entrants because they require only seconds to minutes to blend in with the local U.S. community after crossing the border. By constructing pedestrian fencing in more populated urban environments, Border Patrol officials stated that DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] intended to divert illicit cross-border activities into more remote or rural environments, where illegal entrants may require hours or days to reach the nearest U.S. community. For example, Border Patrol officials in the San Diego sector told us that from 1994 to present, pedestrian fencing, along with investments in manpower and surveillance technology, assisted in diverting a large share of illicit cross-border activity away from the densely populated urban areas near San Diego and into more rural and remote environments east of the city. Officials told us that these rural and remote environments east of San Diego provide an advantage to agents assigned there since they have more time to detect, identify, classify, track, respond and resolve the illicit cross-border activities that occur there. Similarly, Border Patrol officials in the Tucson sector told us that bollard pedestrian fencing in urban areas has helped divert much of the illicit cross-border activities that occurred there into more rural and remote environments where agents are better able to interdict these activities.

Agents assigned to the Nogales station—within the Tucson sector—told us that bollard pedestrian fencing has helped divert illicit cross-border activities away from the City of Nogales and into more rural and remote areas.

In addition to diverting illicit cross-border activities into more rural and remote environments, pedestrian fencing is intended to serve as a physical barrier that impedes and slows the progress of illegal entrants who attempt to cross the border, and in doing so, provides Border Patrol agents assigned to these areas additional time and opportunities to execute their METs, which include detecting, responding, and resolving illicit cross-border activities. Border Patrol agents in the El Paso sector told us that pedestrian fencing deployed in the sector’s urban border environments has assisted in improving agents’ ability to execute their METs, resulting in higher apprehension rates in these areas. These agents told us that urban border environments, such as the border between downtown El Paso from Ciudad Juarez, offer an ideal crossing point for illegal entrants because they can quickly blend in with the local U.S population, reach a safe house, or obtain transportation after crossing the border. However, these agents told us that the primary, secondary, and tertiary pedestrian fencing that separate downtown El Paso and Ciudad Juarez have been effective in slowing the progress of illegal entrants who attempt to cross in this area and providing agents with additional time to detect, respond, and resolve the illicit cross-border activities that occur there.

29 For the purposes of this report, illicit cross-border activity refers to any activity in which people or goods, such as narcotics, money, or weapons, illegally enter the United States.

[537] Calculated with data from:

a) Report: “Southwest Border: Information on Federal Agencies’ Process for Acquiring Private Land for Barriers.” By Rebecca Gambler. U.S. Government Accountability Office, November 2020. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 38–39: “Table 7: Summary of Existing Primary Border Barriers as of October 2016, New and Replacement Primary Barriers Erected from October 2016 to June 2020, and Primary Barriers Under Construction and Proposed Along Southwest Border … Miles of Primary Vehicle Barriersb … Total all sectors … Barriers existing as of the end of fiscal year 2016 [=] 298.8 … Barriers completed from October 2016 to June 2020 … New [=] — … b Vehicle barriers, which are intended to resist vehicles engaged in drug trafficking and alien smuggling operations, is typically used in rural or isolated locations that have a low occurrence of illegal pedestrian traffic.”

b) Webpage: “Border Wall System – Frequently Asked Questions.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified December 21, 2018. <www.cbp.gov>

“The length of the Southwest border with Mexico is approximately 1,954 miles.”

CALCULATION: 298.8 miles of vehicle fencing / 1,954 miles of border = 15%

[538] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Page 22:

Vehicle fencing is intended to serve as a physical barrier that slows and prevents vehicles engaged in drug trafficking and human smuggling operations from crossing the border, also known as drive throughs. Vehicle fencing is typically deployed in more rural and remote environments where criminal organizations engaged in trafficking and smuggling are more likely to use vehicles to shorten the time they are at risk of being encountered by Border Patrol agents. … Although Tucson sector officials stated vehicle fencing has been effective in slowing and prohibiting drive throughs, vehicle fencing is not designed to slow or deter illegal entrants from entering or smuggling contraband into the United States on foot.

[539] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Page 22:

Vehicle fencing is intended to serve as a physical barrier that slows and prevents vehicles engaged in drug trafficking and human smuggling operations from crossing the border, also known as drive throughs. Border Patrol officials in the El Paso and Tucson sectors told us that they experienced significant decreases in drive throughs following the deployment of vehicle fencing. Officials in the Tucson sector reported that vehicle fencing deployed improved Border Patrol agents’ ability to impede and deny the entry of large amounts of illegal narcotics transported by motorized vehicles. Officials reported that rural land tracts within the sector provided criminal organizations with large areas to traffic narcotics and engage in other illicit cross-border activities. Border Patrol officials reported that after deploying vehicle fencing in these areas, drive throughs dropped by an average of 73 percent.

[540] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 21–22:

Border Patrol officials we spoke with in the El Paso, Tucson, and San Diego sectors stated that modern pedestrian fencing, including bollard style fencing, improves agent safety during operations. Specifically, San Diego sector officials told us that modern style pedestrian fencing reduces illegal entrants’ ability to stage mass crossings, which can overwhelm agents and jeopardize agents’ safety. According to Border Patrol officials in the Tucson sector, bollard fencing has helped reduce agent assaults because this fencing provides agents with a clear line of sight into Mexico and makes it more difficult for illegal entrants to ambush agents. These officials told us that older fence designs, including landing mat fencing, obstruct agents’ line of sight into Mexico and provided illegal entrants and other individuals in Mexico with cover and the ability to conceal their location along the border. They explained that individuals on the Mexican side of the border would regularly use the landing mat fence to launch surprise assaults on agents by hurling projectiles, including rocks, from behind it. Border Patrol officials reported that after replacing legacy landing mat fencing with bollard pedestrian fencing in the Nogales station, ambushes and assaults declined. Specifically, Border Patrol officials told us they recorded 376 assaults on agents in the Nogales station in 2010 and 2011, two years prior to constructing modern bollard pedestrian fencing. In 2012 and 2013, two years following construction, assaults on agents in the Nogales station dropped to 71, a decline of 81 percent.

[541] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 11–12:

For the purposes of this report, we refer to any fencing constructed prior to Customs and Border Protection implementing requirements of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 as “legacy” fencing designs and any fencing deployed subsequently as having “modern” fencing designs. In addition, all “landing mat” fencing—constructed of army surplus carbon steel landing mats which were used to create landing strips during the Vietnam War—is considered “legacy” fencing, regardless of when it was constructed.

Page 46:

As of 2015, approximately one third (33 percent) of the nearly 2,000 mile southwest border is covered by primary pedestrian and vehicle fencing. Of the 354 miles of primary pedestrian fencing currently deployed, 82 percent (291 miles) have modern designs and 18 percent (63 miles) have legacy designs. Of the 300 miles of vehicle fencing deployed, 75 percent (225 miles) have modern designs and 25 percent (75 miles) have legacy designs.

[542] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Page 11: “Modern Bollard [Post] Style Pedestrian Fence”

[543] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Page 12: “Modern Bollard [Post] Style Vehicle Fencing”

[544] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Page 11: “Modern Double Steel Mesh Style Pedestrian Fence”

[545] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 11–12:

For the purposes of this report, we refer to any fencing constructed prior to Customs and Border Protection implementing requirements of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 as “legacy” fencing designs and any fencing deployed subsequently as having “modern” fencing designs. In addition, all “landing mat” fencing—constructed of army surplus carbon steel landing mats which were used to create landing strips during the Vietnam War—is considered “legacy” fencing, regardless of when it was constructed.

Page 46:

As of 2015, approximately one third (33 percent) of the nearly 2,000 mile southwest border is covered by primary pedestrian and vehicle fencing. Of the 354 miles of primary pedestrian fencing currently deployed, 82 percent (291 miles) have modern designs and 18 percent (63 miles) have legacy designs. Of the 300 miles of vehicle fencing deployed, 75 percent (225 miles) have modern designs and 25 percent (75 miles) have legacy designs.

[546] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Page 11: “Legacy Landing Mat Style Pedestrian Fence”

[547] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Page 11: “Legacy Expanded Metal Style Pedestrian Fence”

[548] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 43–44:

For example, according to Border Patrol officials, entrants in some border zones may be apprehended before reaching any border fencing in zones where primary border fencing is not located on the border. In the Rio Grande sector, for example, about 30 percent of all primary border fencing miles in the sector are located more than half a mile from the border. In other cases, entrants may make no attempt to evade Border Patrol, choosing to turn themselves in to Border Patrol agents, according to officials. For example, according to CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] officials, while the Rio Grande Valley sector had an apprehension rate of 56 percent in fiscal years 2013 through 2015, in fiscal year 2014 the sector experienced a spike in illegal entries consisting largely of unaccompanied children and adults with children, many of whom turned themselves in to Border Patrol agents without attempting to evade security or defeat fencing.

[549] Report: “Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, Updated September 1, 2021. <crsreports.congress.gov>

Page 1:

Unaccompanied alien1 children … are defined in statute as children who

• lack lawful immigration status in the United States,2

• are under the age of 18, and

• are without eithera parent or legal guardian in the United States, or a parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to provide care and physical custody.3

Most unaccompanied children are apprehended between U.S. ports of entry (POEs) along the southwestern border with Mexico. Apprehensions are made by the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s), Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Less frequently, unaccompanied children are deemed inadmissible at U.S. POEs along the border by CBP’s Office of Field Operations or apprehended in the interior of the country by DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).4

Page 6:

The TVPRA [William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008] set forth special rules for UAC [unaccompanied children] from contiguous countries (i.e., Mexico and Canada), requiring that they be screened for evidence of human trafficking within 48 hours of apprehension. It mandated that unaccompanied children determined not to be human trafficking victims or not to have a fear of returning to their home country or country of last habitual residence be returned to their countries without additional penalties. It also required the Secretary of State to negotiate agreements with Mexico and Canada to manage UAC repatriation.

The TVPRA mandated that unaccompanied children from noncontiguous countries—as well as UAC from contiguous countries apprehended at the border and determined to be human trafficking victims or to have a fear of returning to their home country or country of last habitual residence, or who are apprehended away from the border—be transferred to the care and custody of ORR and placed in standard removal proceedings.

Page 11: “ORR [Office of Refugee Resettlement Program] arranges to house the unaccompanied child within its network of shelters while seeking to place him or her with a sponsor, usually a family member. According to ORR, the majority of the youth are cared for initially through a network of about 200 state-licensed shelters in 22 states.67

Page 12:

ORR shelter personnel facilitate the release of UAC to family members or other sponsors who are able to care for them.71 The Flores Agreement outlines the following preference ranking for sponsor types: (1) a parent; (2) a legal guardian; (3) an adult relative; (4) an adult individual or entity designated by the child’s parent or legal guardian; (5) a licensed program willing to accept legal custody; or (6) an adult or entity approved by ORR.72 Removal proceedings initiated by CBP continue following an unaccompanied child’s placement with a sponsor. …

In the first six months of FY2021, 91% of discharged UAC were released by ORR to a sponsoring family member. (Of this group, 46% were parents or legal guardians, and 45% were other close relatives.) About 9% of discharged UAC were released to other sponsors, such as distant relatives and unrelated adult individuals.

Pages 34–35:

Some suggest that the Biden Administration’s exemption of unaccompanied children from Title 42 and its continued use for family units may have inadvertently increased UAC apprehensions by prompting some parents to self-separate from their minor children who could then migrate to the U.S. border and seek asylum as unaccompanied children.232 Other critics of the Biden Administration’s response to the surge characterize some of its policies toward unaccompanied children—particularly the CAM [Central American Minors Refugee and Parole] program and ORR covering airfare expenses to reunite some unaccompanied children with their sponsors—as effectively completing the smuggling loop initiated by children’s parents.233

[550] Hearing: “An Administration Made Disaster: South Texas Border Surge of Unaccompanied Alien Minors.” U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, June 25, 2014. <www.govinfo.gov>

Statement by Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118 of the American Federation of Government Employees. Pages 27–35 (of PDF).

Page 32 (of PDF):

By way of vans, buses, charter flights and commercial aircraft, ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers are transferring hundreds of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC), family units and adult aliens out of the Rio Grande Valley every day of the week to points all across the nation. Without ICE agents and officers performing their critical border security mission every day for the last year, border operations in the Rio Grande Valley would have quickly broken down. In speaking with our officers assigned to ICE Air Operations, ICE’s air transportation arm, air transports have been so heavily used during the crisis that two additional planes have already been leased, and still more could be utilized. Taking up the slack from ICE Air Operations transport planes, 60 to 120 ICE officers from around the nation board commercial aircraft everyday escorting small groups of UACs for placement with the Office of Refugee Resettlement/Division of Child Services (ORR/DCS). ICE officers around the nation are under orders to be packed for overnight travel and ready to respond at any time day or night—and responding they are. Contrary to some reports, ICE officers and agents are taking custody of UACs from the Border Patrol, not ORR, and transporting these UACs to ORR placement locations throughout the nation. From the border areas of the Rio Grande Valley, El Paso and Arizona, to areas on the interior like Chicago, Seattle and Newark; ICE agents and officers are scrambling to process, transport and provide detention space in response to this crisis and support Border Patrol operations.

Pages 33–34 (of PDF):

Ironically, as ICE ERO [Enforcement and Removal Operations] and the Border Patrol spend millions of dollars and shift resources from vital programs to process family units and UACs, it is unlikely that a significant number of these illegal entrants will be removed from the United States unless changes are made to current immigration policy. Without removals it is doubtful that the influx of those illegally entering the U.S. will subside any time soon.

[551] Hearing: “An Administration Made Disaster: South Texas Border Surge of Unaccompanied Alien Minors.” U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, June 25, 2014. <www.govinfo.gov>

Testimony of Thomas Homan, Executive Associate Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations:

Page 131 (of PDF):

I can say that every unaccompanied child and every family unit member our surge [are served] with NTAs [Notices to Appear] and scheduled to be put in front of an immigration judge, so that they have their proceedings scheduled, but it’s years out. There’s a lack of immigration judges and some of these hearings take years.

Page 132 (of PDF):

… when we looked at all the unaccompanied alien children that were—NTAs were filed with immigration court in the last five years, 87 percent of them are still in proceedings. We have no final orders [for removal].

[552] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Page 30:

In addition, Border Patrol officials in the El Paso sector stated that while CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] provides routine maintenance and repair services to the primary legacy pedestrian fencing in Sunland Park, New Mexico, significant weather events have eroded the foundation of the fencing. In addition, the erosion in the area has caused damage to nearby roads used by agents to conduct border security operations. Sector officials identified, and we observed, primary legacy pedestrian fencing that leans toward Mexican territory and that required additional support to prevent the fencing from collapsing. Sector officials noted that that due to the erosion and terrain in the area, they have been limited in their repair efforts. See figure 9.

Page 31:

Figure 9: Legacy Pedestrian Fencing in Sunland Park, New Mexico, March 2016

In addition, sector officials identified, and we observed, other primary legacy pedestrian fencing in Sunland Park, New Mexico, where debris had accumulated on the Mexican side of the border, reducing the overall height of the fencing to approximately two feet in certain areas. Officials told us that the fencing is located three feet from the official U.S. border and that conducting maintenance on the fencing would require debris removal machinery that would encroach into Mexican territory. See figure 10.

Page 32:

Sector officials stated that the condition of the fencing in Sunland Park, New Mexico, negatively affects border security operations due to its proximity to populated urban areas on both sides of the border, among other factors. Border Patrol officials in the El Paso sector stated that the degraded fencing is located approximately one quarter of a mile from an urban area on the U.S. side of the border where illegal entrants can quickly obtain transportation and blend in with the local U.S. population. While in general, agents stated they have seconds to minutes to interdict illegal entrants in urban areas, sector officials and agents stated that the condition of the fencing reduces the time agents have to interdict illicit cross-border activity because the degraded fencing does not slow down the progress of illegal entrants. As a result, sector officials stated the sector deploys additional manpower in the area in order to conduct effective border security operations.

Page 33:

To address degraded legacy pedestrian fencing, CBP is replacing this fencing with more modern, bollard style fencing. For example, in fiscal year 2015, CBP began the process of replacing 1.4 miles of existing primary pedestrian fencing in Sunland Park, New Mexico—within the El Paso sector—with new bollard style pedestrian fencing. The fence replacement project also entails constructing a widened and elevated patrol road adjacent to the fence and the installation of culverts designed to mitigate the effects of severe weather events in the area. CBP estimates the fence replacement project will cost approximately $13.41 million with a planned completion date in May 2017.35 In addition, in fiscal year 2016, CBP began removing and replacing an estimated 7.5 miles of legacy primary pedestrian fencing with modern bollard style fencing in Naco, Arizona, within the Tucson sector. CBP estimates this fence replacement project will cost $44.7 million, at an estimated cost of approximately $6 million per mile of replacement fencing.

[553] Report: “DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] Border Barrier Funding.” By William L. Painter and Audrey Singer. U.S. Congressional Research Service. Updated January 29, 2020. <www.everycrsreport.com>

Page 10: “In the FY2018 appropriations measure, Congress provided … $251 million for secondary replacement fencing in San Diego sector; $445 million for replacement of existing primary pedestrian fencing….”

Page 14: “To briefly recap the funding that has been provided by Congress in response to the Trump Administration’s initiative … $1.04 billion was specifically directed to barrier replacement projects….”

[554] Calculated with data from the article: “Trump’s Border Wall Has Been Breached More Than 3,000 Times, CBP Records Show.” By Nick Miroff. Washington Post, March 2, 2022. <www.washingtonpost.com>

Mexican smuggling gangs have sawed through new segments of border wall 3,272 times over the past three years, according to unpublished U.S. Customs and Border Protection maintenance records obtained by The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act.

The government spent $2.6 million to repair the breaches during the 2019 to 2021 fiscal years, the CBP records show.

CALCULATION: $2.6 million / 3,272 holes = $795 per hole

[555] Calculated with data from the report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 22–23:

In addition to citing the benefits of pedestrian and vehicle fencing, Border Patrol officials and agents also identified the various methods used by illegal entrants to exploit border fencing’s limitations in their attempts to defeat it. Agents we spoke with in the El Paso and Tucson sectors explained that one of the most common methods employed by illegal entrants involves cutting openings, or breaches, in pedestrian and vehicle fencing. Once breached, illegal entrants can cross through the fence or smuggle people and contraband into the United States. Between fiscal years 2010 and 2015, CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] recorded a total of 9,287 breaches in pedestrian fencing.

Page 29: “From fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015 CBP recorded a total of 9,287 breaches in pedestrian fencing at an average cost of $784 per breach to repair. Figure 8 shows an example of a fence breach and subsequent repair.”

CALCULATION: 9,287 breaches from 2010 through 2015 / 6 years = 1,548/year

[556] Calculated with data from the report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 22–23:

In addition to citing the benefits of pedestrian and vehicle fencing, Border Patrol officials and agents also identified the various methods used by illegal entrants to exploit border fencing’s limitations in their attempts to defeat it. Agents we spoke with in the El Paso and Tucson sectors explained that one of the most common methods employed by illegal entrants involves cutting openings, or breaches, in pedestrian and vehicle fencing. Once breached, illegal entrants can cross through the fence or smuggle people and contraband into the United States. Between fiscal years 2010 and 2015, CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] recorded a total of 9,287 breaches in pedestrian fencing.

Page 29: “From fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015 CBP recorded a total of 9,287 breaches in pedestrian fencing at an average cost of $784 per breach to repair. Figure 8 shows an example of a fence breach and subsequent repair.”

CALCULATION: 9,287 breaches from 2010 through 2015 / 6 years = 1,548/year

[557] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Page 23: “Between fiscal years 2010 and 2015, CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] recorded a total of 9,287 breaches in pedestrian fencing. According to our analysis of these data, illegal entrants breached legacy pedestrian fencing at an average rate of 82 breaches per fence mile, compared to an average of 14 breaches per fence mile of modern pedestrian fencing.”

[558] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Page 23:

Agents we spoke with in these sectors also described witnessing illegal entrants defeating border fencing through other methods. For example, agents we spoke with in the Tucson sector told us they have witnessed illegal entrants attempting to use ramps to drive vehicles up and over vehicle fencing in the sector as well as burrowing under legacy pedestrian fencing, as shown in figure 7. In addition, agents in the Tucson sector stated that illegal entrants scale the taller pedestrian fencing designs, such as bollard [post] fencing. In contrast, agents we spoke with in the San Diego sector stated that some segments of legacy fencing are low and that they have witnessed illegal entrants jumping over the fence. Other methods used to defeat border fencing described to us by Border Patrol agents include using small aircraft to transport contraband over pedestrian fencing and into the United States and building subterranean tunnels from Mexico into the United States.31

31 We have ongoing work on selected smuggling threats along the southwest border, which include subterranean, aerial, and maritime methods used to smuggle contraband into the United States. We plan to report on the results of our work in 2017.

[559] Article: “Hopping the Wall Into Trump’s US, in Under 2 Minutes.” Agence France-Presse, April 6, 2018. <www.yahoo.com>

“With the help of three other men—two to give him a boost and one to stand as a lookout—the young man jumped the rusty metal barrier that separates Ciudad Juarez from Sunland Park, New Mexico. The whole operation took less than two minutes.”

[560] Report: “Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 43–44:

For example, at the sector level, the data displayed in the following profiles show differences in estimated known illegal entries, turn backs and got aways, and estimated apprehension rates for border zones with the same types and design of fencing, indicating that other factors affected the number of known illegal entries and apprehension rates recorded in those zones. In fiscal years 2013 through 2015, for example, agents in the Yuma sector had an apprehension rate of 81 percent in border zones that were completely covered by modern pedestrian fencing, while agents in the El Paso sector had an apprehension rate of 17 percent in border zones that were completely covered by modern pedestrian fencing. Within the Tucson sector, agents recorded 169 known drive throughs in border zones with vehicle fencing, whereas in the El Centro sector, agents recorded 25 drive throughs in border zones with vehicle fencing. Furthermore, despite no change in the miles of primary pedestrian fencing on the southwest border between fiscal years 2011–2015, total southwest border apprehensions ranged from approximately 328,000 to 479,000.

Other factors, including terrain, geography, demographics, Border Patrol agent manpower, and surveillance technology along the southwest border, may affect the location of illegal entries and agents’ ability to predict, detect, identify, classify, track, respond, and resolve illicit cross-border activities. For example, according to Border Patrol officials, entrants in some border zones may be apprehended before reaching any border fencing in zones where primary border fencing is not located on the border. In the Rio Grande sector, for example, about 30 percent of all primary border fencing miles in the sector are located more than half a mile from the border. In other cases, entrants may make no attempt to evade Border Patrol, choosing to turn themselves in to Border Patrol agents, according to officials. For example, according to CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] officials, while the Rio Grande Valley sector had an apprehension rate of 56 percent in fiscal years 2013 through 2015, in fiscal year 2014 the sector experienced a spike in illegal entries consisting largely of unaccompanied children and adults with children, many of whom turned themselves in to Border Patrol agents without attempting to evade security or defeat fencing.

[561] Proclamation: “Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, February 15, 2019. <www.govinfo.gov>

The current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency. The southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics. The problem of large-scale unlawful migration through the southern border is long-standing, and despite the executive branch’s exercise of existing statutory authorities, the situation has worsened in certain respects in recent years. In particular, recent years have seen sharp increases in the number of family units entering and seeking entry to the United States and an inability to provide detention space for many of these aliens while their removal proceedings are pending. If not detained, such aliens are often released into the country and are often difficult to remove from the United States because they fail to appear for hearings, do not comply with orders of removal, or are otherwise difficult to locate. In response to the directive in my April 4, 2018, memorandum and subsequent requests for support by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense has provided support and resources to the Department of Homeland Security at the southern border. Because of the gravity of the current emergency situation, it is necessary for the Armed Forces to provide additional support to address the crisis.

Now, Therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States, and that section 12302 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretaries of the military departments concerned, subject to the direction of the Secretary of Defense in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense to support the Federal Government’s response to the emergency at the southern border, I hereby declare that this emergency requires use of the Armed Forces and, in accordance with section 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), that the construction authority provided in section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary of Defense and, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretaries of the military departments. I hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. The Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of each relevant military department, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, shall order as many units or members of the Ready Reserve to active duty as the Secretary concerned, in the Secretary’s discretion, determines to be appropriate to assist and support the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security at the southern border.

Sec. 2. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and, subject to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the military departments, shall take all appropriate actions, consistent with applicable law, to use or support the use of the authorities herein invoked, including, if necessary, the transfer and acceptance of jurisdiction over border lands.

Sec. 3. This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-third.

Donald J. Trump

[562] Report: “The Funds Available to Address the National Emergency at Our Border.” White House, February 26, 2019. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

Legal Justification: President Donald J. Trump is clearly justified in declaring a national emergency and utilizing other statutory authorities to address the crisis at our border. …

• Separate from the national emergency, the President invoked two other statutory authorities to direct needed funds to the border.

◦ Congress expressly authorized the military to support Federal agencies in blocking drug-smuggling corridors across international boundaries, using 10 U.S.C. § 284(b).

◦ Under 10 U.S.C. § 284(b)(7), the United States military may construct “fences and road and [install] lighting … to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States” upon request from the responsible agency.

• DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] has requested that DOD [U.S. Department of Defense] use this counterdrug authority to construct fencing and roads and to install lighting in high-priority drug-smuggling corridors.

• To devote additional resources to such construction, DOD will augment existing counterdrug funds by transferring up to $2.5 billion from other DOD accounts.

• DOD’s transfer authority is provided in section 8005 of the FY19 DOD appropriations act.

• In past years, DOD has relied upon its general transfer authority to reallocate up to $4 billion from within the DOD budget.

• Under 31 U.S.C. § 9705(g)(4)(B), the Secretary of the Treasury may provide money from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to other agencies for use “in connection with the law enforcement activities of any Federal agency.”

◦ Treasury has identified about $601 million that will be made available to DHS for use in law enforcement border security efforts. …

Funding Sources: President Trump is using funds appropriated by Congress, funds reallocated under statutory authority, and funds available when a national emergency is declared.

• Nearly $8.1 billion has been identified as available, including:

◦ $1.375 billion appropriated by Congress

◦ $3.1 billion under other statutory authorities

◦ $3.6 billion in military construction funds available under a national emergency

• These funding sources will be used sequentially and as needed, with the $1.375 from appropriated funds used first, then the $3.1 billion from other statutory authorities, then the $3.6 billion from military construction.

• Only $3.6 billion of the nearly $8.1 billion is dependent on the President’s declaration of a national emergency.

• Under the President’s non-emergency statutory authority, $3.1 billion is available.

◦ $601 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund will be made available to support border security.

• The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to use funds in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund not reserved for other purposes to support law enforcement activities.

• The $601 million will be available in two allocations, $242 million available immediately and $359 million from future anticipated forfeitures.

◦ Up to $2.5 billion will be made available from DOD funds transferred to its FY 2019 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities account.

• This construction to support counterdrug activities will be used on land already owned by the Federal Government.

• Based on the President’s national emergency declaration, DOD is authorized to undertake certain military construction projects using up to $3.6 billion in unobligated military construction funding.

◦ DOD will ensure that high-priority projects with national security implications remain funded. Family housing projects will remain funded.

◦ The Administration will ask Congress for new military construction funding for the existing projects affected by this, so that no projects will be canceled—only delayed.

How Funds Can Be Used: These funds will be available to help secure the border and protect the safety and well-being of our country.

• The potential projects that could be built using these funds include:

◦ Constructing new, 18 to 30 foot high steel primary pedestrian barriers in various areas.

◦ Replacing outdated pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers with modern, 18 to 30 foot high steel barrier.

◦ Constructing new secondary barriers to provide a patrol zone in between the secondary and primary barriers.

[563] Complaint: U.S. House of Representatives v. Steven T. Mnuchin. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 5, 2019. <www.courtlistener.com>

Pages 43–44:

Wherefore, the House respectfully prays that this Court:

A. Enter declaratory relief as follows:

(i) With respect to Count I, declare that defendants’ transfer of $1 billion on March 25, 2019 and any subsequent transfers under section 8005 of the 2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act for purposes of constructing a border wall under 10 U.S.C. § 284 or the expenditure of funds under section 284 in excess of Congressional appropriations violates Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution;

[564] Complaint: State of California v. Donald J. Trump. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, February 18, 2019. <www.courtlistener.com>

Page 3:

The States of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Attorney General Dana Nessel on behalf of the People of Michigan (collectively, “Plaintiff States”), bring this action to protect their residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution. Contrary to the will of Congress, the President has used the pretext of a manufactured “crisis” of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction, and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States–Mexico border. This includes the diversion of funding that each of the Plaintiff States receive. Defendants must be enjoined from carrying out President Trump’s unconstitutional and unlawful scheme.

[565] Complaint: El Paso County, Texas, and Border Network for Human Rights v. Donald J. Trump. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, April 25, 2019. <www.courthousenews.com>

Page 2:

Plaintiffs El Paso County, Texas, and Border Network for Human Rights, Inc. (“BNHR”), bring this action seeking relief from Defendants’ unlawful conduct in declaring a national emergency and violating laws of Congress limiting funding for barriers at the United States-Mexico border (the “southern border”). Plaintiffs ask this Court to provide redress by declaring that the President’s actions are unauthorized by, and contrary to, the Constitution and laws of the United States, and by enjoining the Secretaries of Defense, Interior, Homeland Security, and the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, from taking any action pursuant to or arising out of the President’s Proclamation of February 15, 2019, on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States (the “Proclamation”).1

[566] Complaint: Sierra Club and Southern Communities Coalition v. Donald J. Trump. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, February 19, 2019. <www.courtlistener.com>

Page 29:

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:

(A) Declare the President’s direction that the Defense Department reallocate funds to support construction of a border wall under 10 U.S.C. § 2808 to be ultra vires, in excess of presidential authority under Article II of the Constitution, an infringement on legislative authority, a violation of the Presentment Clause, and invalid;

(B) Enjoin Defendants Shanahan, Nielsen, and Mnuchin from taking action to build a border wall using funds from the Defense Department or Treasury Asset Forfeiture Fund, or on any basis that depends on the President’s unlawful emergency declaration;

[567] Ruling: Sierra Club v. Donald J. Trump. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, May 24, 2019. <www.courtlistener.com>

Pages 55–56:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby Grants in Part and Denies in Part Without Prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The terms of the injunction are as follows23: Defendants Patrick M. Shanahan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Defense, Kevin K. McAleenan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Steven T. Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, and all persons acting under their direction, are enjoined from taking any action to construct a border barrier in the areas Defendants have identified as Yuma Sector Project 1 and El Paso Sector Project 1 using funds reprogrammed by DoD [U.S. Department of Defense] under Section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019. …

It Is So Ordered.

Dated 5/24/2019

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

United States District Judge

[568] Ruling: El Paso County, Texas, and Border Network for Human Rights v. Donald J. Trump. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, December 10, 2019. <www.courtlistener.com>

Pages 20–21:

After succeeding on the merits of their claim at summary judgment, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment against the agency head Defendants’ unlawful attempt to augment the CAA [Continuing Appropriations Act] funds with § 2808 funds above the appropriated $1.375 billion. Far from conflicting with the Supreme Court’s decision in Sierra Club, this Court’s decision is not based on whether the DOD [Department of Defense] Secretary exceeded his statutory authority under § 284 and, indeed, the Court deemed Plaintiffs’ argument relying on this line of reasoning invalid. Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable harm, an inability of traditional remedies at law to rectify that harm, and the balance of the equities and public interest weigh in their favor, they are entitled to a permanent injunction against Defendants’ use of § 2808 funds for border barrier construction.

It Is Hereby Ordered that a Declaratory Judgment Issue declaring the Proclamation 9844 of February 15, 2019 … Unlawful to the extent it authorizes agency head Defendants Mark T. Esper, Chad F. Wolf, Todd T. Semonite, David Bernhardt, and Steven T. Mnuchin to use § 2808 funds beyond the $1.375 billion in the 2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act for border wall construction.

It Is Finally Ordered that agency head Defendants Mark T. Esper, Chad F. Wolf, Todd T. Semonite, David Bernhardt, and Steven T. Mnuchin are Permanently Enjoined from using § 2808 funds beyond the $1.375 billion in the 2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act for border wall construction.

Signed this 10th day of December 2019.

The Honorable David Briones

Senior United States District Judge

[569] Ruling: El Paso County, Texas, and Border Network for Human Rights v. Donald J. Trump. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, January 8, 2020. Decided 2–1. Majority: Jones, Oldham. Dissenting: Higginson. <www.documentcloud.org>

Pages 1–3:

Per Curiam:

The application for a stay of the district court’s injunction pending appeal is Granted. The Supreme Court recently stayed a similar injunction from our sister circuit. See Trump v. Sierra Club…. The Government is entitled to the same relief here for, among other reasons, the substantial likelihood that Appellees lack Article III standing.

It Is Further Ordered that Appellees’ motion to expedite appeal is Denied.

It Is Further Ordered that Appellees’ motion for oral argument to be scheduled no later than March 2020 is Denied.

It Is Further Ordered that the unopposed motion for leave to file Amicus Curiae brief of United States Representative Andy Barr in support of Appellants’ motion for stay pending appeal of order granting injunction is Granted.

It Is Further Ordered that the unopposed motion for leave to file Amicus Curiae brief of Government Oversight, Incorporated, Christopher Shays, Christine Todd Whitman, John Bellinger III, Samuel Witten, Stanley Twardy, and Richard Bernstein in opposition to Appellants’ motion for stay pending appeal of order granting injunction is Granted.

Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

Although I agree with my colleagues that this matter presents “a substantial case on the merits” and involves a “serious legal question” … I am unable to agree, without focused panel deliberation and discussion—possibly aided by dialogue with counsel—that the government presently has shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm in the absence of a stay…. Therefore, I dissent.

Regardless, I would expedite merits assessment by our court. The district court’s analysis is comprehensive and probing, granting parsed relief enjoining the Department of Defense from using funds under 10 U.S.C. § 2808 while simultaneously declining to enjoin the use of border-construction funds under 10 U.S.C. § 284. El Paso County v. Trump …That ruling implicates several weighty issues that animate my desire to expedite. These include threshold jurisdictional issues of county and organizational standing; merits issues implicating Executive military authority and Congress’s prohibitory Spending Clause authority; the Ninth Circuit’s recent denial of a motion to lift a stay of a “substantially similar injunction” … and the Supreme Court’s stay of a related but distinct injunction in Trump v. Sierra Club…. Amici have already entered the case, demonstrating the importance of the issues. This constellation of sensitive and complex legal questions, all in the context of a nationwide injunction, warrant expediting the appeal for prompt consideration of the merits.

[570] Ruling: State of California v. Donald J. Trump. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, December 11, 2019. <www.courthousenews.com>

Pages 46–47:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court Grants in Part and Denies in Part Plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment and Denies Defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment. Specifically, the Court Grants Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment that Defendants’ intended use of military construction funds under Section 2808 for the eleven border barrier construction projects that the Secretary of Defense identified as Yuma Project 2; Yuma Project 10/27; Yuma Project 3; Yuma Project 6; San Diego Project 4; San Diego Project 11; El Paso Project 2; El Paso Project 8; Laredo Project 5; Laredo Project 7; El Centro Project 5; and El Centro Project 9, is unlawful. … The Court Denies Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief concerning Defendants’ (1) invocation of Section 2808 beyond these projects; (2) reliance on Section 2808 to excuse them from complying with NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] as to the eleven proposed projects; and (3) decision to defer outstanding military construction projects.

The terms of the permanent injunction are as follows: Defendants Mark T. Esper, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; and Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security (collectively, “Defendants”), and all persons acting under their direction, are permanently enjoined from using military construction funds appropriated for other purposes to build a border wall in the areas Defendants have identified as Yuma Project 2; Yuma Project 10/27; Yuma Project 3; Yuma Project 6; San Diego Project 4; San Diego Project 11; El Paso Project 2; El Paso Project 8; Laredo Project 5; Laredo Project 7; El Centro Project 5; and El Centro Project 9. Nevertheless, as discussed in Section IV above, the Court exercises its discretion to Stay the permanent injunction pending appeal.

The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants with respect to Defendants’ purported reliance on Section 2808 to fund border barrier construction. This judgment will be certified for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

It Is So Ordered.

Dated: 12/11/2019

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

United States District Judge

[571] Ruling: U.S. House of Representatives v. Steven T. Mnuchin. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, June 3, 2019. <www.courtlistener.com>

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the pleadings, the memoranda and oral arguments in opposition and in support, the briefs by amici curiae, and the relevant law, it is hereby

Ordered that the Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is Denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

So Ordered.

This is a final, appealable Order.

Dated: June 3, 2019

Trevor N. McFadden

United States District Judge

[572] Ruling: Sierra Club v. Donald J. Trump. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, July 3, 2019. Decided 2–1. Majority: Clifton, Friedland. Dissenting: Smith. <cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov>

Pages 2–4:

The panel denied a motion for an emergency stay of the district court’s permanent injunction in favor of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition (“Plaintiffs”), enjoining the use of reprogrammed federal funds to construct a border barrier in certain locations on the United States’ southern border.

This emergency proceeding arose from Plaintiffs’ challenge to a decision by the President and certain cabinet members (“Defendants”) to reprogram funds appropriated by Congress to the Department of Defense (“DoD”) for Army personnel needs and to redirect those funds toward building a barrier along portions of our country’s southern border. DoD relied on section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2019 and related provisions to reprogram approximately $2.5 billion from DoD to the Department of Homeland Security.

The panel first concluded that it was appropriate for this action to proceed in federal court.

The panel decided whether to issue a stay by considering the four factors reiterated by the Supreme Court in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009). The panel proceeded to evaluate the merits more fully than in a normal stay case because many of the issues in the case might become moot or largely moot before fuller litigation of the appeal could be completed.

The panel held that Defendants were not likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. The panel rejected Defendants’ assertion that section 8005 of the Appropriations Act authorized DoD to reprogram the funds at issue. The panel held that the requirements of section 8005 were not met because the need for which the funds were reprogrammed was not unforeseen, and it was an item for which funds were previously denied by Congress. The panel held that the use of those funds violated constitutional requirements that the Executive Branch not spend money absent any appropriation from Congress.

The panel rejected Defendants’ contention that Plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail because they lacked a cause of action through which to challenge the reprogramming. The panel held that Plaintiffs either have an equitable cause of action to enjoin a constitutional violation, or they could proceed on their constitutional claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, or both. The panel also held that to the extent any zone of interests test were to apply to Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, it would be satisfied here.

The panel held that there was a strong likelihood that Plaintiffs would prevail on the merits, and Defendants had a correspondingly low likelihood of success on appeal. The panel further held that the public interest was best served by respecting the Constitution’s assignment of the power of the purse to Congress, and by deferring to Congress’s understanding of the public interest as reflected in its repeated denial of more funding for border barrier construction. The panel concluded that a stay of the district court’s order granting Plaintiffs an injunction was not warranted.

Dissenting, Judge N.R. Smith would hold that Defendants have more than demonstrated a substantial case on the merits, and the panel should exercise its discretion and issue a stay pending the appeal of the district court’s permanent injunction.

[573] Ruling: Donald J. Trump v. Sierra Club. U.S. Supreme Court, July 26, 2019. Decided 5–4. Majority: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. Dissenting: Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer. <www.supremecourt.gov>

The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Section 8005. The District Court’s June 28, 2019 order granting a permanent injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.

Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application.

Justice Breyer, concurring in part and dissenting in part from grant of stay.

To warrant this stay, the Government must show not just (1) a reasonable probability that the Court will grant certiorari and (2) a fair prospect that the Court will reverse, but also (3) “ ‘a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.’ ” … This case raises novel and important questions about the ability of private parties to enforce Congress’ appropriations power. I would express no other view now on the merits of those questions.

Before granting a stay, however, we must still assess the competing claims of harm and balance the equities. … This Court may, and sometimes does, “tailor a stay so that it operates with respect to only ‘some portion of the proceeding.’ ” … In my view, this is an appropriate case to do so.

If we grant the stay, the Government may begin construction of a border barrier that would cause irreparable harm to the environment and to respondents, according to both respondents and the District Court. The Government’s only response to this claim of irreparable harm is that, if respondents ultimately prevail, the border barrier may be taken down (with what funding, the Government does not say). But this is little comfort because it is not just the barrier, but the construction itself (and presumably its later destruction) that contributes to respondents’ injury.

If we instead deny the stay, however, it is the Government that may be irreparably harmed. The Government has represented that, if it is unable to finalize the contracts by September 30, then the funds at issue will be returned to the Treasury and the injunction will have operated, in effect, as a final judgment. Respondents suggest a court could still award the Government relief after an appropriation lapses, though that proposition has yet to be endorsed by this Court.

But there is a straightforward way to avoid harm to both the Government and respondents while allowing the litigation to proceed. Allowing the Government to finalize the contracts at issue, but not to begin construction, would alleviate the most pressing harm claimed by the Government without risking irreparable harm to respondents. Respondents do not suggest that they will be harmed by finalization of the contracts alone, and there is reason to believe they would not be. See, such as 36 Opinion of Office of Legal Counsel 11 (2012) (noting that, because of the Anti-Deficiency Act, “the government [is] legally incapable of incurring a contractual obligation to pay more money than Congress had appropriated”)….

I can therefore find no justification for granting the stay in full, as the majority does. I would grant the Government’s application to stay the injunction only to the extent that the injunction prevents the Government from finalizing the contracts or taking other preparatory administrative action, but leave it in place insofar as it precludes the Government from disbursing those funds or beginning construction. I accordingly would grant the stay in part and deny it in part.

[574] Ruling: Sierra Club v. Donald J. Trump. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, June 26, 2020. Decided 2–1. Majority: Thomas, Wardlaw. Dissenting: Collins. <cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov>

Majority:

Sierra Club’s thousands of members live near and frequently visit these areas along the U.S.–Mexico border for hiking, birdwatching, photography, and other professional, scientific, recreational, and aesthetic activities. They obtain recreational, professional, scientific, educational, and aesthetic benefits from their activities in these areas, and from the wildlife dependent upon the habitat in these areas. The construction of a border wall and related infrastructure will acutely injure these interests because DHS [Department of Homeland Security] is proceeding with border wall construction without ensuring compliance with any federal or state environmental regulations designed to protect these interests. …

… The Federal Defendants could not build the border wall projects challenged by Sierra Club without invoking Section 8005’s transfer authority—without this authority, there was no money to build these portions of the border wall; therefore, construction is fairly traceable to the Section 8005 transfers.

The injury to Sierra Club members … is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. A judicial order prohibiting the Federal Defendants from spending the money transferred pursuant to Section 8005 would stop construction, thereby preventing the harm alleged by Plaintiffs. …

First, we consider whether Section 8005 or any constitutional provision \authorized DoD to transfer the funds at issue. We hold they did not. …

Section 8005 provides DoD with limited authority to transfer funds between different appropriations accounts, but it provides no such authority “unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress.” … [W]e hold that Section 8005 did not authorize the transfer of funds at issue here because “the border wall was not an unforeseen military requirement,” and “funding for the wall had been denied by Congress.” …

Here, the Executive Branch lacked independent constitutional authority to authorize the transfer of funds. These funds were appropriated for other purposes, and the transfer amounted to “drawing funds from the Treasury without authorization by statute and thus violating the Appropriations Clause.” …

Therefore, the transfer of funds here was unlawful. …

The balance of interests does not so starkly favor the Federal Defendants here. Although they allege that the injunction “frustrates the government’s ability to stop the flow of drugs across the border” … the Federal Defendants have failed to demonstrate that construction of the border wall would serve this purpose, or alternatively, that an injunction would inhibit this purpose. The Federal Defendants cite drug trafficking statistics, but fail to address how the construction of additional physical barriers would further the interdiction of drugs. …

The Supreme Court stay order suggests that Sierra Club may not be a proper challenger here. … We heed the words of the Court, and carefully analyze Sierra Club’s arguments. Having done so, we conclude that Sierra Club has both a constitutional and an ultra vires cause of action. …

… We also decline to reverse the district court’s decision to impose a permanent injunction.

[575] Motion: Biden v. Sierra Club. U.S. Supreme Court, February 1, 2021. <www.supremecourt.gov>

Motion of the Petitioners to Hold the Briefing Schedule in Abeyance and to Remove the Case From the February 2021 Argument Calendar …

Pursuant to … Rules of this Court … President Joseph R. Biden Jr., et al., provides this notice of a recent Proclamation by the President affecting this case, and respectfully moves to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance and to remove this case from the February 2021 argument calendar. …

On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued a Proclamation declaring that “[i]t shall be the policy of [his] Administration that no more American taxpayer dollars be diverted to construct a border wall.” …

The President directed that the pause in construction required by the Proclamation be used to undertake an “assessment of the legality of the funding and contracting methods used to construct the wall” and of “the administrative and contractual consequences of ceasing each wall construction project.” …

We have consulted with counsel for respondents, who have informed us that in light of the current circumstances, respondents consent to petitioners’ request to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance and to remove the case from the February 2021 argument calendar, without prejudice to either side requesting to have the case recalendared should the matter not be resolved.

[576] Proclamation: “Termination of Emergency with Respect to the Southern Border of the United States and Redirection of Funds Diverted to Border Wall Construction.” By Joseph R. Biden. White House, January 20, 2021. <www.govinfo.gov>

Now, Therefore, I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), hereby declare that the national emergency declared by Proclamation 9844, and continued on February 13, 2020 … and January 15, 2021, is terminated and that the authorities invoked in that proclamation will no longer be used to construct a wall at the southern border. I hereby further direct as follows:

Section 1. Pause in Construction and Obligation of Funds. (a) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall direct the appropriate officials within their respective departments to:

(i) pause work on each construction project on the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law, as soon as possible but in no case later than seven days from the date of this proclamation, to permit:

(A) assessment of the legality of the funding and contracting methods used to construct the wall;

(B) assessment of the administrative and contractual consequences of ceasing each wall construction project; and

(C) completion and implementation of the plan developed in accordance with section 2 of this proclamation;

(ii) pause immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law; and

(iii) compile detailed information on all southern border wall construction contracts, the completion status of each wall construction project, and the funds used for wall construction since February 15, 2019, including directly appropriated funds and funds drawn from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (31 U.S.C. 9705(g)(4)(B)), the Department of Defense Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities account (10 U.S.C. 284), and the Department of Defense Military Construction account (pursuant to the emergency authorities in 10 U.S.C. 2808(a) and 33 U.S.C. 2293(a)).

(b) The pause directed in subsection (a)(i) of this section shall apply to wall projects funded by redirected funds as well as wall projects funded by direct appropriations. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security may make an exception to the pause, however, for urgent measures needed to avert immediate physical dangers or where an exception is required to ensure that funds appropriated by the Congress fulfill their intended purpose.

Sec. 2. Plan for Redirecting Funding and Repurposing Contracts. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies, and in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, shall develop a plan for the redirection of funds concerning the southern border wall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. The process of developing the plan shall include consideration of terminating or repurposing contracts with private contractors engaged in wall construction, while providing for the expenditure of any funds that the Congress expressly appropriated for wall construction, consistent with their appropriated purpose. The plan shall be developed within 60 days from the date of this proclamation. After the plan is developed, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate steps to resume, modify, or terminate projects and to otherwise implement the plan.

Sec. 3. Definition. Consistent with Executive Order 13767 of January 25, 2017 (Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements), for the purposes of this proclamation, “wall” means a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier.

[577] Article: “Wall Construction Continues as Part of a Holistic Approach to Stop Illegal Immigration.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Frontline, November 22, 2019. <www.cbp.gov>

As of Oct. 29, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and its partners at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have constructed 76 miles of new border wall system since construction began in January 2017. Construction is underway for an additional approximately 160 miles.

“It’s not just a wall; it’s a wall system. It’s got integrated lighting and technology and access roads,” Acting CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] Commissioner Mark Morgan said in an Oct. 29 news conference. …

“The construction of the new border wall system supports [the Border Patrol’s] ability to impede and deny illegal border crossings and the drug and human smuggling activities of transnational criminal organizations while increasing safety by allowing agents to observe activity just immediately south of the border wall,” said San Diego Sector Acting Deputy Chief Kathleen Scudder. …

Since January 2017, CBP has received approximately $9.8 billion to construct approximately 509 miles of new border wall system through a combination of the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense funding and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF).

“We’ve prioritized wall system needs across the southwest border and will be putting this funding to use in the areas that will see the greatest impact to border security,” said Chief Brian Martin, head of Strategic Planning and Analysis for the Border Patrol.

By the end of 2020, CBP expects to have completed a total of 450 miles of new border wall system, pending availability of real estate.

“Not only will the border wall system slow or stop illegal activity to give agents time to respond, but its design will help keep them safe while they patrol the border,” said Chief, U.S. Border Patrol Carla Provost.

[578] Twitter post: “Border Wall System Update.” By Rodney Scott (Chief of the U.S Border Patrol), December 7, 2020. <twitter.com>

Border Wall System update:

• 423 miles completed.

• 228 miles under construction.

• 87 miles in pre-construction.

[579] Customs and Border Protection provides an interactive map of the Border Wall System at this website.

[580] Press release: “Arizona Officials Join Acting Secretary Wolf to Mark Completion of 100 Miles of New Border Wall System, Highlight Progress Addressing Border Crisis.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, January 10, 2020. <www.dhs.gov>

Today, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad F. Wolf was joined by United States Senator Martha McSally, Yuma Mayor Douglas Nicholls, U.S. Border Patrol Yuma Sector Chief Patrol Agent Anthony Porvaznik, and Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot to announce the Federal government has completed construction on the first 100 miles of new border wall system along the southwest border.

“As of today, we have completed the first 100 miles of new border wall system on the southwest border. New wall has been constructed in every border state from California to Texas. This is a milestone for our entire country, and this would not have been possible without the President’s steadfast determination and leadership,” said Acting Secretary Wolf. “The new border wall system is an undeniable impediment to human smugglers, drug traffickers, and other criminals who have exploited our lack of effective border infrastructure to smuggle drugs, people and illegal contraband into our country. The President listened to his operators on the front lines and is fulfilling his promise to secure the border.” …

The portion of the wall completed in the Yuma Sector is part of a high-tech system that combines a physical barrier with technology and real-time surveillance. In Fiscal Year 2019, Yuma Sector was the third busiest sector in the nation with almost 70,000 apprehensions between ports of entry. Nearly 25% of its 105 miles of land border now has new border wall. This new wall construction is combined with all-weather roads, lighting, enforcement cameras, and other related enforcement technology to help U.S. Customs and Border Protection continue to secure our southern border.

[581] a) Twitter post: “Border Wall System Update.” By Rodney Scott (Chief of the U.S Border Patrol), January 20, 2020. <twitter.com>

“Border Wall System update: • 106 miles completed. • 128 miles under construction. • 342 miles in pre-construction.”

b) Twitter post: “Border Wall System Update.” By Rodney Scott (Chief of the U.S Border Patrol), December 7, 2020. <twitter.com>

“Border Wall System update: • 423 miles completed. • 228 miles under construction. • 87 miles in pre-construction.”

c) Webpage: “Calculate Duration Between Two Dates.” Accessed May 7, 2021 at <www.timeanddate.com>

“From and including: Monday, January 20, 2020 … To, and including: Monday, December 7, 2020 … It is 323 days from the start date to the end date, end date included. … 323 days can be converted to one of these units: … 46 weeks and one day”

[582] Twitter post: “New Wall in Yuma, AZ, Next to Old Vehicle Barrier.” By Chad Wolf (Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), January 10, 2020. <twitter.com>

[583] Webpage: “Past Inauguration Ceremonies.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed May 19, 2021 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

“59th Inaugural Ceremonies

President Joseph R. Biden and Vice President Kamala D. Harris

January 20th, 2021

West Front, U.S. Capitol

Washington, DC”

[584] Proclamation: “Termination of Emergency with Respect to the Southern Border of the United States and Redirection of Funds Diverted to Border Wall Construction.” By Joseph R. Biden. White House, January 20, 2021. <www.govinfo.gov>

Now, Therefore, I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), hereby declare that the national emergency declared by Proclamation 9844, and continued on February 13, 2020 … and January 15, 2021, is terminated and that the authorities invoked in that proclamation will no longer be used to construct a wall at the southern border. I hereby further direct as follows:

Section 1. Pause in Construction and Obligation of Funds. (a) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall direct the appropriate officials within their respective departments to:

(i) pause work on each construction project on the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law, as soon as possible but in no case later than seven days from the date of this proclamation, to permit:

(A) assessment of the legality of the funding and contracting methods used to construct the wall;

(B) assessment of the administrative and contractual consequences of ceasing each wall construction project; and

(C) completion and implementation of the plan developed in accordance with section 2 of this proclamation;

(ii) pause immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law; and

(iii) compile detailed information on all southern border wall construction contracts, the completion status of each wall construction project, and the funds used for wall construction since February 15, 2019, including directly appropriated funds and funds drawn from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (31 U.S.C. 9705(g)(4)(B)), the Department of Defense Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities account (10 U.S.C. 284), and the Department of Defense Military Construction account (pursuant to the emergency authorities in 10 U.S.C. 2808(a) and 33 U.S.C. 2293(a)).

(b) The pause directed in subsection (a)(i) of this section shall apply to wall projects funded by redirected funds as well as wall projects funded by direct appropriations. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security may make an exception to the pause, however, for urgent measures needed to avert immediate physical dangers or where an exception is required to ensure that funds appropriated by the Congress fulfill their intended purpose.

Sec. 2. Plan for Redirecting Funding and Repurposing Contracts. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies, and in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, shall develop a plan for the redirection of funds concerning the southern border wall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. The process of developing the plan shall include consideration of terminating or repurposing contracts with private contractors engaged in wall construction, while providing for the expenditure of any funds that the Congress expressly appropriated for wall construction, consistent with their appropriated purpose. The plan shall be developed within 60 days from the date of this proclamation. After the plan is developed, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate steps to resume, modify, or terminate projects and to otherwise implement the plan.

Sec. 3. Definition. Consistent with Executive Order 13767 of January 25, 2017 (Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements), for the purposes of this proclamation, “wall” means a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier.

[585] Calculated with data from the report: “2020 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, April 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 97:

Table 33. Noncitizens Apprehended: Fiscal Years 1925 to 2020

1 [1976] includes the 15 months from July 1, 1975 to September 30, 1976 because the end date of fiscal years was changed from June 30 to September 30.

2 Beginning in 2008, data include all administrative arrests conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).

3 Beginning in 2009, data include administrative arrests conducted by ICE ERO and administrative arrests conducted under the 287(g) program.

4 The counting methodology for administrative arrests by ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) was revised to align with ICE ERO reporting for 2016; for earlier years only one administrative arrest could be counted for the same person on the same day.

5 U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) data for 2020 include USBP encounters resulting in expulsions on public health grounds under U.S. Code Title 42 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Note: Data refer to USBP apprehensions and ICE administrative arrests. Prior to 1952, data refer to USBP apprehensions.

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[586] Report: “DHS Immigration Enforcement: 2016.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 2: “Apprehension: An action by a law enforcement agency to take physical control of a person. References to apprehensions in this report refer exclusively to those conducted by USBP [U.S. Border Patrol].”

[587] Webpage: “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS).” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. Last published December 21, 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

• What are Removals?

A removal is the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed, as opposed to being returned or leaving the country under an order of voluntary departure, is subject to administrative penalties and may face criminal charges upon subsequent re-entry.

• What are Returns?

A return is the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal. An alien subject to return waives his or her right to a formal proceeding and chooses to depart the United States and return to his or her home country in lieu of removal proceedings.

• What is the difference between a removal and a return?

Removals and returns are both forms of DHS repatriations (commonly referred to as deportations). An alien who is removed, as opposed to being returned or leaving the country under an order of voluntary departure, is subject to administrative penalties and may face criminal charges upon subsequent re-entry.

[588] Webpage: “Definition of Terms.” Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. Last revised November 3, 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Deportation – The formal removal of an alien from the United States when the alien has been found removable for violating the immigration laws. Deportation is ordered by an immigration judge without any punishment being imposed or contemplated. Prior to April 1997 deportation and exclusion were separate removal procedures. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 consolidated these procedures. After April 1, 1997, aliens in and admitted to the United States may be subject to removal based on deportability.

Exclusion – Prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, exclusion was the formal term for denial of an alien’s entry into the United States. The decision to exclude an alien was made by an immigration judge after an exclusion hearing. Since April 1, 1997, the process of adjudicating inadmissibility may take place in either an expedited removal process or in removal proceedings before an immigration judge.

Inadmissible – An alien seeking admission at a port of entry who does not meet the criteria in the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] for admission. The alien may be placed in removal proceedings or, under certain circumstances, allowed to withdraw his or her application for admission.

Removal – The expulsion of an alien from the United States. This expulsion may be based on grounds of inadmissibility or deportability.

Voluntary Departure – The departure of an alien from the United States without an order of removal. The departure may or may not have been preceded by a hearing before an immigration judge. An alien allowed to voluntarily depart concedes removability but does not have a bar to seeking admission at a port-of-entry at any time. Failure to depart within the time granted results in a fine and a ten-year bar to several forms of relief from deportation.

[589] Report: “Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2012.” By John F. Simanski and Lesley M. Sapp. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2013. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

Each year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) undertakes immigration enforcement actions involving hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals. These actions include the apprehension or arrest, detention, return, and removal from the United States of foreign nationals who are removable under U.S. immigration law (see Box 1). …

Inspection Process

CBP [Customs and Border Protection] officers within the Office of Field Operations (OFO) determine the admissibility of aliens who are applying for admission to the United States at designated ports of entry. Applicants for admission determined to be inadmissible may be permitted to voluntarily withdraw their application for admission and return to their home country, processed for expedited removal or referred to an immigration judge for removal proceedings. CBP officers may transfer aliens issued a charging document to ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] for detention and custody determinations. An expedited removal order issued by a DHS officer is equivalent to a removal order issued by an immigration judge.

Apprehension Process

Aliens who enter without inspection between ports of entry and are apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol (BP) of CBP may be removed, permitted to return to their country, or issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) before the immigration court. Aliens issued a charging document are either transferred to ICE for detention pending a hearing or released on their own recognizance.

Page 2:

Removal Process

Removal proceedings include the administrative process that leads to

the removal of an alien pursuant to sections 237 or 212 of the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act].

The three most common dispositions for aliens found within the United States, including between the ports of entry, are returns, expedited removals, and reinstatements of final orders.

Return. Certain apprehended aliens who appear to be inadmissible or deportable may be offered the opportunity to return to their home country in lieu of formal removal proceedings before an immigration judge. Generally, aliens waive their right to a hearing, remain in custody, and, if applicable, agree to return under supervision. Some aliens apprehended within the United States may agree to voluntarily depart and pay the expense of departing. These departures may be granted by an immigration judge, during an immigration hearing or prior to an immigration hearing by certain DHS officials.

[590] Calculated with data from the report: “2020 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, April 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 103:

Table 39. Noncitizens Removed or Returned: Fiscal Years 1892 to 2020

1 Removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable noncitizen out of the United States based on an order of removal. A noncitizen who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.

2 Returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable noncitizen out of the United States not based on an order of removal.

3 [1976] includes the 15 months from July 1, 1975 to September 30, 1976 because the end date of fiscal years was changed from June 30 to September 30.

4 The counting methodology for administrative arrests by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ERO [Enforcement and Removal Operations] was revised to align with ICE ERO reporting for 2016; for earlier years only one administrative arrest could be counted for the same person on the same day.

NOTES:

  • Data on returns is not available from 1892 to 1926.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[591] Webpage: “Commonly Used Terms.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last reviewed January 26, 2021. <www.cdc.gov>

“Illicit drugs – The nonmedical use of a variety of drugs that are prohibited by law. These drugs can include: amphetamine-type stimulants, marijuana/cannabis, cocaine, heroin, other opioids, and synthetic drugs, such as illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF) and ecstasy (MDMA).”

[592] Webpage: “Amphetamine-Type Stimulants.” World Health Organization. Accessed March 6, 2020 at <www.who.int>

Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) refer to a group of drugs whose principal members include amphetamine and methamphetamine. However, a range of other substances also fall into this group, such as methcathinone, fenetylline, ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, methylphenidate and MDMA or “Ecstasy” – an amphetamine-type derivative with hallucinogenic properties.

The use of ATS is a global and growing phenomenon and in recent years, there has been a pronounced increase in the production and use of ATS worldwide. Over the past decade, abuse of amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) has infiltrated its way into the mainstream culture in certain countries. Younger people in particular seem to possess a skewed sense of safety about the substances believing rather erroneously that the substances are safe and benign. Meanwhile, ATS are posing a serious threat to the health, social and economic fabric of families, communities and nations.

[593] Dataset: “Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed October 6, 2022 at <www.cdc.gov>

“12 Month-ending Provisional Counts of Drug Overdose Deaths … December 2021 … Predicted Value [=] 108,886”

[594] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed October 6, 2022 at <www.cdc.gov>

“12 Month-ending Provisional Counts of Drug Overdose Deaths … December 2021 … Predicted Value [=] 108,886”

b) Report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999–2020.” By Holly Hedegaard and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2021. <www.cdc.gov>

Page 6: “Of the drug overdose deaths in 2020, 91.0% were unintentional, 4.7% were suicides, 4.1% were of undetermined intent, and less than 1% were homicides.”

CALCULATION: 108,886 overdose deaths × 91.0% unintentional = 99,086

[595] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed October 6, 2022 at <www.cdc.gov>

“12 Month-ending Provisional Counts of Drug Overdose Deaths … December 2021 … Predicted Value [=] 108,886”

b) Report: “Characteristics of Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Opioids and Stimulants — 24 States and the District of Columbia, January–June 2019.” By Julie O’Donnell and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 4, 2020. <www.cdc.gov>

“Illicitly manufactured fentanyls (IMFs), heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine (alone or in combination) were involved in 83.8% of overdose deaths during January–June 2019….”

CALCULATION: 108,886 overdose deaths × 83.8% illicitly manufactured = 91,246

[596] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed October 6, 2022 at <www.cdc.gov>

“12 Month-ending Provisional Counts of Drug Overdose Deaths … December 2021 … Predicted Value [=] 108,886”

b) Report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999–2020.” By Holly Hedegaard, Arialdi M. Miniño, Merianne Rose Spencer, and Margaret Warner. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2021. <www.cdc.gov>

Page 6: “Of the drug overdose deaths in 2020, 91.0% were unintentional, 4.7% were suicides, 4.1% were of undetermined intent, and less than 1% were homicides.”

c) Report: “Characteristics of Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Opioids and Stimulants — 24 States and the District of Columbia, January–June 2019.” By Julie O’Donnell and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 4, 2020. <www.cdc.gov>

“Illicitly manufactured fentanyls (IMFs), heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine (alone or in combination) were involved in 83.8% of overdose deaths during January–June 2019….”

CALCULATION: 108,886 overdose deaths × 91.0% unintentional × 83.8% illicitly manufactured = 83,034

[597] Report: “FY2022 Performance Budget: Congressional Budget Submission.” U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, May 25, 2021. Revised 1/28/22. <www.justice.gov>

Page 1: “Mexican Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) remain the greatest drug trafficking threat to the United States. … Mexican TCOs continue to supply most of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and illicit fentanyl and its analogues smuggled into the country, while violent street gangs dominate the retail sale and distribution of these illicit drugs at the local level.”

Page 2:

The Sinaloa Cartel is one of the oldest and most established TCOs in Mexico with significant presence in 15 of the 32 Mexican states. The Sinaloa Cartel controls drug trafficking activity in various regions in Mexico, particularly along the Pacific Coast in northwestern Mexico and near Mexico’s southern and northern borders. Additionally, the Sinaloa Cartel maintains the most expansive international footprint compared to other Mexican TCOs, providing the group an added advantage over its rivals. The Sinaloa Cartel exports and distributes wholesale amounts of fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana in the United States by maintaining distribution hubs in various cities.

[598] Report: “2020 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary.” U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, March 2021. <www.dea.gov>

Page 2: “Mexican transnational criminal organizations continue to supply most of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl smuggled into the country, while violent street gangs dominate the retail sale and distribution of these illicit drugs at the local level.”

Page 7:

Mexican TCOs [transnational criminal organizations] have established clandestine laboratories in Mexico for the synthesis of fentanyl, and Mexican authorities have encountered a rise in illegal fentanyl pill press and tableting operations. Likewise, Mexican TCOs are responsible for the production and trafficking across the Southwest Border (SWB) of the overwhelming majority of the heroin available in the United States.

Page 13: “Heroin of Mexican origin accounted for 92 percent of the total weight of heroin analyzed under the HSP [Heroin Signature Program], the seventh consecutive year that Mexico has been identified as the primary source of origin for heroin encountered in the United States.”

Page 16: “The majority of heroin and fentanyl available in the United States is smuggled overland across the SWB.”

Page 17: “Mexican TCOs will remain the primary source of supply for heroin and fentanyl smuggled into the United States, using precursors primarily sourced from China, and they will continue to use their extensive infrastructure in both Mexico and the United States to supply lucrative U.S. opioid markets.”

Page 21: “Mexican TCOs continue to be the primary producers and suppliers of low cost, high purity methamphetamine available in the United States. Mexican TCOs regularly produce large quantities of methamphetamine, which has led to a significant supply of methamphetamine in the U.S. market.”

Page 24: “The SWB remains the main entry point for the majority of methamphetamine entering the United States.”

Page 33:

Mexican TCOs control cocaine trafficking in the United States, which is likely to continue as no other trafficking group is positioned to challenge them in the near term. While Mexican TCOs dominate the wholesale distribution of cocaine to the United States, Colombian TCOs maintain control over its production and supply. Mexican TCOs continue to obtain multi-ton shipments of powder cocaine from South American traffickers, moving it through Central America and Mexico, and then smuggling it into the United States over the Southwest Border. … Mexican TCOs dominate cocaine transportation throughout the United States, but rely on local criminal groups for retail-level distribution.

Page 47: “Mexico remains the most significant foreign source for marijuana in the United States; however, in U.S. markets, Mexican marijuana has largely been supplanted by domestic-produced marijuana.”

Page 65:

Mexican TCOs continue to control lucrative smuggling corridors, primarily across the SWB, and maintain the greatest drug trafficking influence in the United States. …

Mexican TCOs export significant wholesale quantities of fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana into the United States annually. The drugs are delivered to user markets in the United States through transportation routes and distribution cells that are managed or influenced by Mexican TCOs, and with the cooperation and participation of local street gangs….

Page 66: “The cartels dominate the drug trade influencing the United States market, with most cartels having a polydrug market approach that allows for maximum flexibility and resiliency of their operations….”

Page 69: “Mexican TCOs transport the majority of illicit drugs entering into the United States, moving product across the SWB using a wide array of smuggling techniques.”

Page 77:

Barring significant, unanticipated changes to the illicit drug market, Mexican TCOs will continue to dominate the wholesale importation and distribution of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, and fentanyl in U.S. markets. No other criminal organizations currently possess a logistical infrastructure to rival that of Mexican TCOs. Mexican TCOs will continue to grow in the United States through expansion of distribution networks and continued interaction with local criminal groups and gangs.

[599] Report: “2019 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary.” U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, December 2019. <www.dea.gov>

Page 5:

Fentanylc and Other Synthetic Opioidsd: Fentanyl and other highly potent synthetic opioids—primarily sourced from China and Mexico—continue to be the most lethal category of illicit substances misused in the United States. Fentanyl continues to be sold as counterfeit prescriptions pills as traffickers—wittingly or unwittingly—are increasingly selling fentanyl to users both alone and as an adulterant, leading to rising fentanyl-involved deaths. Fentanyl suppliers will continue to experiment with other new synthetic opioids in an attempt to circumvent new regulations imposed by the United States and China.

Heroin: Heroin-related overdose deaths remain at high levels in the United States, due to continued use and availability, while fentanyl is increasingly prevalent in highly profitable white powder heroin markets. Mexico remains the primary source of heroin available in the United States according to all available sources of intelligence, including law enforcement investigations and scientific data. Further, high-levels of sustained opium poppy cultivation and heroin production in Mexico allow Mexican Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) to continue to supply high-purity, low-cost heroin. …

Methamphetamine: Methamphetamine remains widely available, with traffickers attempting to create new customers by expanding into new, non-traditional methamphetamine markets such as the Northeast, or other user bases with new product forms. Most of the methamphetamine available in the United States is produced in Mexico and smuggled across the Southwest Border (SWB). Domestic production occurs at much lower levels than in Mexico and seizures of domestic methamphetamine laboratories have declined steadily for many years while overall supply has increased.

c Unless explicitly stated, the term “fentanyl,” when used in this report, refers to clandestinely manufactured and illegally distributed fentanyl and not to pharmaceutical or “licit” fentanyl.

d In this document, the phrase “synthetic opioid” refers to only those substances, which are classified as opioids and have no plant-based material in their production (i.e. fentanyl, fentanyl-related substances, and other novel opioids) and therefore does not include heroin.

Page 59: “The SWB remains cocaine’s primary point of entry into the United States while Mexico-based TCOs maintain their dominance of transportation and distribution.”

[600] Report: “FY2022 Performance Budget: Congressional Budget Submission.” U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, May 25, 2021. Revised 1/28/22. <www.justice.gov>

Page 3: “Illicit fentanyl, fentanyl-related substances, and other novel psychoactive substances (NPS) are inexpensive, available via the Internet, and often manufactured in China where they may be shipped via the international postal system or express consignment couriers to the United States.”

[601] Report: “2020 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary.” U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, March 2021. <www.dea.gov>

Page 17: “Mexican TCOs [Transnational Criminal Organizations] will remain the primary source of supply for heroin and fentanyl smuggled into the United States, using precursors primarily sourced from China, and they will continue to use their extensive infrastructure in both Mexico and the United States to supply lucrative U.S. opioid markets.”

[602] Calculated with data from the report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999–2020.” By Holly Hedegaard and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2021. <www.cdc.gov>

“Data Table for Figure 4. Age-adjusted Rates of Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Opioids, By Type of Opioid: United States, 1999–2020.” <www.cdc.gov>

NOTES: Drug overdose deaths are identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD–10) underlying cause-of-death codes X40–X44, X60–X64, X85, and Y10–Y14. Drug overdose deaths involving selected drug categories are identified by specific multiple-cause-of-death codes: any opioid, T40.0–T40.4 and T40.6; heroin, T40.1; natural and semisynthetic opioids, T40.2; methadone, T40.3; and synthetic opioids other than methadone, T40.4. Deaths involving more than one opioid category (such as a death involving both methadone and a natural or semisynthetic opioid) are counted in both categories. Natural and semisynthetic opioids include drugs such as morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone; synthetic opioids other than methadone include such drugs as fentanyl, fentanyl analogs, and tramadol. The percentage of drug overdose deaths that identified the specific drugs involved varied by year, ranging from 75%–79% from 1999 through 2013 and increasing from 81% in 2014 to 94% in 2020.

SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.

“Data table for Figure 5. Age-adjusted Rates of Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Stimulants, By Type of Stimulant: United States, 1999–2020.” <www.cdc.gov>

NOTES: Drug overdose deaths are identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD–10) underlying cause-of-death codes X40–X44, X60–X64, X85, and Y10–Y14. Drug overdose deaths involving selected drug categories are identified by specific multiple-cause-of-death codes: any opioid, T40.0–T40.4 and T40.6; heroin, T40.1; natural and semisynthetic opioids, T40.2; methadone, T40.3; and synthetic opioids other than methadone, T40.4. Deaths involving more than one opioid category (such as a death involving both methadone and a natural or semisynthetic opioid) are counted in both categories. Natural and semisynthetic opioids include drugs such as morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone; synthetic opioids other than methadone include such drugs as fentanyl, fentanyl analogs, and tramadol. The percentage of drug overdose deaths that identified the specific drugs involved varied by year, ranging from 75%–79% from 1999 through 2013 and increasing from 81% in 2014 to 94% in 2020.

SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[603] Report: “2016 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary.” U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, November, 2016. <www.dea.gov>

Pages 52–53: “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] estimates the number of heroin deaths is undercounted by as much as 30 percent. This is due both to variations in state reporting procedures, and because heroin metabolizes into morphine very quickly in the body, making it difficult to determine the presence of heroin.”

[604] Calculated with data from the webpage: “Drug Seizure Statistics.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified October 21, 2022. <www.cbp.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[605] Calculated with data from:

a) “Drug Seizure Statistics.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified October 21, 2022. <www.cbp.gov>

b) Paper: “Comparison of Acute Lethal Toxicity of Commonly Abused Psychoactive Substances” By Robert S. Gable. Addiction, July 2004. Pages 686–696. <www.researchgate.net>

Pages 689–690: “Table 1. Estimated lethal and effective doses of abused psychoactive substances”

c) Book: “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices.” U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2012. <www.nist.gov>

d) Dataset: “Table 7.1. Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and Chained Dollars.” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2022. <apps.bea.gov>

Line 18: “Population (Midperiod, Thousands)”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[606] Webpage: “Past Inauguration Ceremonies.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed August 10, 2021 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

43rd Inaugural Ceremonies

President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vice President Richard M. Nixon

January 21, 1957

East Portico, U.S. Capitol

Washington, DC …

42nd Inaugural Ceremonies

President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vice President Richard M. Nixon

January 20, 1953

East Portico, U.S. Capitol

Washington, DC …

41st Inaugural Ceremonies

President Harry S. Truman and Vice President Alben W. Barkley

January 20, 1949

East Portico, U.S. Capitol

Washington, DC …

Swearing-In of Vice President Harry S. Truman after the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt

April 12, 1945

Cabinet Room, The White House

Washington, D.C.

[607] Calculated with data from the report: “2020 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, April 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 103:

Table 39. Noncitizens Removed or Returned: Fiscal Years 1892 to 2020

1 Removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable noncitizen out of the United States based on an order of removal. A noncitizen who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.

2 Returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable noncitizen out of the United States not based on an order of removal.

NOTES:

  • Data on returns is not available from 1892 to 1926.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[608] Article: “Agriculture.” American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and ‎John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2014. Pages 415–423.

Page 420:

The third way of dealing with illegal immigration was deportation. In 1954, Joseph Swing, commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, mounted a mass repatriation campaign of illegal Mexican workers, dubbed Operation Wetback, which resulted in the return of 1.3 million workers to Mexico. The means of repatriation varied—some migrants were forced to return, while others left voluntarily—but the effect was the same. According to historian Juan Ramon Garcia,

Operation Wetback did not bring an end to illegal immigration from Mexico. It did slow the influx for a short time but it brought no permanent solution to the problem. It was a stop-gap measure….

Operation Wetback sent a strong message to Mexican immigrants about the precariousness of their right to live and work in the United States. It also sent a strong message to Anglo growers: they would not be held responsible for the mass migration that they had perpetuated by actively recruiting and employing undocumented labor. This mass repatriation of Mexicans occurred at a time when the Bracero Program was reaching its peak. At the same time, a contradictory message was sent to Mexican immigrants that they were not wanted in the United States, yet their labor would be remunerated and their rights protected if they had a Bracero contract.

[609] Report: “Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens.” By Edward H. Levi (Attorney General) and others. U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies, December 1976. <www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov>

Pages 69–71:

The Bracero Program

World War II again brought war-related labor shortages which prompted this country to seek an arrangement with the Government of Mexico for the temporary importation of workers. In August, 1942, a formal agreement between Mexico and the United States was negotiated and the action launched the Mexican Labor Program, better known as the Bracero Program, under which Mexican labor was to be provided for agricultural and railroad laborer jobs. Provisions of the contract stipulated that workers were to be afforded protections in housing, transportation, food, medical services, and wage rights.

The Bracero Program was to terminate in 1947, however, it was continued informally until 1951. In that year, it was formalized as Public Law 78, and the agreement for Mexico to provide laborers to work in the American rural labor markets remained in effect until terminated on December 31, 1964.

Operation Wetback

Illegal Mexican migration increased during the Bracero years because employers, dissatisfied with the Bracero Program, sought to maximize their profits. Texas farmers, because of Mexico’s refusal to extend the Bracero Program into their state for a time, probably hired more illegal Mexican aliens than any other state. As a result, the Border Patrol launched Operation Wetback in 1953–54, and nearly 1 million apprehensions of clandestine Mexicans were made in one year.

Some contend that a major function of the Border Patrol in this period was to regulate through selective enforcement rather than by apprehension and exclusion. Certainly one controversial practice of this era was the so-called “wringing out wetbacks.” Under this practice, Mexican illegal aliens were returned to Mexico, if only temporarily, and subsequently recruited and returned under contract with employers in the United States. With the conclusion of Operation Wetback, the apprehension of sizable numbers of illegal aliens along the border fell significantly until the termination of the Bracero Program in December of 1964. For the period following Operation Wetback, 1956–65, total apprehensions averaged less than 50,000 annually.

[610] Book: The Mexican Americans. By Alma M. García. Greenwood Press, 1982.

Pages 37–38:

Operation Wetback

With the end of World War II, the United States took center stage in global politics. Immigration policies emerged as a cornerstone of U.S. relations with such countries as Mexico. The final years of the Bracero Program witnessed a rising tide of undocumented Mexican immigrants whose presence in the United States produced an ongoing national debate. At the same time that the numbers of Mexican immigrants participating in the Bracero Program were declining, American employers, particularly growers, continued to demand a steady source of cheap labor and turned to the ever-growing numbers of Mexicans willing to leave Mexico’s economic problems and make the trip north as undocumented workers. These workers were called “mo-jados,” meaning “wetbacks,” referring to their crossing the Rio Grande River into the United States. Those who entered the United States by crossing under the long stretches of barbed wire were called “alambristas” from the Spanish word for wire, “alambre.” Interestingly, current research on Mexican immigration points out that the number of undocumented Mexican workers had been on a steady increase even in the early years of the Bracero Program because many employers disregarded the program’s guidelines restricting Mexicans to agricultural work. Employers actively recruited undocumented workers to work in canneries, construction, and service industries. Since these workers were not protected by the Bracero Program, employers could pay lower wages than those established by the program. Undocumented workers who were trying to escape the conditions of poverty in Mexico accepted such arrangements, although they lived in constant fear of deportation. The flow of Mexican immigrants increased as the Mexican economy worsened. Although Mexico experienced a certain degree of economic development after World War II, a large number of working-class Mexicans remained outside the reach of economic improvements. Wages could not match skyrocketing inflation rates; population rates increased geometrically. Large numbers of Mexicans migrated to urban centers in search of a better living. Few of these migrants found respite from their deteriorating economic circumstances, with urban poverty reaching new and tragic heights. These conditions pushed Mexicans toward the United States and ultimately fueled anti-immigrant sentiments.

Throughout the agricultural fields of Texas, California, and the Southwest in general, employers welcomed this new flow of undocumented workers. In his classic 1971 study, Los Mojados: The Wetback Story, sociologist Julian Samora records the lives of these undocumented Mexican workers. Samora describes their daily living and working conditions, stressing that employers favored undocumented workers whom they could pay the lowest wages, house them in worse than dilapidated housing, and, in general, maintain them under conditions that would have been in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Bracero Program.

Despite such terrible living and working conditions, the stream of undocumented workers continued to increase dramatically.

[611] Article: “House Passes Immigration Bill—with a Catch.” By Christopher Drew. Chicago Tribune, October 10, 1986. <articles.chicagotribune.com>

The House late Thursday resurrected and speedily passed by a vote of 230–166 a controversial immigration reform bill that had been debated for years and presumed dead for this congressional session. …

The politically sensitive bill would legalize possibly millions of aliens already in the country and would discourage further immigration by levying fines and jail terms on employers who knowingly hire illegals. …

Later, the House dodged a “killer amendment” by a vote of 199–192 that would have stripped the bill of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens now living in the United States. …

The farm-worker dispute had pitted proponents of a stringent crackdown on illegal immigration against mostly Western growers interested in keeping a cheap labor supply to pick perishable crops.

[612] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143:

After years of heated debate involving ethnic and religious groups, labor and agricultural organizations, business interests, and the government, a compromise measure was reached. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for “brief, casual, and innocent” absences, from the beginning of 1982; provided amnesty to seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986; required all amnesty applicants to take courses in English and American government to qualify for permanent residence; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail; prohibited employers from discrimination on the basis of national origins; increased border patrol by 50 percent in 1987 and 1988; and, in a matter unrelated to illegal aliens, introduced a lottery program for 5,000 visas for countries “adversely affected” by provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

[613] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.

[614] Calculated with data from the webpage: “Actions on Senate Bill 1200: “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” U.S. House of Senate, 99th Congress (1985–1986). Accessed April 6, 2017 at <www.congress.gov>

“10/17/1986: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea–Nay Vote. 63–24. Record Vote No: 357. … 10/15/1986: House Agreed to Conference Report by Yea–Nay Vote: 238–173 (Record Vote No: 469).”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 63 / (63 + 24) = 72% Senate
  • 238 / (238 + 173) = 58% House

[615] Public Law 99-603: “Immigration Reform and Control Act.” 99th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. <www.govinfo.gov>

[616] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for ‘brief, casual, and innocent’ absences, from the beginning of 1982….”

[617] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The provisions of new INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] section 245A(a)(4)(B) and (b)(1)(C)(ii), added by section 201(a) of the bill, state that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or the permanent residence status provided in that section if he or she has been convicted of any felony or three or more misdemeanors committed in the United States.

New INA section 245A(d)(2) states that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or permanent residence status provided in that section if “likely to become [a] public charge [ ].” This disqualification could be waived by the Attorney General under certain circumstances. A likelihood that an applicant would become a public charge would exist, for example, if the applicant had failed to demonstrate either a history of employment in the United States of a kind that would provide sufficient means without public cash assistance for the support of the alien and his likely dependents who are not United States citizens or the possession of independent means sufficient by itself for such support for an indefinite period.

[618] Report: “Naturalization Rates Among IRCA Immigrants: A 2009 Update.” By Bryan C. Baker. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 2010. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 provided a path to legal permanent residence and citizenship for several categories of unauthorized immigrants. The two primary groups1 were immigrants who had continuously and unlawfully resided within the U.S. since before January 1, 1982 (“pre-1982s”) and special agricultural workers (“SAWs”), who were required to have worked at least 90 days in agriculture during each of the years ending on May 1, 1984, 1985, and 1986 (Group 1) or solely during the year ending on May 1, 1986 (Group 2).

1 The other categories, Cuban and Haitian immigrants and Registry immigrants, were small by comparison and are not discussed in this Report.

[619] Report: “Naturalization Rates among IRCA Immigrants: A 2009 Update.” By Bryan C. Baker. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 2010. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

In addition to the residency requirement, pre-1982 IRCA (Immigration Reform and Control Act) immigrants were required to meet certain standards for English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and government as a prerequisite for legal permanent resident (LPR) status.2 SAWs [special agricultural workers] were not subject to English or civics requirements.

2 For a complete list of the requirements and conditions for both pre-82s and SAWs, see Sections 210A and 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

[620] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part E (English and Civics Testing and Exceptions), Chapter 2 (English and Civics Testing):

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) mandated that persons legalized under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 245A meet a basic citizenship skills requirement in order to be eligible for adjustment to LPR [lawful permanent resident] status. An applicant was permitted to demonstrate basic citizenship skills by:

• Passing the English and civics tests administered by legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); or

• Passing standardized English and civics tests administered by organizations then authorized by the INS.4

At the time of the naturalization re-examination, the officer only retests the applicant on any portion of the test that the applicant did not satisfy under IRCA. In all cases, the applicant must demonstrate the ability to speak English at the time of the naturalization examination, unless the applicant meets one of the age and time as resident exemptions of English or qualifies for a medical waiver.5

3 The INS Standardized Citizenship Testing Program was conducted by five non-government companies on behalf of the INS. That program was established in 1991 and ended on August 30, 1998. See 63 FR 25080 (May 6, 1998).

4 See INA 245A(b)(1)(D)(iii). See 8 CFR 312.3.

[621] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “At the insistence of state governments, newly legalized aliens were prohibited from receiving most types of federal public welfare, although Cubans (see Cuban Immigration) and Haitians (See Haitian Immigration) were exempted.”

[622] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … provided amnesty to seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986….”

[623] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … prohibited employers from discrimination on the basis of national origins….”

[624] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

Section 102(a) of the bill adds section 274B to the Immigration and Nationality Act. This new section relates to certain kinds of discrimination in connection with employment in the United States. Section 274B(a) provides that it is an “unfair immigration-related employment practice” to “discriminate against” any individual in hiring, recruitment or referral for a fee, or discharging from employment “because of” such individual’s national origin or—if such individual is a United States citizen or an alien who is a lawful permanent resident, refugee admitted under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] section 207, or asylee granted asylum under section 208, and who has taken certain steps evidencing an intent to become a United States citizen—because of such individual’s citizenship status. Employers of fewer than four employees are expressly exempted from coverage. Discrimination against an “unauthorized alien,” as defined in section 274A(h)(3), is also not covered. Other exceptions include cases of discrimination because of national origin that are covered by title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination based on citizenship status when lawfully required under government authority, and discrimination in favor of a United States citizen over an alien if the citizen is at least “equally qualified.”

The major purpose of section 274B is to reduce the possibility that employer sanctions will result in increased national origin and alienage discrimination and to provide a remedy if employer sanctions enforcement does have this result. Accordingly, subsection (k) provides that the section will not apply to any discrimination that takes place after a repeal of employer sanctions if this should occur. In the light of this major purpose, the Special Counsel should exercise the discretion provided under subsection (d)(1) so as to limit the investigations conducted on his own initiative to cases involving discrimination apparently caused by an employer’s fear of liability under the employer sanctions program.

[625] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … increased border patrol by 50 percent in 1987 and 1988….”

[626] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) … imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail….”

[627] Article: “Agriculture.” American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and ‎John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2014. Pages 415–423.

Page 420: “The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act sought to provide a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with the agricultural labor situation, as well as undocumented immigration. An employer sanctions provision in the legislation was intended to hold employers accountable that knowingly hired undocumented laborers.”

[628] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. …

… The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.

[629] Article: “Agriculture.” American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and ‎John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2014. Pages 415–423.

Page 420: “The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act sought to provide a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with the agricultural labor situation, as well as undocumented immigration. … Verification of citizenship status became a lasting requirement for all new hires.”

[630] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background): “IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] … for the first time in history, required U.S. employers to verify all newly hired employees’ work authorization in the United States. This is sometimes called the employer sanctions program or the I-9 program.”

[631] Report: “Identity Fraud, Prevalence and Links to Alien Illegal Activities.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, June 25, 2002. <www.gao.gov>

Page 8:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 198615 made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. IRCA requires employers to comply with an employment verification process intended to provide employers with a means to avoid hiring unauthorized aliens. The process requires newly hired employees to present documentation establishing their identity and eligibility to work. From a list of 27 acceptable documents, employees have the choice of presenting 1 document establishing both identity and eligibility to work (such as an INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] permanent resident card) or 1 document establishing identity (such as a driver’s license) and 1 establishing eligibility to work (such as a Social Security card). Generally, employers cannot require the employees to present a specific document. Employers are to review the document or documents that an employee presents and complete an Employment Eligibility Form, INS Form I-9. On the form, employers are to certify that they have reviewed the documents and that the documents appear genuine and relate to the individual. Employers are expected to judge whether the documents are obviously fraudulent. INS is responsible for checking employer compliance with IRCA’s verification requirements.

[632] Report: “Employment Verification: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, but Significant Challenges Remain.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, December 2010. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 6–7:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire immigrants who were unauthorized to work in the United States.11 IRCA established an employment verification process—the Form I-9 process—that required employers to review documents presented by new employees to establish their identity and employment eligibility.12 Employers are required to certify that they have reviewed the documents presented by their employees and that the documents reasonably appear genuine and relate to the individual presenting them. Like all employers, employers participating in E-Verify are required to retain Form I-9s for all newly hired employees in accordance with IRCA.

[633] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “Because the measure was meant as a one-time resolution of a longstanding problem, a strict deadline for application was established: All applications for legalization were required within one year of May 5, 1987.”

[634] Report: “Naturalization Rates among IRCA Immigrants: A 2009 Update.” By Bryan C. Baker. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 2010. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1: “Nearly 2.7 million persons became LPRs [lawful permanent residents] under IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act], including 1.6 million pre-1982s and 1.1 million SAWs [special agricultural workers].”

[635] Report: “2020 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 18, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 5: “Table 1. Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status: Fiscal Years 1820 to 2020”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[636] Report: “Naturalization Rates among IRCA Immigrants: A 2009 Update.” By Bryan C. Baker. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 2010. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 1–2:

Nearly 2.7 million persons became LPRs [lawful permanent residents] under IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act], including 1.6 million pre-1982s and 1.1 million SAWs [special agricultural workers]. By the end of 2009, 1.1 million IRCA immigrants had naturalized. The data in Table 1 show that immigrants who obtained LPR status through IRCA provisions had lower rates of naturalization than immigrants who obtained status through other provisions (see Table 1). The naturalization rate was 53 percent for pre-1982s, compared to 58 percent for other immigrants who obtained status in 1989–1991 and 59 percent for other immigrants who obtained status in 1979–1981. The naturalization rate was 34 percent for SAWs, compared to 58 percent for other immigrants who obtained status in 1990–1992.

Although the rates were lower for IRCA-provision immigrants in general, controlling for differences in country of origin demonstrates the prior legal status generalization to be an oversimplification. IRCA immigrants were disproportionately born in Mexico (see Figure 1), and naturalization rates have historically been low for the Mexican-born (Rytina, 2002, Baker, 2007). Naturalization rates were actually higher for pre-1982s than for other immigrants when distinguishing between those born in Mexico and those born in other countries (46 vs. 37 percent for those born in Mexico and 68 vs. 61 percent for those born in other countries). Naturalization rates for those born in countries other than Mexico were equivalent for SAWs and other immigrants (60 percent for both). Among those born in Mexico, however, rates were indeed lower for SAWs (28 percent) than for other immigrants (36 percent).

Conclusions

The differences between the naturalization rates of Pre-82s, SAWs, and other immigrants, when controlling for Mexican origin, are consistent with expectations regarding assimilation. Pre-1982s were required to meet certain conditions associated with assimilation prior to obtaining LPR status and had higher rates of naturalization than other immigrants who were not subject to those conditions. Non-Mexican-born SAWs were not required to meet those conditions and naturalized at about the same rate as other immigrants. Mexican-born SAWs had a lower naturalization rate than other immigrants, but the group may have included a substantial number of persons who used the program for employment or travel rather than for permanent residence.

1 The other categories, Cuban and Haitian immigrants and Registry immigrants, were small by comparison and are not discussed in this Report.

2 For a complete list of the requirements and conditions for both pre-82s and SAWs, see Sections 210A and 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

3 In this report, year refers to fiscal year (October 1 to September 30).

4 Excludes refugees and asylees.

5 99 percent of SAWs obtained LPR status between 1990 and 1992.

[637] Report: “Apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol: 2005–2010.” By Lesley Sapp. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

Apprehension statistics are one of the few indicators of illegal entry into or presence in the United States. …

The number of Border Patrol apprehensions declined 61 percent from 1,189,000 in 2005 to 463,000 in 2010 (see Figure 1). The decrease in apprehensions between 2005 and 2010 may be due to a number of factors including changes in U.S. economic conditions and border enforcement efforts. Border apprehensions in 2010 were at their lowest level since 1972. Apprehensions previously peaked at 1,676,000 in 2000. The all-time apprehension record was 1,693,000 in 1986 immediately preceding passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which allowed the legalization of several million unauthorized immigrants, established sanctions for employers who knowingly hired unauthorized immigrants, and provided for increased border enforcement.

[638] Chart constructed with data from:

a) Dataset: “Southwest Border Sectors: Total Encounters by Fiscal Year (Oct. 1st through Sept. 30th).” U.S. Border Patrol, August 10, 2021. <www.cbp.gov>

b) Report: “Nationwide Enforcement Encounters: Title 8 Enforcement Actions and Title 42 Expulsions FY2021.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified December 2, 2021. <www.cbp.gov>

Table: “U.S. Border Patrol Monthly Enforcement Encounters 2021: Title 42 Expulsions and Title 8 Apprehensions”

c) Report: “Nationwide Enforcement Encounters: Title 8 Enforcement Actions and Title 42 Expulsions 2022.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified October 14, 2022. <www.cbp.gov>

Table: “USBP [U.S. Border Patrol] Monthly Enforcement Encounters: Title 8 apprehensions and Title 42 Expulsions”

[639] Report: “An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Citizenship USA Initiative.” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2000. <oig.justice.gov>

Section: “Interviews and Adjudications” (<oig.justice.gov>):

Congressional passage of IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] permitted millions of undocumented aliens to obtain lawful permanent resident status through INS’ [Immigration and Naturalization Service] resulting Legalization or “Amnesty” program. ….

IRCA contained two “amnesty” provisions. The first dealt primarily with undocumented aliens who had entered the United States before January 1, 1982, without inspection or on a visitor or student visa and overstayed or worked without permission. These “pre-1982 applicants” had to meet certain requirements concerning proof of identity, length of residence, and financial responsibility in order to obtain permanent resident status. IRCA’s other legalization provision, and the one examined by the OIG [Office of the Inspector General], afforded permanent residence to certain undocumented agricultural workers known as “Special Agricultural Workers,” who had engaged in agricultural work for specified periods of time between May 1, 1984, and May 1, 1986.

Successful SAW [special agricultural workers] applicants obtained temporary residency. They generally adjusted to lawful permanent residents within one or two years (depending on whether they were “group 1” or “group 2” applicants and depending on the date of which their applications were granted). The deadline for applying for residency under the SAW provisions was November 30, 1988. This meant that many hundreds of thousands of persons who had obtained lawful permanent resident status through the SAW program became eligible for naturalization in 1994 and 1995 (i.e., five years after becoming permanent residents). According to INS documents, as of December 1, 1995, this group of potential citizens numbered approximately 1.2 million persons.

[640] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part D (General Naturalization Requirements), Chapter 1 (Purpose and Background):

The following are the general naturalization requirements that an applicant must meet in order to become a U.S. citizen …

The applicant must be a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for at least five years before being eligible for naturalization.

The applicant must have continuous residence in the United States as an LPR for at least five years immediately preceding the date of filing the application and up to the time of admission to citizenship.

The applicant must be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the five years immediately preceding the date of filing the application.

The applicant must have lived within the State or USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence for at least three months prior to the date of filing.

[641] Report: “An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Citizenship USA Initiative.” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2000. <oig.justice.gov>

Section: “Executive Summary” (<oig.justice.gov>):

Beginning in 1993, the demand for naturalization began to increase at a staggering rate and application backlogs developed at INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] offices throughout the country. By June 1995, INS was receiving applications for naturalization at a rate twice as high as it had the previous year. INS projected that without a serious effort to reduce this application backlog, by the summer of 1996 an eligible applicant would have to wait three years from the date of application to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen.

On August 31, 1995, INS Commissioner Doris M. Meissner announced “Citizenship USA” (CUSA), an initiative to reduce the backlog of pending naturalization applications to the point where an eligible applicant would be naturalized within six months of application. The goal of the initiative was to reach this level of processing “currency” within one year.

Section: “Interviews and Adjudications” (<oig.justice.gov>):

Congressional passage of IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] permitted millions of undocumented aliens to obtain lawful permanent resident status through INS’ resulting Legalization or “Amnesty” program. Commissioner Meissner advised Congress in September 1995 that “a major reason” for the increase in naturalization application filings that INS had experienced was this Legalization program.

[642] Webpage: “Past Inauguration Ceremonies.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed August 10, 2021 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

53rd Inaugural Ceremonies

President William J. Clinton and Vice President Albert A. Gore Jr.

January 20, 1997

West Front, U.S. Capitol

Washington, D.C. …

52nd Inaugural Ceremonies

President William J. Clinton and Vice President Albert A. Gore Jr.

January 20, 1993

West Front, U.S. Capitol

Washington, D.C.

[643] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

“Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government.”

[644] Report: “An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Citizenship USA Initiative.” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2000. <oig.justice.gov>

Section: “Interviews and Adjudications” (<oig.justice.gov>):

Operation Desert Deception: INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] Did Not Take Action During CUSA [Citizenship USA] to Prevent Applicants Who Had Benefited From SAW [Special Agricultural Worker] Fraud From Becoming Citizens

By September 1995, INS had specifically identified 22,000 cases of suspected SAW fraud in the aftermath of an extensive criminal investigation entitled “Operation Desert Deception.” These 22,000 cases were connected to several defendants in the investigation who had by then been convicted of various federal crimes relating to an elaborate SAW fraud scheme. Despite knowledge of these cases at the highest level of INS, despite knowledge that many of these individuals had become or would soon become eligible to apply for naturalization, and despite Headquarters’ commitment to Congress in November 1995 that it would appropriately investigate cases in which SAW fraud was suspected, INS did not take timely action to ensure that applicants suspected of SAW fraud did not naturalize during CUSA. The evidence shows that INS knowingly put CUSA’s production priorities ahead of its commitment to take appropriate action to prevent individuals who had already fraudulently received one immigration benefit from becoming U.S. citizens.

[645] Report: “An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Citizenship USA Initiative.” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2000. <oig.justice.gov>

Section: “Interviews and Adjudications” (<oig.justice.gov>):

(2) INS’ [Immigration and Naturalization Service] Belief in Widespread Fraud in SAW [Special Agricultural Worker] Program

To be eligible for adjustment of status under the SAW provisions, the applicant had to prove with documentation that he or she had worked in an agricultural enterprise in the United States for 90 days in each calendar year from 1984 through 1986, or for 90 days between May 1985 and May 1986. The evidence of having engaged in such work, INS employees believed, was often forged and sold to undocumented individuals seeking U.S. residency. Given the crush of applications under the program and the relative fewer investigative resources, INS approved applications absent explicit proof that they were in fact fraudulent.

We found that there was consensus within INS that “SAW fraud”—or fraud in adjusting status under the SAW provisions of IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] —had been prevalent. As Commissioner Meissner told the OIG [Office of the Inspector General], the perception that the SAW program was rife with fraud was “the commonly held view at the institution.” Although some Headquarters officials told the OIG that no empirical studies formally established the extent of such fraud, they acknowledged that the Field believed it had been widespread.139

139 According to an e-mail message summarizing the topics of discussion, Headquarters officials meeting on December 1, 1995, noted that 1.2 million SAW applicants had become eligible for naturalization that day, “with 70% fraudulent applications anticipated [sic].” Although the extent of fraud in the SAW program was not documented, by September 1995 INS had conducted at least one large-scale investigation into organized efforts to sell fraudulent SAW documents. In addition to identifying suspects who were later convicted of federal crimes, that operation identified approximately 22,000 adjustment of status cases that were connected in some way to the persons convicted (for example, a case was included among the 22,000 if the certificate from an agricultural entity bore the signature of one of the suspects). For a more complete discussion of INS’ actions in relation to these 22,000 cases, see “Operation Desert Deception,” below. …

Operation Desert Deception: INS did not take action during CUSA [Citizenship USA] to prevent applicants who had benefited from SAW fraud from becoming citizens

By September 1995, INS had specifically identified 22,000 cases of suspected SAW fraud in the aftermath of an extensive criminal investigation entitled “Operation Desert Deception.” These 22,000 cases were connected to several defendants in the investigation who had by then been convicted of various federal crimes relating to an elaborate SAW fraud scheme. Despite knowledge of these cases at the highest level of INS, despite knowledge that many of these individuals had become or would soon become eligible to apply for naturalization, and despite Headquarters’ commitment to Congress in November 1995 that it would appropriately investigate cases in which SAW fraud was suspected, INS did not take timely action to ensure that applicants suspected of SAW fraud did not naturalize during CUSA. The evidence shows that INS knowingly put CUSA’s production priorities ahead of its commitment to take appropriate action to prevent individuals who had already fraudulently received one immigration benefit from becoming U.S. citizens.

Section: “Executive Summary” (<oig.justice.gov>):

INS officials we interviewed often characterized their approach to CUSA as “business as usual” only on a much larger scale. Thus, any failure to provide its adjudicative corps guidance in the determination of naturalization eligibility did not pose a “new” risk, just a more prevalent one because so many more applications would be adjudicated without such guidance. We identified one way, however, in which INS officials knew that naturalization applications received during CUSA might pose a higher risk of ineligibility than those received during previous years: more than one million persons became eligible for naturalization on December 1, 1995, who had obtained their permanent residency through an INS program widely regarded as having been rife with fraud.

The Legalization program of the late 1980s had included provisions under which “Special Agricultural Workers” (SAWs) could obtain residency (first temporary, then permanent) in the United States by demonstrating that they had worked in certain agricultural jobs during specified time periods. The applicants proved their qualifications by providing documentation to INS attesting to their work history. There was wide consensus within INS that the use of fraudulent documents had been prevalent in the SAW program. Although estimates varied (at one Headquarters meeting, there was an estimate that 70 percent of all SAW cases had involved fraud), no one denied its existence. For that reason, before CUSA began the Chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Barbara Jordan, had recommended that INS pay special attention to applications for citizenship by SAW applicants. In addition, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Alan Simpson, had received assurance from INS that it would respond appropriately to evidence of previous immigration fraud by all applicants for naturalization.

Despite these warnings and promises, however, evidence of fraud was not adequately explored and, in some instances, was completely disregarded. New adjudicators were not trained to recognize or explore potential issues of fraud by SAW applicants and no guidance was sent to the Field to ensure that experienced examiners were alert to the importance of this issue. Even worse, many adjudicators believed that they were prohibited from reviewing documents in an applicant’s file that pertained to the SAW application or believed that if evidence of SAW fraud somehow emerged they could not consider it in the determination of citizenship.

[646] Report: “An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Citizenship USA Initiative.” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2000. <oig.justice.gov>

Section: “Executive Summary” (<oig.justice.gov>):

In the meantime, in response to congressional requests the Justice Management Division (JMD) of the Department of Justice engaged an outside accounting firm, KPMG Peat Marwick, to oversee a systematic review of CUSA [Citizenship USA] naturalizations that INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] would conduct using INS employees. The KPMG-supervised review first concentrated on determining whether each person naturalized during CUSA had a fingerprint check conducted by the FBI. Subsequent reviews would determine how many persons had naturalized during CUSA despite a disqualifying criminal history. The KPMG-supervised review continued over the course of the next two years, but even its preliminary results were troubling. In March 1997, JMD reported to Congress that of the 1,049,867 persons INS had then identified as having naturalized between August 31, 1995, and September 30, 1996,1 the fingerprint cards of 124,111 had been returned by the FBI as “unclassifiable,” meaning that the fingerprints submitted had not been suitable for comparison. For an additional 61,366 persons, the FBI had no record of having conducted any fingerprint check. This data, therefore, indicated that for 18 percent of those persons naturalized during CUSA, INS had not conducted a complete criminal history background check. …

When the initial statistics from the KPMG-supervised review of CUSA cases became available in early 1997, Commissioner Meissner acknowledged that INS’ primary policy regarding fingerprint checks, the “presumptive policy,” had been flawed. The policy, established in 1982, permitted INS offices to presume that an applicant had no criminal record if no rap sheet was returned to INS after a designated amount of time had passed (the “presumptive period”) since the fingerprint card had been sent to the FBI for analysis. At the same time that INS officials conceded the flaws in the presumptive policy, they continued to maintain that they had made every effort to safeguard the system—indeed, to improve it.

We examined the INS fingerprint checking process in detail. We found that although the presumptive policy was inherently flawed, the myriad problems with INS’ criminal history checking procedures could not be attributed only to having adopted an ill-conceived policy many years before CUSA. INS had been repeatedly warned about systemic weaknesses, including but not limited to the presumptive policy, and failed to respond to them before launching CUSA. The volume of cases, the new processing strategies like Direct Mail, and the accelerated rate of production during CUSA all exacerbated these problems. The one innovation INS implemented in the name of improving fingerprint processing—the opening of a centralized Fingerprint Clearance Coordination Center in June 1996—was poorly planned, poorly timed, insufficiently staffed, and inadequately explained to the Field. Instead of improving INS’ fingerprint processing during CUSA, it served to weaken procedures that were already deficient.

We also reviewed INS’ “bio-check” procedures. The bio-check is a comparison of applicant biographic data to data available at the FBI and CIA to determine whether the applicant is the subject of any intelligence, counter-intelligence, organized crime, or terrorism investigations. In addition to investigative data, this check could reveal an applicant’s criminal history from a foreign country or outstanding domestic or international arrest warrants. We found that INS bio-check procedures suffered from the same kinds of deficiencies that marred INS’ processing of naturalization applicants’ fingerprint cards and resulting criminal histories. As sometimes happened in INS’ processing of fingerprint cards, staff ignorance of appropriate bio-check procedures also resulted in the destruction of relevant material returned from the FBI.

In searching for explanations for how INS could so poorly administer, and for so long, the few methods in place for checking naturalization applicants’ backgrounds, we identified several factors. First, INS regarded the pool of naturalization applicants as a group of persons at very low risk for a disqualifying criminal history. Second, INS approached criminal history checks with an attitude that the cost of obtaining a definitive criminal history check for every applicant outweighed their value, given the presumed low risk of a criminal history. Finally, thorough criminal history checking procedures, like other procedural safeguards such as applicant file review, were overshadowed by the priority of completing more than a million cases in one year, and thus these checks suffered from the mismanagement that affected other areas of naturalization processing.

We also examined INS’ response to congressional inquiries about criminal history checking procedures. We found that INS answers to congressional inquiries concerning criminal history checking procedures during CUSA were replete with mistakes that could have been avoided had INS officials paid sufficient attention to the information then available from the Field. …

As described in a February 1994 inspection report by the OIG [Office of Inspector General], we found that INS was not resubmitting rejected fingerprint cards and not timely interfiling rap sheets. We reported that FBI checks were a necessary procedural safeguard in the naturalization process and recommended that INS resubmit rejects and ensure that criminal history reports returned by the FBI be available to adjudicators at interview.

Although in 1994 INS concurred with the OIG only in part that fingerprint checks were necessary for naturalization applicants, it agreed that its procedures were in need of repair. Accordingly, INS promised to take a series of ameliorative steps. We found as a result of this investigation that INS took no substantive steps to repair the deficiencies we previously highlighted other than to form a working group—the Fingerprint Enhancement Working Group—whose recommendations were not implemented before CUSA. As Associate Commissioner Crocetti told the OIG during this investigation, INS’ response to the OIG’s 1994 inspection report was “lip service.”

In March 1994, after the OIG issued its report, for a brief period INS suspended all fingerprint checks for naturalization applicants as a cost-cutting measure. The suspension was quickly criticized by Congress and reversed. Congressional concern, however, led to a follow-up review by the GAO [Government Accountability Office] of INS’ fingerprint checking procedures in relation to naturalization applications. GAO issued its report in December 1994. …

… We note, however, that one service center director, upon realizing the degree of error in fingerprint card processing associated with the transition to Direct Mail, sent an e-mail message to Headquarters in July 1996 in which he advised, “we need to start over and design a process with integrity.”

[647] Report: “An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Citizenship USA Initiative.” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2000. <oig.justice.gov>

Section: “Executive Summary” (<oig.justice.gov>):

Well before CUSA [Citizenship USA] began, INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] was aware that its language and government testing components of the naturalization interview were poorly and disparately administered. INS had not developed an objective standard or effective test for determining whether an applicant spoke English at the requisite minimum level. INS recognized the need to improve in these areas and had planned to develop both a standard and a test for spoken English, and a revised regulation to improve the administration of outside testing.

However, these new standards and improvements were not targeted for implementation in time to affect CUSA cases. In the meantime, DAOs [District Adjudications Officer] continued to apply the same ambiguous standards to the increasing number of cases. By the end of CUSA, on September 10, 1996, EAC [Executive Associate Commissioner] Aleinikoff testified before the Subcommittee that “lack of standardization among INS offices [had], for some time, led to inconsistent standards” in the testing of English and Civics. INS had taken no meaningful steps to insulate CUSA adjudications from the adverse affects of the weaknesses it had identified before the program began.

Absent an objective standard for determining the minimum level of spoken English required of an applicant, DAOs relied on the general guidance that governed their determination before CUSA—whether the applicant spoke ordinary English, or English at an “elementary” or third-grade level. This guideline was not further defined. New adjudicators during CUSA attempted to formulate some understanding of minimum proficiency at a time when they were under pressure to avoid unnecessary continuances and to complete cases. When no real standard existed, however, management pressure to reduce the number of continuances reinforced interpretations in favor of approval. We found that there was a widespread agreement among the adjudicators we interviewed that INS did not properly enforce the English-language requirement of naturalization.

[648] Report: “An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Citizenship USA Initiative.” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2000. <oig.justice.gov>

Section: “Executive Summary” (<oig.justice.gov>):

Throughout CUSA [Citizenship USA], INS Headquarters encouraged the Field to “streamline” the naturalization interview. As a result of the “Expanded Naturalization Initiative” of March 1996, the Office of Programs (Examinations) issued its “Naturalization Process Changes” memorandum on May 1, 1996, that further encouraged such streamlining. The Naturalization Process Changes memorandum recommended that the Field consider innovative examination strategies, noting that “interviewing pace” needed to be “recalibrated to take advantage of the time-saving strategies.” The El Monte interview, anticipated to be pared down to five minutes, was lauded as a CUSA model, even though at the time the memorandum was distributed the site had only been open for business for less than one month and the impact of its approach on the quality of naturalization adjudications had not been reviewed. Even without validation, although the testing of Civics and written English proficiency had been eliminated from the El Monte interview,6 the notion that a thorough review of the applicant’s immigration history, evaluation of his or her spoken English, consideration of all of the answers provided in the N-400, and determination of “good moral character” could be reduced to a 5-minute exchange between the applicant and a superficially trained, inexperienced DAO [District Adjudications Officer] showed INS Headquarters’ disregard for the importance of the naturalization interview.

[649] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.

[650] Paper: “A Count of the Uncountable: Estimates of Undocumented Aliens Counted in the 1980 United States Census.” By Robert Warren and Jeffrey S. Passel. Demography, August 1987. Pages 375–393. <www.jstor.org>

Page 375:

During the past few decades, significant changes in the level and sources of immigration have led to the reemergence of immigration as a topic of national concern in the United States. In the 1960s, major events in foreign policy and changes in U.S. law set the stage for a renewal of public awareness about international migration to the United States. Hundreds of thousands of refugees arrived from Cuba in the 1960s and from Vietnam after 1975. Following passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, the level of legal immigration increased steadily and Latin America and Asia supplanted Europe as the major source of immigrants [Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 1983]. A suspected increase in undocumented immigrants in recent years has focused attention on the level and impact of immigration, both documented and undocumented, and has led to the passage of new legislation in 1986.

Figures on the size of the undocumented alien population in the country have varied widely, with speculative estimates as high as 12 million (Siegel, Passel. and Robinson, 1980). Much of the conjecture about undocumented immigration during the past 15 years has been based on the rapid increase in the number of apprehensions of deportable aliens, mostly from Mexico, following termination of the Bracero program in 1964. Apprehensions reached 500,000 in 1972, leveled off at about 1 million annually by the end of the 1970s, and increased again in the mid-1980s. These increases were interpreted as evidence of a rapidly growing undocumented population by officials of the INS and others during the 1970s. (For a different interpretation, see Passel, 1985a.) Much of the ensuing numbers debate was unhampered by any other empirical evidence.

Empirically based estimates of undocumented immigrants have been consistently lower than most of the speculative estimates (Garcia y Griego and Estrada, 1981). Recent work using data from the 1980 census of Mexico (Bean, King. and Passel, 1983) placed an upper bound of 4 million on the number of undocumented Mexicans in the United States at that date and suggested that the actual number was probably much smaller. Although the research reported here does not directly address the question of the total number of undocumented aliens in the country, it does help set limits; estimates of the number counted in the census provide a firm empirical basis for setting a lower bound on the total in the country as of 1980. The estimates presented in this paper, along with the results of other studies (Panel on Immigration Statistics, 1985; Passel, 1985a), suggest that the undocumented Mexican population in 1980 was in the 1–2 million range, with the total number from all countries falling in the range of 2–4 million.

Page 3: “The unauthorized immigrant population grew from 2–4 million in 1980 (Warren and Passel, 1987) to 8.5 million in 2000 and 11.6 million in 2010 (see Figure 1).”

[651] Report: “Naturalization Rates among IRCA Immigrants: A 2009 Update.” By Bryan C. Baker. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 2010. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1: “Nearly 2.7 million persons became LPRs [lawful permanent residents] under IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act], including 1.6 million pre-1982s and 1.1 million SAWs [special agricultural workers].”

[652] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in

the United States: 1990 to 2000.” By Robert Warren. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of Policy and Planning, 2003. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This paper describes estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States in January 2000, by State of residence and country of origin. The estimates were developed using data on the foreign-born population from the 2000 Census, INS administrative data, and a new methodology for estimating annual trends in population growth. It is the third in a series of estimates developed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

The INS estimates that the total unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States in January 2000 was 7.0 million. The total population estimates presented here are somewhat higher than INS’ previous estimates. In its last set of estimates, INS estimated that the population was 5.0 million in October 1996; the new estimates produced a total of about 5.8 million for the same date. Estimated population growth was variable in the 1990s; on average, however, the population grew by about 350,000 per year from 1990 to 1999, about 75,000 higher than INS’ previous annual estimate of 275,000 for the 1990s. …

In 1994, the INS developed the first detailed national estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States. Those estimates indicated that the unauthorized resident population was 3.4 million as of October 1992, and that the population was growing at an average annual rate of 300,000. Updated figures for October 1996, released in February 1997, estimated the total population to be 5.0 million and growing at an average annual rate of 275,000.

Pages 2–4:

INS estimates for January 2000 were derived using the residual technique: the legally resident population was estimated and then subtracted from the census-based foreign-born population, leaving estimated unauthorized residents as a residual. The estimates rely primarily on data from two sources: 1) annual INS statistics (immigrants admitted, deportable aliens removed, and nonimmigrant residents admitted); and 2) data for the foreign-born population from the 2000 Census. Questions on country of birth, citizenship, and year of immigration were asked on the “long form,” which was used to collect detailed information from approximately one-sixth of the total U.S. population in the 2000 Census.

The primary reason that the total population estimate shown here is higher than INS’ earlier total is that the new estimate for Mexico is about 1.2 million higher than the previous estimate (for the comparable date, October 1996). The increase in the estimate for Mexico occurred because the new estimate for Mexico is based on data collected in the 2000 Census rather than survey data, which was used previously to estimate the unauthorized resident population from Mexico. Census data are more complete and reliable because of the national scope of the data collection, the vastly larger sample size, and the extensive preparation and follow-up activities involved in conducting the decennial census. For all countries excluding Mexico, the new estimate is 0.4 million lower than the previous estimate for the comparable date. …

Summary of Methodology

Estimates for January 2000

The first step was to estimate the number of unauthorized residents living in the United States in January 2000. Estimates were derived separately for: (1) unauthorized residents who entered the United States in the 1990s; and (2) those who entered before 1990 and still lived here illegally in January 2000.

1. For unauthorized residents who entered in the 1990s and resided illegally in the United States in January 2000, estimates were derived by subtracting estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population. The difference is the number of unauthorized residents, as of January 2000, who entered in the 1990s.

About 12.6 million foreign-born persons who entered the United States from 1990 to 1999 were counted in the 2000 Census. The INS adjusted that number upward by about 850,000, primarily to account for estimated undercount in the census,4 yielding a total foreign-born population of nearly 13.5 million who entered from 1990 to 1999.5 The INS estimates that 8.0 million of the 13.5 million foreign-born residents who moved to the United States in the 1990s were in a legal status. The difference, 5.5 million, is the estimated unauthorized population that entered the United States from 1990 to 1999 and resided here in January 2000 (Table 3).

2. For unauthorized residents who moved here before 1990 and still resided here illegally in January 2000, the estimates are based on the estimated population that resided illegally in the United States in January 1990, reduced by the number that left the population in the 1990s. The INS estimates that 3.5 million unauthorized residents were living in the United States in January 1990. Of those, nearly 2 million left the unauthorized resident population in the 1990s.6 Thus, an estimated 1.5 million who entered before January 1990 were still residing illegally in the United States in January 2000 (Table 3).

Combining the estimates in paragraphs 1 and 2 above yields a total of 7.0 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States in January 2000. The figures shown above are for the entire U.S. foreign-born population; comparable estimates were derived for all States and for 75 source countries of unauthorized immigration.

Pages 5–6:

Limitations of the Data

As described above, the estimates of unauthorized residents were derived by subtracting estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population. The figures used here for the total foreign-born population are relatively straightforward: they are 2000 Census counts of the foreign-born population, adjusted for estimated undercount. Estimating the legally resident population was considerably more complex. In addition to those admitted for lawful permanent residence and refugee arrivals, it was necessary to make reliable estimates for a number of difficult-to-estimate populations. Detailed estimates were made for:

• nonimmigrant residents (temporary workers, students, etc.);

• unauthorized residents who have pending, and likely to be approved, applications for LPR [lawful permanent resident] status in the INS processing backlog;

• asylees and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and

• aliens, mostly from Central American countries, who otherwise would be unauthorized residents but are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings.

All of these groups have been included in the legally resident population used to derive the estimates shown here; the total for these groups is nearly 2.1 million (Table 3, rows 16–18). Failure to fully account for these groups would cause a significant overestimate of the unauthorized resident population (see later section, “Comparison with recent estimates”).

It should be noted that net internal migration (moves from State to State) of lawful residents after admission could affect the accuracy of the estimates of unauthorized immigration for States. For example, if relatively more lawful residents (who arrived in the 1990s) moved out of California than moved into California in the 1990s, then INS’ estimate of lawful residents in California in 2000 would be too high.7 Consequently, the unauthorized resident population in California would be underestimated.

The effects of net internal migration of lawful residents might be relatively small because: 1) the majority of LPRs are admitted on the basis of close kinship with U.S. relatives, possibly reducing the probability of subsequent out-of-State moves; and 2) a majority of the lawfully resident population already had a residence in the United States at the time they entered the INS data systems, for example by adjusting from temporary to permanent lawful residence. The estimated unauthorized resident population in each State would be unaffected by net internal migration of lawful residents who moved to the United States before 1990.

The 2000 Census data for the foreign-born population are based on a sample of the population, and therefore the annual estimates of the unauthorized resident population in January 2000 are subject to sampling variability.8 Also, the estimates for some components of the population, primarily the estimated emigration rates and the size of the resident nonimmigrant population, are subject to other kinds of error. Thus, relatively small year-to-year differences should be disregarded, and the actual trends might be somewhat higher or lower than those shown here.

Page 10:

Table C. Annual Estimates of Population and Net Change of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000

(In thousands. Parts might not add to totals because of rounding)

Year

Estimated Unauthorized Residents, January 1

2000

7,000

1999

6,488

1998

6,098

1997

5,862

1996

5,581

1995

5,146

1994

4,750

1993

4,492

1992

4,204

1991

4,025

1990

3,500

[653] Report: “As Growth Stalls, Unauthorized Immigrant Population Becomes More Settled.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and others. Pew Research, September 3, 2014. <www.pewresearch.org>

Page 5:

The new estimates are based mainly on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, using the widely accepted “residual methodology” employed by the center for many years.1 The estimates of the total population, as well as regarding the share of unauthorized immigrants with U.S. citizen children and length of residence in the U.S., update previously published estimates.

Page 14:

Table A1. Unauthorized Immigrant Population, by Age and Duration of Residence in the U.S., and Their U.S.-Born Children, 1995–2013

Year

Unauthorized Population

2013

11,300

2012

11,200

2011

11,500

2010

11,400

2009

11,300

2008

11,700

2007

12,200

2006

11,600

2005

11,100

2003

10,100

2000

8,600

1998

7,250

1995

5,700

Population figures in thousands, unless otherwise noted (see rounding notes below)

Pages 20–25:

Appendix C: Methodology

Overview

The estimates presented in this report for the unauthorized immigrant population are based on a residual estimation methodology that compares a demographic estimate of the number of immigrants residing legally in the country with the total number of immigrants as measured by a survey—either the American Community Survey (ACS) or the March Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS); the difference is assumed to be the number of unauthorized immigrants in the survey, a number that is later adjusted for omissions from the survey (see below). The basic estimate is:

Unauthorized Immigrants = Survey, Foreign Born – Estimated Legal Immigrant Population …

First, all immigrants entering the U.S. before 1980 are assumed to be legal immigrants. Then, the data are corrected for known over-reporting of naturalized citizenship on the part of recently arrived immigrants (Passel and others 1997) and all remaining naturalized citizens from countries other than Mexico and those in Central America are assigned as legal. … Finally, some individuals are assigned as legal immigrants because they are in certain occupations (such as police officer, lawyer, military occupation, federal job) that require legal status or because they are receiving public benefits (such as welfare or food stamps) that are limited to legal immigrants. As result of these steps, the foreign-born population is divided between individuals with “definitely legal” status (including long-term residents, naturalized citizens, refugees and asylees, legal temporary migrants, and some legal permanent residents) and a group of “potentially unauthorized” migrants.

The number of potentially unauthorized migrants typically exceeds the estimated number of unauthorized migrants (from the residual estimates) by 15–35%. So, to have a result consistent with the residual estimate of legal and unauthorized immigrants, probabilistic methods are employed to assign legal or unauthorized status to these potentially unauthorized individuals. This last step also involves a check to ensure that the legal statuses of family members are consistent; for example, all family members entering the country at the same time are assumed to have the same legal status.

[654] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in

the United States: 1990 to 2000.” By Robert Warren. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of Policy and Planning, 2003. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This paper describes estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States in January 2000, by State of residence and country of origin. The estimates were developed using data on the foreign-born population from the 2000 Census, INS administrative data, and a new methodology for estimating annual trends in population growth. It is the third in a series of estimates developed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

The INS estimates that the total unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States in January 2000 was 7.0 million. The total population estimates presented here are somewhat higher than INS’ previous estimates. In its last set of estimates, INS estimated that the population was 5.0 million in October 1996; the new estimates produced a total of about 5.8 million for the same date. Estimated population growth was variable in the 1990s; on average, however, the population grew by about 350,000 per year from 1990 to 1999, about 75,000 higher than INS’ previous annual estimate of 275,000 for the 1990s. …

In 1994, the INS developed the first detailed national estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States. Those estimates indicated that the unauthorized resident population was 3.4 million as of October 1992, and that the population was growing at an average annual rate of 300,000. Updated figures for October 1996, released in February 1997, estimated the total population to be 5.0 million and growing at an average annual rate of 275,000.

Pages 2–4:

INS estimates for January 2000 were derived using the residual technique: the legally resident population was estimated and then subtracted from the census-based foreign-born population, leaving estimated unauthorized residents as a residual. The estimates rely primarily on data from two sources: 1) annual INS statistics (immigrants admitted, deportable aliens removed, and nonimmigrant residents admitted); and 2) data for the foreign-born population from the 2000 Census. Questions on country of birth, citizenship, and year of immigration were asked on the “long form,” which was used to collect detailed information from approximately one-sixth of the total U.S. population in the 2000 Census.

The primary reason that the total population estimate shown here is higher than INS’ earlier total is that the new estimate for Mexico is about 1.2 million higher than the previous estimate (for the comparable date, October 1996). The increase in the estimate for Mexico occurred because the new estimate for Mexico is based on data collected in the 2000 Census rather than survey data, which was used previously to estimate the unauthorized resident population from Mexico. Census data are more complete and reliable because of the national scope of the data collection, the vastly larger sample size, and the extensive preparation and follow-up activities involved in conducting the decennial census. For all countries excluding Mexico, the new estimate is 0.4 million lower than the previous estimate for the comparable date. …

Summary of Methodology

Estimates for January 2000

The first step was to estimate the number of unauthorized residents living in the United States in January 2000. Estimates were derived separately for: (1) unauthorized residents who entered the United States in the 1990s; and (2) those who entered before 1990 and still lived here illegally in January 2000.

1. For unauthorized residents who entered in the 1990s and resided illegally in the United States in January 2000, estimates were derived by subtracting estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population. The difference is the number of unauthorized residents, as of January 2000, who entered in the 1990s.

About 12.6 million foreign-born persons who entered the United States from 1990 to 1999 were counted in the 2000 Census. The INS adjusted that number upward by about 850,000, primarily to account for estimated undercount in the census,4 yielding a total foreign-born population of nearly 13.5 million who entered from 1990 to 1999.5 The INS estimates that 8.0 million of the 13.5 million foreign-born residents who moved to the United States in the 1990s were in a legal status. The difference, 5.5 million, is the estimated unauthorized population that entered the United States from 1990 to 1999 and resided here in January 2000 (Table 3).

2. For unauthorized residents who moved here before 1990 and still resided here illegally in January 2000, the estimates are based on the estimated population that resided illegally in the United States in January 1990, reduced by the number that left the population in the 1990s. The INS estimates that 3.5 million unauthorized residents were living in the United States in January 1990. Of those, nearly 2 million left the unauthorized resident population in the 1990s.6 Thus, an estimated 1.5 million who entered before January 1990 were still residing illegally in the United States in January 2000 (Table 3).

Combining the estimates in paragraphs 1 and 2 above yields a total of 7.0 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States in January 2000. The figures shown above are for the entire U.S. foreign-born population; comparable estimates were derived for all States and for 75 source countries of unauthorized immigration.

Pages 5–6:

Limitations of the Data

As described above, the estimates of unauthorized residents were derived by subtracting estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population from the total foreign-born population. The figures used here for the total foreign-born population are relatively straightforward: they are 2000 Census counts of the foreign-born population, adjusted for estimated undercount. Estimating the legally resident population was considerably more complex. In addition to those admitted for lawful permanent residence and refugee arrivals, it was necessary to make reliable estimates for a number of difficult-to-estimate populations. Detailed estimates were made for:

• nonimmigrant residents (temporary workers, students, etc.);

• unauthorized residents who have pending, and likely to be approved, applications for LPR [lawful permanent resident] status in the INS processing backlog;

• asylees and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and

• aliens, mostly from Central American countries, who otherwise would be unauthorized residents but are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings.

All of these groups have been included in the legally resident population used to derive the estimates shown here; the total for these groups is nearly 2.1 million (Table 3, rows 16–18). Failure to fully account for these groups would cause a significant overestimate of the unauthorized resident population (see later section, “Comparison with recent estimates”).

It should be noted that net internal migration (moves from State to State) of lawful residents after admission could affect the accuracy of the estimates of unauthorized immigration for States. For example, if relatively more lawful residents (who arrived in the 1990s) moved out of California than moved into California in the 1990s, then INS’ estimate of lawful residents in California in 2000 would be too high.7 Consequently, the unauthorized resident population in California would be underestimated.

The effects of net internal migration of lawful residents might be relatively small because: 1) the majority of LPRs are admitted on the basis of close kinship with U.S. relatives, possibly reducing the probability of subsequent out-of-State moves; and 2) a majority of the lawfully resident population already had a residence in the United States at the time they entered the INS data systems, for example by adjusting from temporary to permanent lawful residence. The estimated unauthorized resident population in each State would be unaffected by net internal migration of lawful residents who moved to the United States before 1990.

The 2000 Census data for the foreign-born population are based on a sample of the population, and therefore the annual estimates of the unauthorized resident population in January 2000 are subject to sampling variability.8 Also, the estimates for some components of the population, primarily the estimated emigration rates and the size of the resident nonimmigrant population, are subject to other kinds of error. Thus, relatively small year-to-year differences should be disregarded, and the actual trends might be somewhat higher or lower than those shown here.

Page 10:

Table C. Annual Estimates of Population and Net Change of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000

(In thousands. Parts might not add to totals because of rounding)

Year

Est. Unauth. Residents, January 1

2000

7,000

1999

6,488

1998

6,098

1997

5,862

1996

5,581

1995

5,146

1994

4,750

1993

4,492

1992

4,204

1991

4,025

1990

3,500

[655] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, March 2013. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 1–2:

This report provides estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States as of January 2012 by period of entry, region and country of origin, state of residence, age, and sex. The estimates were obtained using the residual methodology employed for previous estimates of the unauthorized population (see Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker, 2012). The unauthorized immigrant population is the remainder or residual after the legally resident foreign-born population—legal permanent residents (LPRs), naturalized citizens, asylees, refugees, and nonimmigrants—is subtracted from the total foreign-born population. Data to estimate the legally resident population were obtained primarily from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whereas the American Community Survey (ACS) of the U.S. Census Bureau was the source for estimates of the total foreign-born population.

In summary, an estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in January 2012 compared to 11.5 million in January 2011. These results suggest little to no change in the unauthorized immigrant population from 2011 to 2012. Of all unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2012, 42 percent entered in 2000 or later. Entrants since 2005 accounted for 14 percent of the total. Fifty-nine percent of unauthorized immigrants in 2012 were from Mexico. …

The unauthorized resident immigrant population is defined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents (see above). Most unauthorized residents either entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and stayed past the date they were required to leave. Unauthorized immigrants applying for adjustment to LPR status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are unauthorized until they have been granted lawful permanent residence, even though they may have been authorized to work. Persons who are beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—an estimated several hundred thousand—are not technically unauthorized but were excluded from the legally resident immigrant population because data are unavailable in sufficient detail to estimate this population.

Methodology and Data

Two populations are estimated in order to derive the unauthorized population estimates: 1) the total foreign-born population living in the United States on January 1, 2012 and 2) the legally resident population on the same date. The unauthorized population estimate is the residual when 2) is subtracted from 1). Foreign-born residents who entered the United States prior to 1980 were assumed to be legally resident since most were eligible for LPR [lawful permanent resident] status.1 Therefore, the starting point for the estimates was January 1, 1980. …

Limitations

Annual estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population are subject to sampling error in the ACS and considerable nonsampling error because of uncertainty in some of the assumptions required for estimation as indicated below. Caution is recommended in interpreting year-year changes in the size of the unauthorized population.

Assumptions about undercount of the foreign-born population in the ACS and rates of emigration. The estimates are sensitive to the assumptions that are made about these components (see Results).

Accuracy of year of entry reporting. Concerns exist among immigration analysts regarding the validity and reliability of Census survey data on the year of entry question, “When did this person come to live in the United States?” Errors also occur in converting DHS administrative dates for legally resident immigrants to year of entry dates.

Assumptions about the nonimmigrant population estimate. The estimates are based on admission dates and length of visit by class of admission and country of citizenship and not actual population counts.

Page 3:

Figure 1. Unauthorized Immigration Population: 2000–2012

Year

Number (Millions)

2000

8.5 *

2005

10.5 *

2006

11.3 *

2007

11.8 *

2008

11.6 *

2009

10.8 *

2010

10.8 *, 11.6 †

2011

11.5 †

2012

11.4 †

* Based on the 2000 Census

† Based on the 2010 Census

… It is unlikely that the unauthorized immigrant population has increased since 2007 given relatively high U.S. unemployment, improved economic conditions in Mexico, record low numbers of apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants at U.S. borders, and greater levels of border enforcement.

The sensitivity of the estimates to assumptions about undercount and emigration is illustrated with several examples. Doubling the unauthorized immigrant undercount rate from 10 percent to 20 percent increases the estimated unauthorized population in 2012 from 11.4 million to 12.9 million. By lowering or raising emigration rates 20 percent and holding all other assumptions constant, the estimated unauthorized immigrant population would range from 10.6 million to 12.3 million. Doubling the unauthorized immigrant undercount rate and lowering or raising emigration rates by 20 percent would expand the range of the estimated unauthorized immigrant population from 11.9 to 13.8 million.

[656] Report: “The Underground Labor Force Is Rising to the Surface.” By Robert Justich and Betty Ng. Bear Stearns Asset Management, January 3, 2005. <pdfs.semanticscholar.org>

Page 1 (of PDF): “The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people, more than double the official 9 million people estimated by the Census Bureau.”

Page 6:

Based on several criteria, we believe that immigration is growing significantly faster than the consensus estimates:

1. Remittances

2. Housing permits in gateway communities

3. School enrollment

4. Cross border flows …

Many immigrants, particularly those with immediate families in their native country, provide financial support to those left behind. …

… . The rate of increase in remittances far exceeds the increases in Mexicans residing in the U.S. and their wage growth. Between 1995 and 2003, the official tally of Mexicans has climbed 56%, and median weekly wage has increased by 10%. Yet total remittances jumped 199% over the same period. Even considering the declining costs of money transfers, the growth of remittances remains astounding.

Pages 7–8:

The rapid addition of bank accounts by Mexicans living in the U.S. is also revealing. … Wells Fargo opens an average of 700 new accounts everyday based on this identification, representing the fastest growing segment for the bank. To date, around 2.5 million matriculas have been issued, and the number is growing. …

In major immigrant gateway cities, the influx of immigrants has led to overcrowded dwellings and a housing boom unexplained by official population growth. Many illegal immigrants, especially those who just arrive, reside in congested dwellings in cities, with the hope of finding jobs and upgrading to better living conditions later. These congested dwellings often house far more tenants than they are built for, and their landlords have no qualms about cramming in additional renters for a surcharge. Even so, new housing demand in these illegal immigrant enclaves outstrips those in other areas.

In New Jersey, the three gateway towns of New Brunswick, Elizabeth, and Newark exemplify this trend. According to the census, the combined population in these three towns between 1990 and 2003 grew only 5.6%, less than the 9% reported in the rest of the three corresponding counties. Yet housing permits in these three towns shot up over six-fold, while the rest of the three counties only saw a three-fold increase. More importantly, 80% of these permits were designated for multiple dwellings, so the corresponding increase in people accommodated are even greater. …

… The enrollment statistics for a sample of school districts that included Queens, New York, Elizabeth, Newark and New Brunswick, New Jersey and Wake County in North Carolina revealed explosive growth in immigrant students, far beyond numbers consistent with legal migration limits.

[657] Article: “Illegal Aliens: Counting the Uncountable.” By James H. Walsh. Social Contract, Summer 2007. Pages 216–223. <www.thesocialcontract.com>

Pages 218–219:

The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 million a year. A DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] report, “Border Apprehensions: 2005,” documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.

Journeymen Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more) estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven. That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children. …

My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States.

About the Author

(<www.thesocialcontract.com>):

James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the United States Department of Justice, writes immigration commentary. During his INS tenure, Walsh was selected as a German Marshall Fund Scholar, traveled through Europe interviewing immigration officials, and published articles based on his findings. At INS, he worked with other federal agencies and with congressional committees on immigration matters. His assignments included consultations with foreign governments and international business concerns. He chaired a task force on Transit without Visa (TWOV), whose report identified weaknesses in pre-9/11 airport security.

Walsh has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (Middle District of Florida) and as a Special Trial Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime Section. He chaired the Constitutional Rights Committee, General Law Section, of the American Bar Association, and served on the Editorial Board of The Florida Bar Journal. His articles on immigration have appeared in MigrationWorld, Social Contract, The Florida Bar Journal, and Newsmax.com.

Walsh has a B.A. in history from Spring Hill College and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

[658] Article: “The Challenge of Accurately Estimating the Population of Illegal Immigrants.” By Nancy Bolton. Social Contract, Summer 2007. Pages 224–229. <www.thesocialcontract.com>

Page 224:

While the Census Bureau makes a Herculean effort to get a complete count, it is virtually impossible to get an accurate count of populations who are resistant to being identified. …

… The most definitive conclusion is that determining the size of the population residing illegally in the U.S is subject to very large inaccuracies.

Page 226:

Households containing immigrants who are not legal residents have an incentive not to identify those members.

The Current Population Survey (CPS), which was the basis of the estimate of 11.1 million undocumented migrants reported in March of 2005, is in turn tied to the Census. … While the CPS is a well-constructed survey instrument for measuring employment/unemployment, the survey design is tied to Census data and the CPS also relies on the candor of respondents.

Page 229:

Given the nature of the problem—counting a population composed of individuals that have considerable incentive to be invisible to government authorities—it is probably impossible to know with a high level of precision the size of that population. Although the Census Bureau puts enormous effort into making a complete count, they can only be successful if there is a high level of co-operation from the population being counted. One thing that all sources agree on is that the size of the illegal immigrant population has grown rapidly since the early 1990s. There are indications that the official sources could be underestimating the size of this rapidly growing population.

About the Author

(<www.thesocialcontract.com>):

Nancy Bolton is a demographic expert who developed and programmed the Population Estimation and Projection System for Los Angeles County; a system that produced estimates and projections of the population by age, sex and ethnicity for every census tract in the state. Bolton was the chief demographer for UCLA’s [University of California at Los Angeles] Business Forecast Project, where she produced research based articles for quarterly forecasts on demographic and economic issues. As a consultant to the Los Angeles County Urban Research Division, Bolton coordinated a study of the economic effects of illegal immigration on the county and developed an estimate of tax revenues generated by immigrants. The results were published in a watershed report, “The Impact of Undocumented Persons and Other Immigrants on Costs, Revenues and Services in Los Angeles County.” Bolton also served as a consultant to the Southern California Association of Governments, where she developed the computer programs that processed state tax records and demographic estimates. Nancy Bolton has a PhD. in urban planning from the University of Southern California.

[659] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, March 2013. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 1–2:

This report provides estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States as of January 2012 by period of entry, region and country of origin, state of residence, age, and sex. The estimates were obtained using the residual methodology employed for previous estimates of the unauthorized population (see Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker, 2012). The unauthorized immigrant population is the remainder or residual after the legally resident foreign-born population—legal permanent residents (LPRs), naturalized citizens, asylees, refugees, and nonimmigrants—is subtracted from the total foreign-born population. Data to estimate the legally resident population were obtained primarily from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whereas the American Community Survey (ACS) of the U.S. Census Bureau was the source for estimates of the total foreign-born population.

In summary, an estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in January 2012 compared to 11.5 million in January 2011. These results suggest little to no change in the unauthorized immigrant population from 2011 to 2012. Of all unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2012, 42 percent entered in 2000 or later. Entrants since 2005 accounted for 14 percent of the total. Fifty-nine percent of unauthorized immigrants in 2012 were from Mexico. …

The unauthorized resident immigrant population is defined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents (see above). Most unauthorized residents either entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and stayed past the date they were required to leave. Unauthorized immigrants applying for adjustment to LPR status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are unauthorized until they have been granted lawful permanent residence, even though they may have been authorized to work. Persons who are beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—an estimated several hundred thousand—are not technically unauthorized but were excluded from the legally resident immigrant population because data are unavailable in sufficient detail to estimate this population.

Methodology and Data

Two populations are estimated in order to derive the unauthorized population estimates: 1) the total foreign-born population living in the United States on January 1, 2012 and 2) the legally resident population on the same date. The unauthorized population estimate is the residual when 2) is subtracted from 1). Foreign-born residents who entered the United States prior to 1980 were assumed to be legally resident since most were eligible for LPR [lawful permanent resident] status.1 Therefore, the starting point for the estimates was January 1, 1980. …

Limitations

Annual estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population are subject to sampling error in the ACS and considerable nonsampling error because of uncertainty in some of the assumptions required for estimation as indicated below. Caution is recommended in interpreting year-year changes in the size of the unauthorized population.

Assumptions about undercount of the foreign-born population in the ACS and rates of emigration. The estimates are sensitive to the assumptions that are made about these components (see Results).

Accuracy of year of entry reporting. Concerns exist among immigration analysts regarding the validity and reliability of Census survey data on the year of entry question, “When did this person come to live in the United States?” Errors also occur in converting DHS administrative dates for legally resident immigrants to year of entry dates.

Assumptions about the nonimmigrant population estimate. The estimates are based on admission dates and length of visit by class of admission and country of citizenship and not actual population counts.

Page 3:

Figure 1. Unauthorized Immigration Population: 2000–2012

Year

Number (Millions)

2000

8.5 *

2005

10.5 *

2006

11.3 *

2007

11.8 *

2008

11.6 *

2009

10.8 *

2010

10.8 *, 11.6 †

2011

11.5 †

2012

11.4 †

* Based on the 2000 Census

† Based on the 2010 Census

… It is unlikely that the unauthorized immigrant population has increased since 2007 given relatively high U.S. unemployment, improved economic conditions in Mexico, record low numbers of apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants at U.S. borders, and greater levels of border enforcement.

The sensitivity of the estimates to assumptions about undercount and emigration is illustrated with several examples. Doubling the unauthorized immigrant undercount rate from 10 percent to 20 percent increases the estimated unauthorized population in 2012 from 11.4 million to 12.9 million. By lowering or raising emigration rates 20 percent and holding all other assumptions constant, the estimated unauthorized immigrant population would range from 10.6 million to 12.3 million. Doubling the unauthorized immigrant undercount rate and lowering or raising emigration rates by 20 percent would expand the range of the estimated unauthorized immigrant population from 11.9 to 13.8 million.

[660] Report: “As Growth Stalls, Unauthorized Immigrant Population Becomes More Settled.” By Jeffrey S. Passel, D’Vera Cohn, Jens Manuel Krogstad, and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera. Pew Research, September 3, 2014. <www.pewresearch.org>

Page 5:

The new estimates are based mainly on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, using the widely accepted “residual methodology” employed by the center for many years.1 The estimates of the total population, as well as regarding the share of unauthorized immigrants with U.S. citizen children and length of residence in the U.S., update previously published estimates.

Page 14:

Table A1. Unauthorized Immigrant Population, by Age and Duration of Residence in the U.S., and Their U.S.-Born Children, 1995–2013

Year

Unauthorized Population

2013

11,300

2012

11,200

2011

11,500

2010

11,400

2009

11,300

2008

11,700

2007

12,200

2006

11,600

2005

11,100

2003

10,100

2000

8,600

1998

7,250

1995

5,700

Population figures in thousands, unless otherwise noted (see rounding notes below)

Pages 20–25:

Appendix C: Methodology

Overview

The estimates presented in this report for the unauthorized immigrant population are based on a residual estimation methodology that compares a demographic estimate of the number of immigrants residing legally in the country with the total number of immigrants as measured by a survey—either the American Community Survey (ACS) or the March Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS); the difference is assumed to be the number of unauthorized immigrants in the survey, a number that is later adjusted for omissions from the survey (see below). The basic estimate is:

Unauthorized Immigrants = Survey, Foreign Born – Estimated Legal Immigrant Population …

First, all immigrants entering the U.S. before 1980 are assumed to be legal immigrants. Then, the data are corrected for known over-reporting of naturalized citizenship on the part of recently arrived immigrants (Passel and others 1997) and all remaining naturalized citizens from countries other than Mexico and those in Central America are assigned as legal. … Finally, some individuals are assigned as legal immigrants because they are in certain occupations (such as police officer, lawyer, military occupation, federal job) that require legal status or because they are receiving public benefits (such as welfare or food stamps) that are limited to legal immigrants. As result of these steps, the foreign-born population is divided between individuals with “definitely legal” status (including long-term residents, naturalized citizens, refugees and asylees, legal temporary migrants, and some legal permanent residents) and a group of “potentially unauthorized” migrants.

The number of potentially unauthorized migrants typically exceeds the estimated number of unauthorized migrants (from the residual estimates) by 15–35%. So, to have a result consistent with the residual estimate of legal and unauthorized immigrants, probabilistic methods are employed to assign legal or unauthorized status to these potentially unauthorized individuals. This last step also involves a check to ensure that the legal statuses of family members are consistent; for example, all family members entering the country at the same time are assumed to have the same legal status.

[661] Paper: “US Undocumented Population Drops Below 11 Million in 2014, with Continued Declines in the Mexican Undocumented Population.” By Robert Warren. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2016. <journals.sagepub.com>

Page 1:

Undocumented immigration has been a significant political issue in recent years, and is likely to remain so throughout and beyond the presidential election year of 2016. One reason for the high and sustained level of interest in undocumented immigration is the widespread belief that the trend in the undocumented population is ever upward. This paper shows that this belief is mistaken and that, in fact, the undocumented population has been decreasing for more than a half a decade.

Page 3:

Figure 1. Total Undocumented Population: 2008 to 2014

Year

Number (Millions)

2008

12.0

2009

11.9

2010

11.7

2011

11.3

2012

11.1

2013

11.0

2014

10.9

Page 13:

The following is a brief description of the methodology that CMS [Center for Migration Studies] used to derive detailed annual estimates of the undocumented population for 2010 to 2014. As Table A-1 shows, the initial focus was on the estimates for 2010; the procedures used to derive the estimates for each year after that are straightforward.

The estimation began with the reported characteristics of non-US citizens (henceforth, noncitizens) in the micro data of the ACS [American Community Survey] in 2010. For the estimation procedure, the three relevant data items from the survey are country of birth, citizenship, and year of entry. Noncitizens who entered the United States before 1982 are excluded because (1) pre-1982 entrants could have legalized under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and (2) those who did not do so have had about 30 years in which to leave the undocumented resident population.7

The methodology involved three major steps: (1) applying a series of edits, referred to here as “logical edits,”8 to identify as many legal residents as possible based on responses in the survey; (2) deriving separate population controls, for 145 countries or areas, for undocumented residents in 2010; and (3) using those population controls to make final selections of individual respondents in the ACS to be classified as undocumented residents. Table A-1 shows the specific steps followed to select sample data for undocumented immigrants from Brazil who were counted in the ACS each year from 2010 to 2014. The same set of procedures were followed for each of the 145 countries or areas. A more detailed description of the data sources and methods is available in Warren (2014).

The final step in the methodology was to adjust the estimates for under-enumeration. The most recent entrants were assumed to have the highest undercount rates (about 12%), and the undercount rate drops steadily with length of residence, falling to 2 percent for those who entered in 1982. The estimated undercount rate for the entire population is approximately 7.5 percent.

[662] Webpage: “Journal on Migration and Human Security.” Journal on Migration and Human Security. Accessed July 26, 2021 at <journals.sagepub.com>

The Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS) is a peer-reviewed public policy publication of the Center for Migration Studies (CMS). The journal’s theme of “human security” is meant to evoke the widely shared goals of creating secure and sustaining conditions in migrant sending communities; promoting safe, legal migration options; and developing immigration and integration policies that benefit sending and receiving communities and allow newcomers to lead productive, secure lives. This thematic focus encompasses the broad scope of the social, political, and economic dimensions of “human security.”

[663] Paper: “The Number of Undocumented Immigrants in the United States: Estimates Based on Demographic Modeling with Data From 1990 to 2016.” By Mohammad M. Fazel-Zarandi, Jonathan S. Feinstein, and Edward H. Kaplan. PLOS One, September 21, 2018. <journals.plos.org>

Page 2:

An alternative approach to estimating the size of the undocumented population follows directly from basic demographic principles. Starting from a known population size at a given date, the population size at a future date equals the starting value plus the cumulative inflows minus the cumulative outflows. We employ this approach to estimate the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. for each year from 1990 to 2016, using the best available data and parameter values from the academic literature and government sources.

Page 3: “Population inflows are decomposed into two streams: (I) undocumented immigrants who initially entered the country legally but have overstayed their visas; and (II) immigrants who have illegally crossed the border without being apprehended.”

Page 5: “Population outflows are broken into four categories: (I) voluntary emigration; (II) mortality; (III) deportation; and (IV) change of status from unauthorized to lawful.”

Pages 8–9:

It is currently fairly widely accepted that there are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. This estimate, derived from population surveys and legal immigration records, has formed the backdrop for the immigration policy debate in the United States. Using a different approach grounded in operational data, and demographic and mathematical modeling, we have arrived at higher estimates of the undocumented immigrant population.

A possible explanation for the discrepancy in these results is that the survey-based approach … must surmount two challenges. First, it requires reaching a representative sample of all those born outside of the United States. Second, it requires accurate responses from survey respondents when asked where they were born, and whether they are American citizens. It is plausible that undocumented immigrants are more difficult to locate (and survey) than other foreign-born residents of the United States, and if contacted, undocumented immigrants might misreport their country of origin, citizenship, and/or number of household residents fearing the possible consequences of revealing their true status. Any of these circumstances would lead to underestimating the true number of undocumented immigrants.

Page 10: “Our results lead us to the conclusion that the widely accepted estimate of 11.3 million undocumented immigrants in the United States is too small. Our model estimates indicate that the true number is likely to be larger, with an estimated ninety-five percent probability interval ranging from 16.2 to 29.5 million undocumented immigrants.”

[664] Report: “U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Total Dips to Lowest Level in a Decade.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn. Pew Research Center, November 27, 2018. <www.pewhispanic.org>

Page 5: “There were 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2016, down from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007, according to the new estimates.”

Pages 36–37:

The estimates for the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population presented in this report are based on a residual estimation methodology that compares a demographic estimate of the number of immigrants residing legally in the country with the total number of immigrants as measured by either the American Community Survey or the March Supplement to the Current Population Survey. The difference is assumed to be the number of unauthorized immigrants in the survey, a number that later is adjusted for omissions from the survey (see below). …

The lawful resident immigrant population is estimated by applying demographic methods to counts of lawful admissions covering the period since 1980 obtained from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics and its predecessor at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, with projections to current years, when necessary. Initial estimates here are calculated separately for age-gender groups in six states (California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas) and the balance of the country; within these areas the estimates are further subdivided into immigrant populations from 35 countries or groups of countries by period of arrival in the United States.

The overall estimates for unauthorized immigrants build on these residuals by adjusting for survey omissions in these six states and the balance of the country, subdivided for Mexican immigrants and other groups of immigrants (balance of Latin America, South and East Asia, rest of world) depending on sample size and state.

Once the residual estimates have been produced, individual foreign-born respondents in the survey are assigned a specific status (one option being unauthorized immigrant) based on the individual’s demographic, social, economic, geographic and family characteristics in numbers that agree with the initial residual estimates for the estimated lawful immigrant and unauthorized immigrant populations in the survey. These status assignments are the basis for the characteristics reported here (including, for example, specific countries of birth, detailed state estimates, period of arrival and household-family relationships). A last step in the weighting-estimation process involves developing state-level estimates that take into account trends over time in the estimates.

[665] Report: “Mexicans Decline to Less Than Half the U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Population for the First Time.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn. Pew Research Center, June 12, 2019. <www.pewresearch.org>

In 2017, there were 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., including 4.9 million Mexicans.

The decrease in the Mexican born was the major factor driving down the overall population of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., which in 2017 was 1.7 million below its peak of 12.2 million in 2007. …

How Did We Estimate the U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Population?

Pew Research Center bases the estimates in this post on a “residual method” similar to those employed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics and nongovernmental organizations, such as the Center for Migration Studies and the Migration Policy Institute. Those organizations’ estimates are generally consistent with ours. Our estimates also align with official U.S. data sources, including birth records, school enrollment figures and tax data, as well as Mexican censuses and surveys.

The first step in our method is to use U.S. census counts and government surveys, such as the American Community Survey, to calculate how many immigrants live in the U.S. in a particular year. Next, we use official counts of immigrant admissions and other demographic data (death rates, for example) to determine how many of these immigrants live in the U.S. legally. Then we subtract those lawful immigrants from the total to get an estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population.

Based on experience and research, we know the census counts and other official surveys tend to miss some people. Unauthorized immigrants are especially likely to be missed. Therefore, we do a further assessment of potential undercounts or undercoverage. Based on this additional research, our final estimate of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population includes an upward adjustment for undercount.

[666] Article: “Reverse Migration to Mexico Led to US Undocumented Population Decline: 2010 to 2018.” By Robert Warren. Journal on Migration and Human Security, March 1, 2020. <journals.sagepub.com>

Page 32:

This report presents estimates of the undocumented population residing in the United States in 2018, highlighting demographic changes since 2010. The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) compiled these estimates based primarily on information collected in the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). The annual CMS estimates of undocumented residents for 2010 to 2018 include all the detailed characteristics collected in the ACS.1 A summary of the CMS estimation procedures, as well as a discussion of the plausibility of the estimates, is provided in the Appendix.

The total undocumented population in the United States continued to decline in 2018, primarily because large numbers of undocumented residents returned to Mexico. From 2010 to 2018, a total of 2.6 million Mexican nationals left the US undocumented population;2 about 1.1 million, or 45 percent of them, returned to Mexico voluntarily. The decline in the US undocumented population from Mexico since 2010 contributed to declines in the undocumented population in many states. Major findings include the following:

• The total US undocumented population was 10.6 million in 2018, a decline of about 80,000 from 2017, and a drop of 1.2 million, or 10 percent, since 2010.

Page 33: “The total US undocumented population declined from 11,750,000 in 2010 to 10,565,000 in 2018. The decline of 1.2 million during the eight-year period occurred despite an increasing number of arrivals, from about 425,000 in 2010 to about 550,000 per year in 2018….”

Pages 40–41:

Derivation of CMS Estimates of Undocumented Residents

CMS used the procedures given here (Steps 1 to 5) to derive estimates of the undocumented resident population in 2010. The same steps11 were followed to derive estimates for each year after 2010. The classification of noncitizens as undocumented residents was done at the microdata level. The CMS estimates shown here were compiled by country of origin and single year of entry from those data sets. Warren (2014) provides a detailed description of the methodology and compares the CMS estimates based on this methodology to estimates derived using the residual method.

Step 1. The first step in the estimation procedure was to compile data from the 2010 ACS for all noncitizens who entered the United States from 1982 to 2010. It was assumed that nearly all undocumented residents are in the category “noncitizens who entered the U.S. after 1981.” Very few who entered before 1982 would still be residing here as undocumented residents in 2010 because (1) a large percentage of those who entered before 1982 obtained legal status under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA);12 and (2) those who entered before 1982 and did not apply for legalization had 28 years in which to leave the undocumented resident population—that is, to secure legal status, be removed, leave voluntarily, or die.

Step 2. A series of edits, referred to as “logical edits,”13 were used to identify and remove as many legal residents as possible from the population compiled in Step 1. The logical edits are based on responses in the survey.

Step 3. Separate population controls were estimated for 145 countries or areas for undocumented residents counted in the 2010 ACS. For each country or area, the ratio of the population control to the logically edited population (from Step 2) was computed.

Step 4. The country-by-country ratios derived in Step 3 were used to randomly select individual respondents in the ACS to be classified as undocumented residents.

Step 5. The final step in the CMS estimation procedure is to adjust the figures derived in Step 4 for undercount. The rates shown in Table A3 were derived on the assumption that undercount of undocumented immigrants drops with length of residence. These undercount assumptions are consistent with undercount rates for the Hispanic male population counted in the ACS as measured by the US Census Bureau (Jensen, Bhaskar, and Scopilliti 2015). Those rates are shown in Table A4.

11 Note that independent population controls were computed only for 2010; the country-by-country selection ratios for 2010, computed in Step 3, were used in Step 4 for every year after 2010.

12 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) went into effect in 1987. Two main groups were eligible for legalization, each with their own residency requirements: (1) legalization applicants who continuously resided in the United States since before January 1, 1982; and (2) Special Agricultural Workers (SAWs) who had 90 days of seasonal agricultural work experience in qualifying crops from May 1985 to May 1986. About 1.6 million legalization applicants and 1.1 million SAW applicants were approved.

13 The term “logical edit” refers to the process of determining probable legal status by examining survey data. For example, respondents were assigned to the legal category if they worked in occupations that generally require legal status, had the characteristics of legal temporary migrants, were immediate relatives of US citizens, received public benefits restricted to legal residents, were from countries from which most arrivals would be refugees, or were age 60 or older at entry.

[667] Webpage: “Journal on Migration and Human Security.” Journal on Migration and Human Security. Accessed July 26, 2021 at <journals.sagepub.com>

The Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS) is a peer-reviewed public policy publication of the Center for Migration Studies (CMS). The journal’s theme of “human security” is meant to evoke the widely shared goals of creating secure and sustaining conditions in migrant sending communities; promoting safe, legal migration options; and developing immigration and integration policies that benefit sending and receiving communities and allow newcomers to lead productive, secure lives. This thematic focus encompasses the broad scope of the social, political, and economic dimensions of “human security.”

[668] Report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018.” By Bryan Baker. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This report presents estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States on January 1 each year from 2015 through 2018. The results are tabulated according to available demographic characteristics, including period of entry, country of origin, state of residence, age, and sex. As in previous editions, the estimates were calculated using the residual method in which the unauthorized population is the remainder (or residual) after the legally resident, foreign-born population—naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents (LPRs), asylees, refugees, and certain nonimmigrants—is subtracted from the total foreign-born population.1 The legally-resident subpopulation was estimated primarily based on the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) administrative records and modeled components of population change (such as emigration and mortality), and the total foreign-born population estimate was derived from the American Community Survey (ACS) of the U.S. Census Bureau with adjustments for undercount and the choice of reference date. The population must be estimated because there is no nationally representative survey or census that includes information on the legal status of foreign-born residents.

In summary, DHS estimates that 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States on January 1, 2018, roughly unchanged from 11.4 million on January 1, 2015.2 Slightly fewer than 50 percent of the unauthorized immigrants in 2018 were from Mexico, compared to nearly 55 percent in 2015. About 15 percent entered since January of 2010 and 40 percent reside in California or Texas. …

The resident unauthorized immigrant population is defined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents as defined above. Most unauthorized immigrants either entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and remained past the date they were required to depart. Persons who are beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or other forms of prosecutorial discretion, or who are residing in the United States while awaiting removal proceedings in immigration court are included among the estimates of the unauthorized population. Unauthorized immigrants applying for adjustment to LPR status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are considered to be part of the resident unauthorized population until they have been granted lawful permanent residence.

Methodology Overview and Data

This report estimates two populations to derive the unauthorized immigrant population estimate: 1) the total foreign-born population living in the United States on January 1 of each year 2015–2018, and 2) the legally-resident, foreign-born population on the same dates. The unauthorized immigrant population estimate is the residual when the second population is subtracted from the first population.

Pages 10–11:

Limitations

Annual estimates of the unauthorized population are subject to sampling error in the ACS and considerable non-sampling error because of uncertainty in some of the assumptions required for estimation described above.

Assumptions about undercount of the foreign-born population in the ACS. The foreign-born—particularly unauthorized immigrants and nonimmigrants—are less likely than native-born Americans to respond to or to be included in responses to government surveys. To control for undercount of these “hard to count” populations, analysts must make assumptions about the extent of the undercount and then adjust the ACS survey estimates accordingly. The estimates are sensitive to these undercount adjustments.

Assumptions about rates of emigration. The preexisting legally-resident, foreign-born population declines over time through mortality and emigration. Mortality rates can be estimated from standard demographic tables, but current, nationally representative data necessary to construct similar tables for emigration rates do not exist. The estimates are sensitive to emigration modeling assumptions.

Accuracy of year of entry reporting. Census data suggest that respondents provide unreliable answers to the Census year-of-entry question (“When did this person come to live in the United States?”), with disproportionate numbers of responses “heaping” on round numbers. Errors also occur in converting DHS administrative dates for LPRs into year of entry dates.

Assumptions about the nonimmigrant population estimate. The estimates are based on admission dates of nonimmigrants admitted under classes of admission associated with temporary residence and on typical visit lengths as measured by matched arrival and departure records. Thus, the estimates are sensitive to sudden changes in visit-length trends; are biased downward to the extent that some nonimmigrants adjust to immigrant status and do not ever depart the United States; and do not conform perfectly to the definition of residence in the ACS.13

Sampling error in the ACS. The estimates of the total foreign-born population that moved to the United States in the 1980–2017 period are based on a sample and are thus subject to sampling variability. Actual year-to-year fluctuations in the population size may be larger or smaller than estimated in the ACS, particularly when the foreign-born population is subdivided by state of residence or country of origin. The estimated margin of error for the estimate of the total foreign-born population in the 2017 ACS PUMS [Public Use Microdata Sample] at the 90 percent confidence level is plus or minus approximately 180,000.

[669] Public Law 103-317: “Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995.” 103rd U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Bill Clinton on August 26, 1994. <www.govinfo.gov>

Sec. 506. …

(b) Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1255), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

(i)(l) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (c) of this section, an alien physically present in the United States who—

“(A) entered the United States without inspection; or

“(B) is within one of the classes enumerated in subsection (c) of this section,

may apply to the Attorney General for the adjustment of his or her status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The Attorney General may accept such application only if the alien remits with such application a sum equalling five times the fee required for the processing of applications under this section as of the date of receipt of the application, but such sum shall not be required from a child under the age of seventeen, or an alien who is the spouse or unmarried child of an individual who obtained temporary or permanent resident status under section 210 or 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act or section 202 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 at any date, who—

“(i) as of May 5, 1988, was the unmarried child or spouse of the individual who obtained temporary or permanent resident status under section 210 or 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act or section 202 of the Immigration Reform and . Control Act of 1986;

“(ii) entered the United States before May 5, 1988, resided in the United States on May 5, 1988, and is not a lawful permanent resident; and

“(iii) applied for benefits under section 301(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990. The sum specified herein shall be in addition to the fee normally required for the processing of an application under this section.

“(2) Upon receipt of such an application and the sum hereby required, the Attorney General may adjust the status of the alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if—

“(A) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence; and

“(B) an immigrant visa is immediately available to the alien at the time the application is filed.

“(3) Sums remitted to the Attorney General pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall be disposed of by the Attorney General as provided in sections 286 (m), (n), and (o) of this title.”.

(c) The provisions of these amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act shall take effect on October 1, 1994 and shall cease to have effect on October 1, 1997

(d) The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall conduct fingerprint identification checks through the Federal Bureau of Investigation for all individuals over sixteen years of age adjusting immigration status in the United States pursuant to this section.

[670] Public Law 105-46: “Making Continuing Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 1998, and for Other Purposes.” 105th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Bill Clinton on September 30, 1997. <www.govinfo.gov>

“Sec. 123. Section 506(c) of Public Law 103-317 is amended by striking “September 30, 1997” and inserting “October 23, 1997”.”

[671] Public Law 105-64: “Making Further Continuing Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 1998, and for Other Purposes.” 105th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Bill Clinton on October 23, 1997. <www.govinfo.gov>

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and for other purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(3) of Public Law 105–46 is amended by striking “October 23, 1997” and inserting in lieu thereof “November 7, 1997”, and each provision amended by sections 118, 122, and 123 of such public law shall be applied as if “November 7, 1997” was substituted for “October 23, 1997”.

[672] Public Law 105-119: “Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998.” 105th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Bill Clinton on November 26, 1997. <www.govinfo.gov>

Sec. 111. (a) Limitation on Eligibility Under Section 245(i).—Section 245(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)) is amended by striking “(i)(1)” through “The Attorney General” and inserting the following:

“(i)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (c) of this section, an alien physically present in the United States—

“(A) who—

“(i) entered the United States without inspection; or

“(ii) is within one of the classes enumerated in subsection (c) of this section; and

“(B) who is the beneficiary (including a spouse or child of the principal alien, if eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d)) of—

“(i) a petition for classification under section 204 that was filed with the Attorney General on or before January 14, 1998; or

“(ii) an application for a labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A) that was filed pursuant to the regulations of the Secretary of Labor on or before such date; may apply to the Attorney General for the adjustment of his or her status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The Attorney General”.

(b) Repeal of Sunset for Section 245(i).—Section 506(c) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103– 317; 108 Stat. 1766) is amended to read as follows:

“(c) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 1994, and shall cease to have effect on October 1, 1997. The amendment made by subsection (b) shall take effect on October 1, 1994.”.

[673] Public Law 106-554: “Making Consolidated Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2001, and for Other Purposes.” 106th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Bill Clinton on December 21, 2000. <www.govinfo.gov>

Sec. 1502. Substitution of Alternative Adjustment Provision.

(a) Extended Application of Section 245(i).—

(1) In General.—Paragraph (1) of section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)) is amended—

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking “and” at the end;

(B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking “January 14, 1998” and inserting “April 30, 2001”;

(C) in subparagraph (B), by adding “and” at the end; and

(D) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:

“(C) who, in the case of a beneficiary of a petition for classification, or an application for labor certification, described in subparagraph (B) that was filed after January 14, 1998, is physically present in the United States on the date of the enactment of the LIFE Act Amendments of 2000;”.

(2) Modification in Use of Funds.—Paragraph (3)(B) of such section is amended by inserting before the period the following: “, except that in the case of fees attributable to applications for a beneficiary with respect to whom a petition for classification, or an application for labor certification, described in paragraph (1)(B) was filed after January 14, 1998, one-half of such remaining portion shall be deposited by the Attorney General into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account established under section 286(m)”.

(b) Conforming Amendments.—

(1) Subsection (m) of section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 1102(c) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, is repealed.

(2) Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by section 1102(d)(2) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, is amended by striking “or (m)” each place it appears.

[674] Webpage: “Glossary.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Asylee

An alien in the United States or at a port of entry who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality, or to seek the protection of that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. Persecution or the fear thereof must be based on religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

[675] Report: “Fiscal Year 2020 Refugees and Asylees Annual Flow Report.” By Ryan Baugh. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, March 8, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 3–4:

Defining “Refugee” and “Asylum” Status

To be eligible for refugee or asylum status, a principal applicant must meet the definition of a refugee set forth in section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which states in part that a refugee is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.9 Applicants for refugee status are outside the United States, whereas applicants seeking asylum are either within the United States or arriving at a U.S. port of entry (POE).

The INA also generally requires that a person must be outside their country of nationality or country of last habitual residence to qualify as a refugee unless the person has no nationality or is considered “stateless”; but it grants the President authority to designate countries for “in-country processing,” allowing people to be processed for refugee status within their own countries.

[676] Webpage: “Refugees and Asylum.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed November 12, 2015. <www.uscis.gov>

Refugees and Asylum

Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

Refugees

Refugee status is a form of protection that may be granted to people who meet the definition of refugee and who are of special humanitarian concern to the United States. Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm. For a legal definition of refugee, see section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States. …

Asylum

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee

• Are already in the United States

• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

You may apply for asylum in the United States regardless of your country of origin or your current immigration status.

[677] Webpage: “Glossary.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed May 12, 2021 at <www.uscis.gov>

Refugee

Generally, any person outside his or her country of nationality who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on the person’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For a legal definition of refugee, see section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

[678] Webpage: “Questions and Answers: Credible Fear Screening.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed/updated May 31, 2022. <www.uscis.gov>

Individuals Seeking Asylum

If you are in expedited removal proceedings and are found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture, you may seek asylum before an asylum officer with USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] or an Immigration Judge (IJ). …

If an asylum officer does not find that you have a credible fear of persecution or torture, you may request that an IJ review that determination. If you do not request review by the IJ, or the IJ agrees with the negative credible fear determination, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may remove you from the United States. …

Q. Why Will Asylum Officers Conduct Credible Fear Interviews?

A. Asylum officers conduct interviews when you are subject to expedited removal and you tell U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or ICE:

• You intend to apply for asylum

• You fear persecution or torture; or

• You fear returning to your country

If you say you intend to apply for asylum, fear persecution or torture, or fear return, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will provide you information about the credible fear process. DHS may detain you during the credible fear process.

You will receive:

• An orientation to the credible fear process;

• A list of free or low cost legal service providers;

• A waiting period of at least 48 hours after your arrival at a detention site before taking part in the interview; and

• The opportunity to waive the 48-hour waiting period. …

Q. What is a Credible Fear of Persecution?

A. A credible fear of persecution is a “significant possibility” that you can establish in an Asylum Merits Interview before an asylum officer or in proceedings before an IJ, that you have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of your race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if returned to your country.

Q. What Is a Credible Fear of Torture?

A. A credible fear of torture is a “significant possibility” that you can establish in an Asylum Merits Interview before an asylum officer or in proceedings before an IJ, that it is more likely than not that you would be subject to torture if returned to your country.

Q. Are There Any Mandatory Bars to Establishing a Credible Fear of Persecution or Torture?

A. No. There are no mandatory bars to establishing a credible fear or persecution or torture. However, there are mandatory bars to asylum and withholding of removal. An asylum officer does not make a final decision whether you are subject to a mandatory bar to asylum or withholding of removal in the credible fear determination process. An asylum officer will note in their credible fear decision that a mandatory bar to asylum or withholding of removal may apply in a subsequent Asylum Merits Interview before an asylum officer or in immigration proceedings before an IJ. …

Q. What Will Happen if an Asylum Officer Finds I Have a Credible Fear?

A. If an asylum officer finds that you have a credible fear of persecution or torture, USCIS may either:

• Retain and consider your application for asylum and also consider your eligibility for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in a second interview. This is known as an Asylum Merits Interview. An asylum officer will decide whether you are eligible for asylum. If necessary, an asylum officer will also determine whether you demonstrated eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under CAT based on the record before USCIS; or

• Issue a Notice to Appear before an IJ for consideration of your asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection claims. When you file Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, with the immigration court, it places you in the “defensive” asylum process.

Q. What Will Happen if I Receive a Notice to Appear Before the Immigration Judge After an Asylum Officer Finds I Have a Credible Fear?

A. You may apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under CAT before the IJ by filing Form I-589. The burden of proof is on you to establish that you are eligible for asylum or other protection in the United States.

The IJ will consider whether you are barred from a grant of asylum or withholding of removal. If a bar applies, but you established that you would be tortured in the country of return, the IJ will grant deferral of removal.

Q. What Will Happen if an Asylum Officer Does Not Find a Credible Fear?

A. If an asylum officer finds you do not have a credible fear of persecution or torture, you can request review by an IJ. If you do not request a review of the negative determination, or if an IJ affirms the negative credible fear determination, ICE may remove you from the United States. Generally, there is no review of the IJ’s determination that you do not have a credible fear of persecution or torture.

[679] Report: “Fiscal Year 2020 Refugees and Asylees Annual Flow Report.” By Ryan Baugh. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, March 8, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 15:

Adjudication of Claims

If applicants with a valid immigration status (such as a foreign student) fail to establish eligibility for asylum, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] denies the application, and the applicant remains in his or her valid status. If applicants are not in a valid status and are found ineligible for asylum, USCIS places these applicants in removal proceedings before an EOIR [U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review] immigration judge, where the application is considered anew.21

Individuals who have not previously filed for asylum may apply defensively after being placed in removal proceedings by immigration enforcement officials because they are unlawfully present, are in violation of their status, or were apprehended while attempting to enter the United States. Defensive applicants apply for asylum directly with EOIR. During the proceedings, an immigration judge may grant asylum or deny the asylum application and issue a removal order if the noncitizen does not qualify for any other forms of relief. Defensive and affirmative applicants may appeal an EOIR denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals and, if unsuccessful there, may seek further review by a U.S. Court of Appeals, and finally the U.S. Supreme Court.

[680] Testimony: “At the Breaking Point: The Humanitarian and Security Crisis at our Southern Border.” By Nathalie R. Asher (Acting Executive Associate Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security). U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration, May 8, 2019. <www.judiciary.senate.gov>

Pages 3–4:

As the record numbers of aliens arriving at our border indicate, these gaps have created an enormous pull-factor. Amendments to the laws and immigration court proceedings are needed to help ensure the successful repatriation of aliens ordered removed by an immigration judge. Specifically, the following legislative changes are needed in order to successfully address the current situation: …

• Address the credible fear standard—a threshold standard for those subjected to expedited removal to be able to pursue asylum before the immigration courts. The current standard has proved to be ineffective in screening out those with meritless claims, as on average, only about 12 out of every 100 credible fear claims result in a grant of asylum. It thus creates a pull factor and places a strain on the system that inhibits the government’s ability to timely address meritorious asylum claims while allowing those without valid claims to remain in the United States.

• Adding to this pull factor is the backlog of cases in immigration court, causing years-long delays in the adjudication of asylum claims, during which time aliens receive work permits and obtain equities and community ties they would not otherwise have if their removal proceedings in court were adjudicated faster and closer in time to their arrival. Congress has funded the increase in immigration judges, but has not appropriated to ICE a corresponding number of attorneys and legal staff.

[681] Calculated with data from:

a) “Annual Flow Report, Refugees and Asylees: 2018.” By Nadwa Mossad. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 2019. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 7: “Table 6b. Defensive Asylum Cases (EOIR [Dept. of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review]) Received by Country of Nationality: FY 2016 to 2018”

b) “Fiscal Year 2020 Refugees and Asylees Annual Flow Report.” By Ryan Baugh. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, March 8, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 17: “Table 6b. Defensive Asylum Cases Received (EOIR [Dept. of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review]) by Country of Nationality: Fiscal Years 2018 to 2020”

c) Report: “2020 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, April 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 43: “Table 16. Individuals Granted Asylum Affirmatively or Defensively: Fiscal Years 1990 to 2020”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[682] “2020 Democratic Party Platform.” Democratic National Committee, August 17, 2020. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

Democrats believe health care is a human right. We will incentivize states to expand Medicaid and enroll low-income people who do not otherwise have health insurance in a new, high-quality public option without premiums. We will double investments in community health centers and rural health centers, and expand mobile health units, to make it easier for low-income people to access health care. …

Generations of Democrats have been united in the fight for universal health care. We are proud our party welcomes advocates who want to build on and strengthen the Affordable Care Act and those who support a Medicare for All approach; all are critical to ensuring that health care is a human right. …

We will expand access to health care for people living and working across the United States by extending Affordable Care Act coverage to Dreamers, and working with Congress to lift the five-year waiting period for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program eligibility for low-income, lawfully present immigrants. …

We will reinstate, expand, and streamline protections for Dreamers and the parents of American citizen children to keep families together in the communities they have long called home.

Democrats believe the United States should be a beacon of hope for those who are suffering violence and injustice, which is why we will protect and expand the existing asylum system and other humanitarian protections. We will reverse Trump Administration policies that prevent victims of gang and domestic violence, as well as LGBTQ+ people who are unsafe in their home countries, from being eligible to apply for asylum. Democrats will end Trump Administration policies that deny protected entry to asylum seekers, put them at great risk, and destabilize our neighbors and the broader region. And we will end prosecution of asylum seekers at the border and policies that force them to apply from “safe third countries,” which are far from safe.

Democrats believe that our fight to end systemic and structural racism in our country extends to our immigration system, including the policies at our borders and ports of entry, detention centers, and within immigration law enforcement agencies and their policies and operations. And Democrats will immediately halt enforcement of and rescind the Trump Administration’s un-American immigrant wealth test.

Even as we work to reverse the enormous damage caused by the Trump Administration, we are determined to build a 21st century immigration system that embodies our values, expands economic opportunity for all Americans, and enhances our global competitiveness.

Democrats believe it is long past time to provide a roadmap to citizenship for the millions of undocumented workers, caregivers, students, and children who are an essential part of our economy and of the fabric of our nation. We will fast-track this process for those workers who have been essential to the pandemic response and recovery efforts, including health care workers, farmworkers, and others. We will also eliminate unfair barriers to naturalization, reduce application backlogs, and make our immigration processes faster, more efficient, and less costly. These reforms will strengthen our communities, our families, our economy, and our country. Democrats oppose President Trump’s illegal, chaotic, and reckless changes to the legal immigration system, including decisions to slash family-based immigration as well as H-1B and other visa programs that can help our economy.

Democrats believe family unity should be a guiding principle for our immigration policy. We will prioritize family reunification for children still separated from their families, and we will restore family reunification programs ended by the Trump Administration. We support legislation to treat the spouses and children of green card holders as immediate relatives and end their unfair separation. We will eliminate family-based green card backlogs and reform the system to speed up family-based visas. And we will work with Congress to eliminate immigration barriers, such as the three- and 10-year bars, and remove the 10-year waiting period for waivers to the permanent bars that keep loved ones apart.

We believe we should expand, not reduce, the annual visa cap for victims of human trafficking, including victims of sex trafficking, violence against women and children, and other heinous crimes; ensure that same sex-couples and their children receive equal treatment in the immigration and naturalization systems; reaffirm America’s commitment to family-based immigration; and preserve the critical role of diversity preferences in our immigration system. Democrats will ensure that law-abiding individuals with Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Enforced Departure are not sent back to countries where they cannot live safely, and we will work to pave a path to citizenship for those who have been in the country for an extended period of time and built their lives in the United States. …

A 21st century immigration system that honors our values is an essential prerequisite not just to recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, but to strengthening our democracy and guaranteeing America’s long-term economic competitiveness. That’s why Democrats believe in improving and increasing opportunities for legal, permanent immigration. Our family, humanitarian, and diversity pathways have contributed immeasurably to the vibrancy and productivity of American society and should continue to be the centerpiece of our immigration system . We also support awarding visas for permanent, employment-based immigration in a way that is responsive to labor market needs. We want to attract and keep talent in this country, which is why Democrats will end the Trump Administration’s freeze on green cards for new immigrants and instead pursue a meaningful reform agenda.

Democrats support policies and programs to make it easier for qualified immigrants and their families to become full and equal citizens, including increasing funding for culturally appropriate immigrant inclusion and citizenship services, legal support, English classes and bilingual education, workforce development, and adult education. …

As Democrats, we believe that education is a critical public good—not a commodity—and that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that every child, everywhere, is able to receive a world-class education that enables them to lead meaningful lives, no matter their race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, disability status, language status, immigration or citizenship status, household income or ZIP code.

[683] “2016 Democratic Party Platform.” Democratic Platform Committee, July 21, 2016. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The United States was founded as, and continues to be, a country of immigrants from throughout the world. It is no coincidence that the Statue of Liberty is one of our most profound national symbols. And that is why Democrats believe immigration is not just a problem to be solved, it is a defining aspect of the American character and our shared history.

The Democratic Party supports legal immigration, within reasonable limits, that meets the needs of families, communities, and the economy as well as maintains the United States’ role as a beacon of hope for people seeking safety, freedom, and security. People should come to the United States with visas and not through smugglers. Yet, we recognize that the current immigration system is broken.

More than 11 million people are living in the shadows, without proper documentation. The immigration bureaucracy is full of backlogs that result in U.S. citizens waiting for decades to be reunited with family members, and green card holders waiting for years to be reunited with their spouses and minor children. The current quota system discriminates against certain immigrants, including immigrants of color, and needs to be reformed to the realities of the 21st century. And there are real questions about our detention and deportation policies that must be addressed.

Democrats believe we need to urgently fix our broken immigration system—which tears families apart and keeps workers in the shadows—and create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here, making a better life for their families and contributing to their communities and our country. We should repeal the 3-year, 10-year and permanent bars, which often force persons in mixed status families into the heartbreaking dilemma of either pursuing a green card by leaving the country and their loved ones behind, or remaining in the shadows. We will work with Congress to end the forced and prolonged expulsion from the country that these immigrants endure when trying to adjust their status.

We must fix family backlogs and defend against those who would exclude or eliminate legal immigration avenues and denigrate immigrants. Those immigrants already living in the United States, who are assets to their communities and contribute so much to our country, should be incorporated completely into our society through legal processes that give meaning to our national motto: E Pluribus Unum.

And while we continue to fight for comprehensive immigration reform, we will defend and implement President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans executive actions to help DREAMers [long-term residents of the U.S. who entered the country as children], parents of citizens, and lawful permanent residents avoid deportation. We will build on these actions to provide relief for others, such as parents of DREAMers. We will support efforts by states to make DREAMers eligible for driver’s licenses and in-state college tuition. We will invest in culturally-appropriate immigrant integration services, expand access to English language education, and promote naturalization to help the millions of people who are eligible for citizenship take that last step.

We believe immigration enforcement must be humane and consistent with our values. We should prioritize those who pose a threat to the safety of our communities, not hardworking families who are contributing to their communities. We will end raids and roundups of children and families, which unnecessarily sow fear in immigrant communities. We disfavor deportations of immigrants who served in our armed forces, and we want to create a faster path for such veterans to citizenship.

We should ensure due process for those fleeing violence in Central America and work with our regional partners to address the root causes of violence. We must take particular care with children, which is why we should guarantee government-funded counsel for unaccompanied children in immigration courts. We should consider all available means of protecting these individuals from the threats to their lives and safety—including strengthening in-country and third-country processing, expanding the use of humanitarian parole, and granting Temporary Protected Status.

We will promote best practices among local law enforcement, in terms of how they collaborate with federal authorities, to ensure that they maintain and build trust between local law enforcement and the communities they serve. We will also vigorously oversee any programs put in place, to make sure that there are no abuses and no arbitrary deportation programs. We will establish an affirmative process for workers to report labor violations and to request deferred action. We will work to ensure that all Americans—regardless of immigration status—have access to quality health care. That means expanding community health centers, allowing all families to buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges, supporting states that open up their public health insurance programs to all persons, and finally enacting comprehensive immigration reform. And we will expand opportunities for DREAMers to serve in the military and to then receive expedited pathways to citizenship.

We will fight to end federal, state, and municipal contracts with for-profit private prisons and private detention centers. In order to end family detention, we will ensure humane alternatives for those who pose no public threat. We recognize that there are vulnerable communities within our immigration system who are often seeking refuge from persecution abroad, such as LGBT families, for whom detention can be unacceptably dangerous.

We reject attempts to impose a religious test to bar immigrants or refugees from entering the United States. It is un-American and runs counter to the founding principles of this country.

Finally, Democrats will not stand for the divisive and derogatory language of Donald Trump. His offensive comments about immigrants and other communities have no place in our society. This kind of rhetoric must be rejected.

[684] “Resolution Regarding the Republican Party Platform.” Republican National Committee, August 22, 2020. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

WHEREAS, All platforms are snapshots of the historical contexts in which they are born, and parties abide by their policy priorities, rather than their political rhetoric …

RESOLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention.

[685] “2016 Republican Party Platform.” Republican National Committee, July, 2016. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

Our party is the natural home for those who come in search of freedom and justice. We welcome all to the Great Opportunity Party.

The greatest asset of the American economy is the American worker. Our immigration system must protect American working families and their wages, for citizens and legal immigrants alike, in a way that will improve the economy. Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today’s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world.

We are particularly grateful to the thousands of new legal immigrants, many of them not yet citizens, who are serving in the Armed Forces and among first responders. Their patriotism should encourage all to embrace the newcomers legally among us, assist their journey to full citizenship, and help their communities avoid isolation from the mainstream of society. We are also thankful for the many legal immigrants who continue to contribute to American society. To that end, we both encourage the preservation of heritage tongues and support English as the nation’s official language, a unifying force essential for the advancement of immigrant communities and our nation as a whole.

America’s immigration policy must serve the national interest of the United States, and the interests of American workers must be protected over the claims of foreign nationals seeking the same jobs. With all our fellow citizens, we have watched, in anger and disgust, the mocking of our immigration laws by a president who made himself superior to the will of the nation. We stand with the victims of his policies, especially the families of murdered innocents. Illegal immigration endangers everyone, exploits the taxpayers, and insults all who aspire to enter America legally. We oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by breaking the law, have disadvantaged those who have obeyed it. The executive amnesties of 2012 and 2014 are a direct violation of federal law and usurp the powers of Congress as outlined in Article I of the Constitution. These unlawful amnesties must be immediately rescinded by a Republican president. In a time of terrorism, drug cartels, human trafficking, and criminal gangs, the presence of millions of unidentified individuals in this country poses grave risks to the safety and sovereignty of the United States. Our highest priority, therefore, must be to secure our borders and all ports of entry and to enforce our immigration laws.

That is why we support building a wall along our southern border and protecting all ports of entry. The border wall must cover the entirety of the southern border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. We insist upon workplace enforcement of verification systems so that more jobs can be available to all legal workers. Use of the E-verify program—an internet-based system that verifies the employment authorization and identity of employees—must be made mandatory nationwide. We reaffirm our endorsement of the SAVE program—Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements—to ensure that public funds are not given to persons not legally present in this country. We demand tough penalties against those who engage in identity theft, deal in fraudulent documents, and traffic in human beings. The Department of Homeland Security must use its authority to keep dangerous aliens off our streets and to expedite expulsion of criminal aliens. Gang membership should be a deportable offense. Any previously deported illegal alien who continues to show a lack of respect for our borders and rule of law must be penalized. This is why we support stiffer penalties, such as a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, for any illegal alien who illegally re-enters our nation after already having been deported.

Because “sanctuary cities” violate federal law and endanger their own citizens, they should not be eligible for federal funding. Using state licenses to reward people in the country illegally is an affront to the rule of law and must be halted.

In light of both current needs and historic practice, we urge the reform of our guest worker programs to eliminate fraud, improve efficiency and ensure they serve the national interest. In light of the alarming levels of unemployment and underemployment in this country, it is indefensible to continue offering lawful permanent residence to more than one million foreign nationals every year. The Supreme Court has correctly recognized that states have the constitutional authority to take steps to reduce illegal immigration. We condemn the Obama Administration’s lawsuits against states that are seeking to reinforce federal law. We support the right of the states to enact laws deterring illegal aliens from residing within their states.

From its beginning, our country has been a haven of refuge and asylum. That should continue—but with major changes. Asylum should be limited to cases of political, ethnic or religious persecution. As the Director of the FBI has noted, it is not possible to vet fully all potential refugees. To ensure our national security, refugees who cannot be carefully vetted cannot be admitted to the country, especially those whose homelands have been the breeding grounds for terrorism.

[686] “Libertarian Party Platform.” Libertarian National Convention, June 2022. <www.lp.org>

Pages 9–10: “Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”

[687] “2018 Libertarian Party Platform.” Libertarian National Convention, July 2018. <www.lp.org>

“Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”

[688] 2016 Libertarian Party Platform. Libertarian National Convention, May 2016. <www.lp.org>

As adopted by convention, July 2018. No changes were made at the 2020 convention. … Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

[689] “2020 Green Party Platform”. Green Party National Convention, July 2020. <www.gp.org>

Section II. Social Justice (<www.gp.org>):

The Green Party accepts as a goal a world in which persons can freely choose to live in and work in any county he or she desires. We recognize that this would be impractical without reciprocity between nations. We seek that reciprocity as a practical goal. Countries do have a right to know the identity of persons seeking to enter. They also have the right to limit who can come in to protect public safety.

The U.S. needs a complete overhaul of its immigration laws. Our current situation has created extreme social injustice. Millions of people are living and working in the U.S. with no legal status, making them subject to extreme exploitation and abuse. Immigration raids are terrorizing the immigrant community. Families are being broken up. Employer abuses of undocumented workers are rampant.

The Green Party must consider immigration issues from an international standpoint, taking into account international labor and environmental standards, and human rights.

The following proposals may not yield perfect answers, but they provide better answers than the status quo. We must recognize that there cannot be any true solutions to the conflicts created by immigration until we are able to organize globally to overcome the power of multinational corporations, which are engaged in an unending campaign to drive down workers’ living standards everywhere. International cooperation and solidarity among labor organizations, to advance the rights of labor and raise such living standards globally, are essential to combat this trend. Until the power of the multinationals is curbed, we will continue to be confronted with seemingly “no win” choices.

While working toward that goal, we propose the following immigration policies, consistent with the Ten Key Values.

1. Policy Reform

The undocumented immigrants who are already residing and working in the United States, and their families, should be granted a legal status which includes the chance to become U.S. citizens. Persons should be excluded from this process only if they present a clear and present danger to other members of our society. The level of fees required for this process should not be a burden on low-income workers. In any path to citizenship created to provide an orderly and appropriate resolution of the status of persons currently in the United States without proper documentation, we demand a recognition of past, uncredited payments into the Social Security System as part of any fees assessed for regularization of status. In regard to who should have a right to come and live and work in the U.S. we believe the following policies are fair:

a. The Green Party calls for permanent border passes to all citizens of Mexico and Canada whose identity can be traced and verified. The “matricula consular” should be accepted as one means of proving one’s identity. Work permits for citizens of Mexico and Canada must be easily obtainable, thereby decriminalizing the act of gainful employment. This action would help eliminate exploitation of undocumented persons by criminals engaged in human contraband (coyotes) and unethical employers. It would also help ensure that taxes will be paid in each corresponding nation per its laws. These measures will also help temporary residents from Mexico and Canada to secure driving privileges and liability insurance.

b. All persons fleeing political, racial, religious, or other types of persecution must be welcomed and given permanent resident status. The history of arbitrary denial of political asylum claims must be ended. Particular attention should be given to those minorities who are political exiles and refugees and those whose lives would be at risk if asylum is not granted.

c. Family reunification must be a priority in accepting applications for permanent residency. The years of waiting that families are currently put through must be ended.

d. Permanent residency should not be denied based on political views, racial or national origin, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, disability, or any other arbitrary basis.

e. There are many countries in the world where the economic policies and military actions of the U.S. government or U.S. based corporations have caused extreme hardships. The peoples of these countries deserve special consideration if they wish to come to the U.S. to escape intolerable conditions created by our government or U.S. corporations.

f. We must keep faith with our commitment to the United Nations, to assist in the resettlement, including to our own country, of refugees currently stranded in refugee camps in other parts of the world.

g. All those who are issued work permits must have the option to come and go from the U.S. as they desire. They must also have the option of remaining in the U.S. and becoming U.S. Citizens.

2. Interim Measures

Recognizing that a just reform of immigration policy may take some time, the Green Party supports:

a. Measures to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain drivers licenses if they can prove their identity and pass the required tests. This will improve road safety and allow the undocumented who are driving in any case to obtain insurance.

b. Measures to give legal status to undocumented immigrants who graduate from high school in the U.S. and who are otherwise qualified, to allow them to attend colleges and universities on an equal basis with other high school graduates. The Green Party is opposed to efforts to force undocumented youth into becoming cannon fodder for the U.S. military as the price for legal status.

c. Reduce wait lists and make the system work more efficiently: current numeric caps on immigrant visas must be increased. The current system of quotas and preferences has to be thoroughly and realistically reformed. Current backlogs must be brought up to date as soon as possible. Wait times for processing and resolving immigration benefit applications should be reduced to no more than six months. Pre-1996 screening criteria for legal permanent residency and citizenship applications should be restored.

d. The understandable concern about immigrant workers competing for jobs with current citizens cannot and should not be addressed by criminalizing undocumented immigration or punishing fellow victims of U.S. corporatist policies. Instead, we must reverse these policies. Among other things, we should repeal NAFTA [North American Free Trade Act], CAFTA [Central America Free Trade Act], Fast Track and other corporate globalization policies. We must stop using our tax dollars to subsidize corporate agribusiness and to promote poverty in Latin America, and start using them to help reward environmentally responsible family farmers, encourage improved infrastructure and economic conditions in Latin America, and raise labor standards, at home and abroad. Here at home, we must also promote the policies, as outlined in the Economy and Workers’ Rights sections of this Platform, that can help us achieve a full employment economy at a living wage, including strictly enforcing and expanding the rights of all workers to form unions.

e. We advocate an end to employer sanctions, which have been shown to hurt not only undocumented workers but also U.S.-born workers (especially those of color). Instead, the focus on employers must be to vigorously enforce our wage and labor laws. Instead of further victimizing the victims of corporate globalization, create real opportunities and raise labor standards for all!

f. We oppose the provision of current law which allows local police to become agents of the immigration agency. Local policing functions should be totally separate from immigration enforcement.

g. Greens oppose “English-only” legislation. Immigrants already have ample incentive to learn English. But when interaction with the government is limited to the English speaking, persons are put at additional risk of exploitation. The focus needs to be on providing adequate and accessible English language instruction and assistance. We advocate legislation to ensure that federal funds marked for communities to provide ESL (English as second language) training, and health and social support services to immigrants actually go to them. When funds are spent in other areas, immigrants are being deprived of benefits that they earn as productive workers in their communities. Meanwhile, courts, social service agencies, and all government agencies dealing with the public must provide trained and certified translators. Additionally, the language rights of peoples who were in this land before it became part of the U.S., including Native Americans and Mexicans in the Southwest, must be recognized and respected.

h. We oppose the militarization of our borders, (mis)using the National Guard as border police, and building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. This will further intensify the human rights disaster our immigration policy has become, as well as seriously harm border ecosystems. We demand an immediate end to policies designed to force undocumented border-crossers into areas where conditions dramatically increase the risk of permanent injury or death, destruction of fragile environments, and the cutting off of corridors needed by wildlife for migration within their habitat. For these reasons we specifically oppose the walling off of both traditional urban crossing areas and of wilderness areas. We also call for the immediate dismantling of the border wall. We mourn the death of those thousands of men, women and children who have died trying to cross this border, where a couple of decades ago such deaths were virtually unheard of.

i. We must resist proposals that use illegal immigration as an excuse to put us all under further government monitoring and control by means of a national ID card or other identification or tracking systems. We also oppose the imposition of the “E-Verify” system to screen people applying for jobs. Citizen workers who have been propagandized to support “tougher” measures to identify and apprehend undocumented workers need to carefully consider what they are asking for. The same snare they want the government to use against undocumented workers can easily be used to repress them. Our government is already engaged in illegal spying and surveillance of its own citizens. It is already invading our privacy. A national ID card system is one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian government or police state. We need to repeal the Real ID Act and resist the establishment of any system that would suppress freedom to travel and require citizens and non-citizens alike to “show their papers” and reveal their private information to government monitors at every turn.

j. We demand recognition of the sovereignty of indigenous nations whose territories cross national boundaries. These indigenous nations have the right to determine the status of their members.

k. We demand new policies and laws that deal more effectively and humanely with the victims of illegal international trafficking in humans—primarily women and children who are bought, kidnapped, coerced, brutalized, defrauded, tricked, sold and marketed for forced sex (rape) and prostitution, with an estimated 50,000 trafficked to the U.S.

l. We call for stiffer, more appropriate policy, structure and laws to deal with traffickers, and also demand that procedures to deport victims before the traffickers are prosecuted must be changed to allow the victims to testify against the traffickers, which plays a major role in bringing these cases to justice and helping stem the tide of this heinous crime. The victims of trafficking should have the option of permanent residence in the U.S. or return to their home countries, according to their own choice.

[690] 2016 Green Party Platform. Green Party National Convention, August 2016. <www.gp.org>

Section II. Social Justice (<www.gp.org>):

The Green Party accepts as a goal a world in which persons can freely choose to live in and work in any county he or she desires. We recognize that this would be impractical without reciprocity between nations. We seek that reciprocity as a practical goal. Countries do have a right to know the identity of persons seeking to enter. They also have the right to limit who can come in to protect public safety.

The U.S. needs a complete overhaul of its immigration laws. Our current situation has created extreme social injustice. Millions of people are living and working in the U.S. with no legal status, making them subject to extreme exploitation and abuse. Immigration raids are terrorizing the immigrant community. Families are being broken up. Employer abuses of undocumented workers are rampant.

The Green Party must consider immigration issues from an international standpoint, taking into account international labor and environmental standards, and human rights.

The following proposals may not yield perfect answers, but they provide better answers than the status quo. We must recognize that there cannot be any true solutions to the conflicts created by immigration until we are able to organize globally to overcome the power of multinational corporations, which are engaged in an unending campaign to drive down workers’ living standards everywhere. International cooperation and solidarity among labor organizations, to advance the rights of labor and raise such living standards globally, are essential to combat this trend. Until the power of the multinationals is curbed, we will continue to be confronted with seemingly “no win” choices.

While working toward that goal, we propose the following immigration policies, consistent with the Ten Key Values.

1. Policy Reform

The undocumented immigrants who are already residing and working in the United States, and their families, should be granted a legal status which includes the chance to become U.S. citizens. Persons should be excluded from this process only if they present a clear and present danger to other members of our society. The level of fees required for this process should not be a burden on low-income workers. In any path to citizenship created to provide an orderly and appropriate resolution of the status of persons currently in the United States without proper documentation, we demand a recognition of past, uncredited payments into the Social Security System as part of any fees assessed for regularization of status. In regard to who should have a right to come and live and work in the U.S. we believe the following policies are fair:

• The Green Party calls for permanent border passes to all citizens of Mexico and Canada whose identity can be traced and verified. The “matricula consular” should be accepted as one means of proving one’s identity. Work permits for citizens of Mexico and Canada must be easily obtainable, thereby decriminalizing the act of gainful employment. This action would help eliminate exploitation of undocumented persons by criminals engaged in human contraband (coyotes) and unethical employers. It would also help ensure that taxes will be paid in each corresponding nation per its laws. These measures will also help temporary residents from Mexico and Canada to secure driving privileges and liability insurance.

• All persons fleeing political, racial, religious, or other types of persecution must be welcomed and given permanent resident status. The history of arbitrary denial of political asylum claims must be ended. Particular attention should be given to those minorities who are political exiles and refugees and those whose lives would be at risk if asylum is not granted.

• Family reunification must be a priority in accepting applications for permanent residency. The years of waiting that families are currently put through must be ended.

• Permanent residency should not be denied based on political views, racial or national origin, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, disability, or any other arbitrary basis.

• There are many countries in the world where the economic policies and military actions of the U.S. government or U.S. based corporations have caused extreme hardships. The peoples of these countries deserve special consideration if they wish to come to the U.S. to escape intolerable conditions created by our government or U.S. corporations.

• We must keep faith with our commitment to the United Nations, to assist in the resettlement, including to our own country, of refugees currently stranded in refugee camps in other parts of the world.

• All those who are issued work permits must have the option to come and go from the U.S. as they desire. They must also have the option of remaining in the U.S. and becoming U.S. Citizens.

2. Interim Measures

Recognizing that a just reform of immigration policy may take some time, the Green Party supports:

• Measures to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain drivers licenses if they can prove their identity and pass the required tests. This will improve road safety and allow the undocumented who are driving in any case to obtain insurance.

• Measures to give legal status to undocumented immigrants who graduate from high school in the U.S. and who are otherwise qualified, to allow them to attend colleges and universities on an equal basis with other high school graduates. The Green Party is opposed to efforts to force undocumented youth into becoming cannon fodder for the U.S. military as the price for legal status.

• Reduce wait lists and make the system work more efficiently: current numeric caps on immigrant visas must be increased. The current system of quotas and preferences has to be thoroughly and realistically reformed. Current backlogs must be brought up to date as soon as possible. Wait times for processing and resolving immigration benefit applications should be reduced to no more than six months. Pre-1996 screening criteria for legal permanent residency and citizenship applications should be restored.

• The understandable concern about immigrant workers competing for jobs with current citizens cannot and should not be addressed by criminalizing undocumented immigration or punishing fellow victims of U.S. corporatist policies. Instead, we must reverse these policies. Among other things, we should repeal NAFTA [North American Free Trade Act], CAFTA [Central America Free Trade Act], Fast Track and other corporate globalization policies. We must stop using our tax dollars to subsidize corporate agribusiness and to promote poverty in Latin America, and start using them to help reward environmentally responsible family farmers, encourage improved infrastructure and economic conditions in Latin America, and raise labor standards, at home and abroad. Here at home, we must also promote the policies, as outlined in the Economy and Workers’ Rights sections of this Platform, that can help us achieve a full employment economy at a living wage, including strictly enforcing and expanding the rights of all workers to form unions.

• We advocate an end to employer sanctions, which have been shown to hurt not only undocumented workers but also U.S.-born workers (especially those of color). Instead, the focus on employers must be to vigorously enforce our wage and labor laws. Instead of further victimizing the victims of corporate globalization, create real opportunities and raise labor standards for all!

• We oppose the provision of current law which allows local police to become agents of the immigration agency. Local policing functions should be totally separate from immigration enforcement.

• Greens oppose “English-only” legislation. Immigrants already have ample incentive to learn English. But when interaction with the government is limited to the English speaking, persons are put at additional risk of exploitation. The focus needs to be on providing adequate and accessible English language instruction and assistance. We advocate legislation to ensure that federal funds marked for communities to provide ESL (English as second language) training, and health and social support services to immigrants actually go to them. When funds are spent in other areas, immigrants are being deprived of benefits that they earn as productive workers in their communities. Meanwhile, courts, social service agencies, and all government agencies dealing with the public must provide trained and certified translators. Additionally, the language rights of peoples who were in this land before it became part of the U.S., including Native Americans and Mexicans in the Southwest, must be recognized and respected.

• We oppose the militarization of our borders, (mis)using the National Guard as border police, and building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. This will further intensify the human rights disaster our immigration policy has become, as well as seriously harm border ecosystems. We demand an immediate end to policies designed to force undocumented border-crossers into areas where conditions dramatically increase the risk of permanent injury or death, destruction of fragile environments, and the cutting off of corridors needed by wildlife for migration within their habitat. For these reasons we specifically oppose the walling off of both traditional urban crossing areas and of wilderness areas. We also call for the immediate dismantling of the border wall. We mourn the death of those thousands of men, women and children who have died trying to cross this border, where a couple of decades ago such deaths were virtually unheard of.

• We must resist proposals that use illegal immigration as an excuse to put us all under further government monitoring and control by means of a national ID card or other identification or tracking systems. We also oppose the imposition of the “E-Verify” system to screen people applying for jobs. Citizen workers who have been propagandized to support “tougher” measures to identify and apprehend undocumented workers need to carefully consider what they are asking for. The same snare they want the government to use against undocumented workers can easily be used to repress them. Our government is already engaged in illegal spying and surveillance of its own citizens. It is already invading our privacy. A national ID card system is one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian government or police state. We need to repeal the Real ID Act and resist the establishment of any system that would suppress freedom to travel and require citizens and non-citizens alike to “show their papers” and reveal their private information to government monitors at every turn.

• We demand recognition of the sovereignty of indigenous nations whose territories cross national boundaries. These indigenous nations have the right to determine the status of their members.

• We demand new policies and laws that deal more effectively and humanely with the victims of illegal international trafficking in humans—primarily women and children who are bought, kidnapped, coerced, brutalized, defrauded, tricked, sold and marketed for forced sex (rape) and prostitution, with an estimated 50,000 trafficked to the U.S.

• We call for stiffer, more appropriate policy, structure and laws to deal with traffickers, and also demand that procedures to deport victims before the traffickers are prosecuted must be changed to allow the victims to testify against the traffickers, which plays a major role in bringing these cases to justice and helping stem the tide of this heinous crime. The victims of trafficking should have the option of permanent residence in the U.S. or return to their home countries, according to their own choice.

[691] Constitution of the United States. Signed September 17, 1787. Enacted June 21, 1788. <www.justfacts.com>

Article 2, Section 3: “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

[692] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

“Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government.”

[693] Webpage: “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.ice.gov>

ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] was created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the former U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. ICE now has more than 20,000 law enforcement and support personnel in more than 400 offices in the United States and around the world.

The agency has an annual budget of approximately $8 billion, primarily devoted to three operational directorates—Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). A fourth directorate—Management and Administration (M&A)—supports the three operational branches to advance the ICE mission.

[694] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protects the American people from a wide range of foreign and domestic threats. DHS has a broad and diverse mission set, including to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect critical infrastructure and civilian computer networks, facilitate lawful trade and travel, respond to and recover from natural disasters, protect our borders, and regulate the migration of individuals to and from our country.

The third largest Cabinet department, DHS employs more than 250,000 people and deploys an $58 billion annual budget across more than 20 components, including the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U. S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Department in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and brought together 22 executive branch agencies.

[695] Memorandum: “Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension,

Detention, and Removal of Aliens.” By John Morton (Assistant Secretary). U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, June 30, 2010. <www.ice.gov>

Page 1:

This memorandum outlines the civil immigration enforcement priorities of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as they relate to the apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens. These priorities shall apply across all ICE programs and shall inform enforcement activity, detention decisions, budget requests and execution, and strategic planning.

A. Priorities for the Apprehension. Detention. and Removal of Aliens

In addition to our important criminal investigative responsibilities, ICE is charged with enforcing the nation’s civil immigration laws. This is a critical mission and one with direct significance for our national security, public safety, and the integrity of our border and immigration controls. ICE, however, only has resources to remove approximately 400,000 aliens per year, less than 4 percent of the estimated illegal alien population in the United States. In light of the large number of administrative violations the agency is charged with addressing and the limited enforcement resources the agency has available, ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal resources to ensure that the removals the agency does conduct promote the agency’ s highest enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.

Page 2:

Priority 2. Recent Illegal Entrants

In order to maintain control at the border and at ports of entry, and to avoid a return to the prior practice commonly and historically referred to as “catch and release,” the removal of aliens who have recently violated immigration controls at the border, at ports of entry, or through the knowing abuse of the visa and visa waiver programs shall be a priority.

Priority 3. Aliens Who Are Fugitives or Otherwise Obstruct Immigration Controls

In order to ensure the integrity of the removal and immigration adjudication processes, the removal of aliens who are subject to a final order of removal and abscond, fail to depart, or intentionally obstruct immigration controls, shall be a priority. These aliens include:

Pages 3–4:

C. Detention

As a general rule, ICE detention resources should be used to support the enforcement priorities noted above or for aliens subject to mandatory detention by law. Absent extraordinary circumstances or the requirements of mandatory detention, field office directors should not expend detention resources on aliens who are known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness, or who are disabled, elderly, pregnant, or nursing, or demonstrate that they are primary caretakers of children or an infirm person, or whose detention is otherwise not in the public interest. To detain aliens in those categories who are not subject to mandatory detention, ICE officers or special agents must obtain approval from the field office director. If an alien falls within the above categories and is subject to mandatory detention, field office directors are encouraged to contact their local Office of Chief Counsel for guidance.

[696] “Remarks by the President on Immigration.” By Barack Obama. White House, June 15, 2012. <obamawhitehouse.archives.gov>

This morning, Secretary Napolitano announced new actions my administration will take to mend our nation’s immigration policy, to make it more fair, more efficient, and more just—specifically for certain young people sometimes called “Dreamers.” …

Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.

[697] Webpage: “Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed/updated August 24, 2022. <www.uscis.gov>

On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status. …

You may request DACA if you:

1) Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;

2) Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;

3) Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;

4) Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services];

5) Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012, meaning that:

• You never had a lawful immigration status on or before June 15, 2012, or

• Any lawful immigration status or parole that you obtained prior to June 15, 2012, had expired as of June 15, 2012;

6) Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and

7) Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Age Guidelines

Anyone requesting DACA must have been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. You must also be at least 15 years or older to request DACA, unless you are currently in removal proceedings or have a final removal or voluntary departure order, as summarized in the table below….

[698] Memorandum: “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.” By Janet Napolitano. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, June 15, 2012. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 2:

As part of this exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the above criteria are to be considered whether or not an individual is already in removal proceedings or subject to a final order of removal. No individual should receive deferred action under this memorandum unless they first pass a background check and requests for relief pursuant to this memorandum are to be decided on a case by case basis. DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] cannot provide any assurance that relief will be granted in all cases.

[699] Ruling: Texas v. United States. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, November 25, 2015. Decided 2–1. Majority: Smith, Elrod. Dissent: King. <www.ca5.uscourts.gov>

Majority:

In June 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (“DACA”).6 In the DACA Memo to agency heads, the DHS Secretary “set[] forth how, in the exercise of … prosecutorial discretion, [DHS] should enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain young people” and listed five “criteria [that] should be satisfied before an individual is considered for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”7 The Secretary further instructed that “[n]o individual should receive deferred action … unless they [sic] first pass a background check and requests for relief … are to be decided on a case by case basis.”8 Although stating that “[f]or individuals who are granted deferred action … , [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)] shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization,” the DACA Memo purported to “confer[] no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.”9 At least 1.2 million persons qualify for DACA, and approximately 636,000 applications were approved through 2014.

[700] Report: “How Changes in Immigration Policy Might Affect the Federal Budget.” Congressional Budget Office, January 2015. <www.cbo.gov>

Pages 1–2: “The [Obama] Administration has taken a number of steps to delay possible removal proceedings for unauthorized residents under a process known as deferred action. Those who are approved for deferred action are considered lawfully present in the country for a limited period of time but do not gain legal status; they can, and most do, receive authorization to work.”

Page 3:

Formerly unauthorized residents who receive approval for “deferred action”—that is, any removal proceedings initiated against them are delayed for a period of time—are considered lawfully present without legal status. They are eligible to receive Medicare and Social Security benefits, assuming they meet the programs’ requirements. In addition, unauthorized residents who are approved for deferred action and receive work authorization have Social Security numbers and therefore can claim the earned income tax credit, if they qualify.

[701] Memorandum: “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents.” By Jeh Charles Johnson. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, November 20, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This memorandum is intended to reflect new policies for the use of deferred action. By memorandum dated June 15, 2012, Secretary Napolitano issued guidance entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.” The following supplements and amends that guidance.

Pages 3–4:

DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] provides that those who were under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012, who entered the United States before June 15, 2007 (5 years prior) as children under the age of 16, and who meet specific educational and public safety criteria, are eligible for deferred action on a case-by-case basis. The initial DACA announcement of June 15, 2012 provided deferred action for a period of two years. On June 5, 2014, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that DACA recipients could request to renew their deferred action for an additional two years.

In order to further effectuate this program, I hereby direct USCIS to expand DACA as follows:

Remove the Age Cap. DACA will apply to all otherwise eligible immigrants who entered the United States by the requisite adjusted entry date before the age of sixteen (16), regardless of how old they were in June 2012 or are today. The current age restriction excludes those who were older than 31 on the date of announcement (i.e., those who were born before June 15, 1981). That restriction will no longer apply.

Extend DACA Renewal and Work Authorization to Three-Years. The period for which DACA and the accompanying employment authorization is granted will be extended to three-year increments, rather than the current two-year increments. This change shall apply to all first-time applications as well as all applications for renewal effective November 24, 2014. Beginning on that date, USCIS should issue all work authorization documents valid for three years, including to those individuals who have applied and are awaiting two-year work authorization documents based on the renewal of their DACA grants. USCIS should also consider means to extend those two-year renewals already issued to three years.

Adjust the Date-of-Entry Requirement. In order to align the DACA program more closely with the other deferred action authorization outlined below, the eligibility cut-off date by which a DACA applicant must have been in the United States should be adjusted from June 15, 2007 to January 1, 2010.

USCIS should begin accepting applications under the new criteria from applicants no later than ninety (90) days from the date of this announcement.

[702] Public Law 110–457: “William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.” 110th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by George W. Bush on December 23, 2008. <www.gpo.gov>

Sec. 235. Enhancing Efforts to Combat the Trafficking of Children.

(a) Combating Child Trafficking at the Border and Ports of Entry of the United States. …

(2) Special Rules for Children From Contiguous Countries.—

(A) Determinations.Any unaccompanied alien child who is a national or habitual resident of a country that is contiguous with the United States shall be treated in accordance with subparagraph (B), if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines, on a case-by-case basis, that—

(i) such child has not been a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, and there is no credible evidence that such child is at risk of being trafficked upon return to the child’s country of nationality or of last habitual residence;

(ii) such child does not have a fear of returning to the child’s country of nationality or of last habitual residence owing to a credible fear of persecution; and

(iii) the child is able to make an independent decision to withdraw the child’s application for admission to the United States.

(B) Return.An immigration officer who finds an unaccompanied alien child described in subparagraph (A) at a land border or port of entry of the United States and determines that such child is inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) may—

(i) permit such child to withdraw the child’s application for admission pursuant to section 235(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(4)); and

(ii) return such child to the child’s country of nationality or country of last habitual residence. nationality or country of last habitual residence. …

(3) Rule for Other Children.The custody of unaccompanied alien children not described in paragraph (2)(A) who are apprehended at the border of the United States or at a United States port of entry shall be treated in accordance with subsection (b). …

(5) Ensuring the Safe Repatriation of Children.—

(D) Placement in Removal Proceedings.Any unaccompanied alien child sought to be removed by the Department of Homeland Security, except for an unaccompanied alien child from a contiguous country subject to exceptions under subsection (a)(2), shall be—

(i) placed in removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a);

(ii) eligible for relief under section 240B of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1229c) at no cost to the child; and

(iii) provided access to counsel in accordance with subsection (c)(5).

(b) Combating Child Trafficking and Exploitation in the United States.—

(1) Care and Custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children.—Consistent with section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279), and except as otherwise provided under subsection (a), the care and custody of all unaccompanied alien children, including responsibility for their detention, where appropriate, shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

(c) Providing Safe and Secure Placements for Children …

(2) Safe and Secure Placements.—Subject to section 462(b)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(b)(2)), an unaccompanied alien child in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child. In making such placements, the Secretary may consider danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight. Placement of child trafficking victims may include placement in an Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program, pursuant to section 412(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(d)), if a suitable family member is not available to provide care. A child shall not be placed in a secure facility absent a determination that the child poses a danger to self or others or has been charged with having committed a criminal offense. The placement of a child in a secure facility shall be reviewed, at a minimum, on a monthly basis, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary, to determine if such placement remains warranted. …

(5) Access to Counsel.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall ensure, to the greatest extent practicable and consistent with section 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362), that all unaccompanied alien children who are or have been in the custody of the Secretary or the Secretary of Homeland Security, and who are not described in subsection (a)(2)(A), have counsel to represent them in legal proceedings or matters and protect them from mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking. To the greatest extent practicable, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall make every effort to utilize the services of pro bono counsel who agree to provide representation to such children without charge. …

(g) Definition of Unaccompanied Alien Child.—For purposes of this section, the term “unaccompanied alien child” has the meaning given such term in section 462(g) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g)).

[703] U.S. Code, Title 6, Chapter 1, Subchapter IV, Part E, Section 279: “Citizenship and Immigration Services, Children’s Affairs.” Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(g) Definitions

As used in this section—

(1) the term “placement” means the placement of an unaccompanied alien child in either a detention facility or an alternative to such a facility; and

(2) the term “unaccompanied alien child” means a child who—

(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;

(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and

(C) with respect to whom—

(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or

(ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.

[704] Book: Introduction to Homeland Security (2nd edition). By David H. McElreath and others. CRC Press, 2014.

Page 278: “The United States shares its national borders with Mexico and Canada.”

[705] Report: “Misperceptions of U.S. Policy Key Driver in Central American Migrant Surge.” Criminal Threats Unit, Strategic Analysis Section, El Paso Intelligence Center, July 7, 2014. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 2: “The recent surge of Central American children to the U.S. Southwest border prompted EPIC [El Paso Intelligence Center] to examine the probable drivers influencing the rise in Other Than Mexican (OTM) migrants currently overwhelming law enforcement resources.”

[706] Report: “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.” U.S. Department of Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement. Updated May 2014. <www.justfacts.com>

The Division of Children’s Services (DCS) provides care and placement for children who come into the United States from other countries without an adult guardian. These children are referred to as unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in statutes. This program is in the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), in the Administration for Children and Families, an operational division of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. …

On average between 7,000 and 8,000 children are served annually in this program. In Fiscal Year 2012 (October 1, 2011 – September 30, 2012), this number jumped dramatically, with a total of 13,625 children served by ORR that year. Since that time, the overall increase has continued, resulting in 24,668 UAC referrals from DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] for the 12-month reporting period in FY2013, with the projection for FY2014 currently set at 60,000 referrals.

[707] Hearing: “An Administration Made Disaster: South Texas Border Surge of Unaccompanied Alien Minors.” U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, June 25, 2014. <www.govinfo.gov>

Pages 27–35 (of PDF): Statement by Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118 of the American Federation of Government Employees:

Page 18:

By way of vans, buses, charter flights and commercial aircraft, ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers are transferring hundreds of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC), family units and adult aliens out of the Rio Grande Valley every day of the week to points all across the nation. Without ICE agents and officers performing their critical border security mission every day for the last year, border operations in the Rio Grande Valley would have quickly broken down. In speaking with our officers assigned to ICE Air Operations, ICE’s air transportation arm, air transports have been so heavily used during the crisis that two additional planes have already been leased, and still more could be utilized. Taking up the slack from ICE Air Operations transport planes, 60 to 120 ICE officers from around the nation board commercial aircraft everyday escorting small groups of UACs for placement with the Office of Refugee Resettlement/Division of Child Services (ORR/DCS). ICE officers around the nation are under orders to be packed for overnight travel and ready to respond at any time day or night—and responding they are. Contrary to some reports, ICE officers and agents are taking custody of UACs from the Border Patrol, not ORR, and transporting these UACs to ORR placement locations throughout the nation. From the border areas of the Rio Grande Valley, El Paso and Arizona, to areas on the interior like Chicago, Seattle and Newark; ICE agents and officers are scrambling to process, transport and provide detention space in response to this crisis and support Border Patrol operations.

[708] Report: “Misperceptions of U.S. Policy Key Driver in Central American Migrant Surge.” Criminal Threats Unit, Strategic Analysis Section, El Paso Intelligence Center, July 7, 2014. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 2: “The recent surge of Central American children to the U.S. Southwest border prompted EPIC [El Paso Intelligence Center] to examine the probable drivers influencing the rise in Other Than Mexican (OTM) migrants currently overwhelming law enforcement resources.”

[709] “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest.” White House, July 7, 2014. <obamawhitehouse.archives.gov>

Mr. Earnest:

So we certainly are familiar and even share that sentiment that action on a comprehensive immigration reform proposal is necessary. What’s also necessary, though, is that we deal with this urgent humanitarian situation that’s cropped up in the last few weeks in the form of a spike of illegal migration from Central American countries. So what we’re seeking is additional authority that can be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to deal with the situation in a humanitarian way, in a way that’s in line with our laws, which means that those who seek to stay in this country go through the due process that supported them through the immigration courts.

[710] Report: “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.” U.S. Department of Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement. Updated May 2014. <www.justfacts.com>

The Division of Children’s Services (DCS) provides care and placement for children who come into the United States from other countries without an adult guardian. These children are referred to as unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in statutes. This program is in the Office of Refugee Resettlement, in the Administration for Children and Families, an operational division of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. …

UAC generally leave their home countries to join family already in the United States, escape abuse, persecution or exploitation in the home country, or to seek employment or educational opportunities in the United States. …

The children come primarily from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Most are over 14 and approximately three quarters of them are boys. …

… Most children are placed into care because they were apprehended by immigration authorities while trying to cross the border; others are referred after coming to the attention of immigration authorities at some point after crossing the border. The average length of stay in the program is currently near 35 days. Of the children served, some 85% are reunified with their families.

[711] Hearing: “An Administration Made Disaster: South Texas Border Surge of Unaccompanied Alien Minors.” U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, June 25, 2014. <www.govinfo.gov>

Testimony of Thomas Homan, Executive Associate Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations:

Page 131 (of PDF):

I can say that every unaccompanied child and every family unit member our surge [are served] with NTAs [Notices to Appear] and scheduled to be put in front of an immigration judge, so that they have their proceedings scheduled, but it’s years out. There’s a lack of immigration judges and some of these hearings take years.

Page 132 (of PDF):

… when we looked at all the unaccompanied alien children that were—NTAs were filed with immigration court in the last five years, 87 percent of them are still in proceedings. We have no final orders [for removal].

[712] Article: “More Than 10,000 Unaccompanied Minors Apprehended on U.S. Border in Last Two Months.” By Elizabeth Chuck. NBC News, December 17, 2015. <www.nbcnews.com>

And the issues that prompt a family to send a young child away from their home country on a dangerous trek to the U.S. have only gotten worse, namely gang and drug-related violence.

“There has to be some reason why people want to leave their home countries, particularly with kids,” Young said. “Families are making that incredibly heartbreaking decision to say if I’m going to protect my child from this, I’m going to have to send them out, because the governments are too weak or too corrupt to control the violence.”

[713] Article: “First on CNN: U.S. Sees New Spike in Number of Children, Families Crossing Border.” By Evan Perez, CNN, September 21, 2015 <www.cnn.com>

U.S. officials say there’s a notable increase in the number of unaccompanied minors and families crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, presenting worries of a possible new refugee influx. …

Most of the immigrants in the 2014 surge came from Central American countries suffering from high rates of gang violence and poverty.

[714] Article: “Unaccompanied Children Crossing Southern Border in Greater Numbers Again, Raising Fears of New Migrant Crisis.” By Jerry Markon and Joshua Partlow. Washington Post, December 16, 2015. <www.washingtonpost.com>

“Still, the [Obama] administration and immigrant advocates are growing increasingly worried, especially because some of the same conditions that drove last year’s surge, including gang and drug-related violence in Central America, have grown even worse.”

[715] Report: “The Surge of Unaccompanied Children from Central America: Root Causes and Policy Solutions.” By Dan Restrepo and Ann Garcia. Center for American Progress, July 24, 2014. <cdn.americanprogress.org>

Page 1: “Over the past few years, and in particular over the past few months, the number of children and families leaving the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras and arriving in neighboring countries and at our southern border has grown significantly.”

Page 3: “Contrary to what the [Obama] administration’s opponents may claim, however, it is clear that U.S. border enforcement policies are not the primary drivers of children coming to the United States.22 Instead, much of the surge stems from the interrelated challenges of organized criminal violence and poverty that adversely affect individuals in Northern Triangle countries.”

[716] Report: “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.” U.S. Department of Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement. Updated May 2014. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 1–2:

The children come primarily from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Most are over 14 and approximately three quarters of them are boys. In FY 2013, origin of youth in this program was as follows: Guatemala (37%); El Salvador (26%); Honduras (30%); Mexico (3%); Ecuador (2%); and Other (3%). Over the years, the breakdown per country of origin has remained relatively constant.

[717] Dataset: “Intentional Homicides (Per 100,000 People).” World Bank, March 23, 2017. <data.worldbank.org>

[718] Webpage: “El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC).” U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.dea.gov>

EPIC [El Paso Intelligence Center] offers tactical, operational and strategic intelligence support to Federal, State, local, tribal, and international law enforcement organizations. The center provides access to LE [law enforcement] systems with the opportunity to collaborate daily through exchanges with LE analysts and operators, as well as routine engagement with our Federal, State, local, tribal, and international partners. The key to EPIC’s success is a culture that transcends parochialism. EPIC is a team approach. Collectively, we deter threats and protect our nation.

[719] Report: “Misperceptions of U.S. Policy Key Driver in Central American Migrant Surge.” Criminal Threats Unit, Strategic Analysis Section, El Paso Intelligence Center, July 7, 2014. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 2–3:

The recent surge of Central American children to the U.S. Southwest border prompted EPIC to examine the probable drivers influencing the rise in Other Than Mexican (OTM) migrants currently overwhelming law enforcement resources.

The El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) assesses the significant increase in Central American migrants arriving at the border since mid-2013 is most likely driven by traditional migration factors exacerbated by misperceptions of recent U.S. immigration policies among migrants. These misperceptions are likely fueled by human smugglers and Central American media—providing deliberate, errant, or unwitting reporting to migrants on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) memorandum and comprehensive U.S. immigration reform.1

• (U//LES) In late May, the U.S. Border Patrol interviewed unaccompanied children (UAC) and migrant families apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley. Of the 230 total migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC [unaccompanied alien children] and adult female OTMs [other than Mexicans] traveling with minors. Migrants indicated that knowledge of permisos was widespread across Central America due to word of mouth, local, and international media messaging—prompting many to depart for the United States within 30 days of becoming aware of these perceived benefits, according to the same reporting.

• (U//LES) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also notes that a large number of migrants interviewed claimed family members in the United States encouraged their travel because the U.S. government would cease issuing permisos after June 2014. Migrants cited Univision, Primer Impacto, Al Rojo Vivo and several Honduran television news outlets for helping shape their perception of U.S. immigration policy.2

• (U//LES) Although EPIC lacks reliable reporting of Central American newspapers broadcasting the perceived benefits of U.S. immigration policies, several U.S. media outlets since June 2014 have identified Central American newspapers that have enticed minors to travel to the United States. For example, Honduran and El Salvadoran press have reportedly advertised the DACA policy, accommodations for detained UAC, and the promise of reunification with family members in the United States.3

“Permisos” are the Notice to Appear documents issued to undocumented aliens, when they are released on their own recognizance, pending a hearing before a U.S. immigration judge. …

(U//LES) EPIC assesses homicide trends and migrant interviews suggest violence is likely not the principal factor driving the increase in UAC migration. While CBP data from early fiscal year 2011 indicates a steady increase in OTM and UAC migration, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) statistics—within this same timeframe—show a decline in per capita homicide rates in these three countries; El Salvador saw the sharpest decline, followed by Honduras and Guatemala, respectively.

Page 4:

(U//LES) EPIC judges that alien smuggling organizations and individual smugglers are likely responsible for perpetuating rumors encouraging the Central American migration surge to increase their financial gain. Honduran and Guatemalan immigration officials attribute the UAC surge to alien smugglers, or coyotes, preying on mothers and children by motivating them with false U.S. amnesty or asylum rumors, according to Costa Rican press reporting.10

[720] Report: “Unaccompanied Alien Children Project.” University of Texas at El Paso, Center for Law & Human Behavior, March 20, 2014. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 3:

Both Border Patrol and ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ERO [Enforcement and Removal Operations] officers agreed that the lack of deterrence for crossing the US-Mexican border has impacted the rate at which they apprehend UACs [unaccompanied alien children]. Officers are certain that UACs are aware of the relative lack of consequences they will receive when apprehended at the U.S. border. UTEP [University of Texas at El Paso] was informed that smugglers of family members of UACs understand that once a UAC is apprehended for illegal entry into the United States, the individual will be re-united with a U.S. based family member pending the disposition of the immigration hearing. This process appears to be exploited by illegal alien smugglers and family members in the United States who wish to reunite with separated children. It was observed by the researchers that the current policy is very similar to the ‘catch & release’1 problem that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) faced prior to the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

[721] Ruling: State of Texas v. United States of America. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, July 16, 2021. <storage.courtlistener.com>

The Court has found that at least one of the Plaintiff States has satisfied all the necessary requisites to maintain this lawsuit. The Court has further found, pursuant to its Memorandum and Order, that the Plaintiff States are entitled to summary judgment on the merits of their procedural and substantive Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims and has granted same. Finally, the Plaintiff States have proven the required elements to obtain a permanent injunction.

The Plaintiff States have requested vacatur of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and a permanent injunction against its continued operation. …

Accordingly, the Court hereby grants the request for permanent injunction and vacatur, subject to the following limitations and parameters:

The DACA Memorandum (June 15, 2012 Memorandum by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano) and the DACA program that it created are hereby vacated; the DACA Memorandum is remanded to DHS for further consideration, as requested. From this date forward, the United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents, and employees are hereby enjoined from administering the DACA program and from reimplementing DACA without compliance with the APA.

With respect to new (those not already granted by the date of this order) DACA applications received by DHS, the order of vacatur and remand is effective immediately. DHS may continue to accept applications as it has been ordered to do by the court in Batalla Vidal v. Wolf … but it may not grant these applications until a further order of this Court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, or the United States Supreme Court. Thus, DHS is hereby permanently enjoined from granting DACA status for any new applicants.

With respect to DACA recipients who obtained that status on or before the date of this injunction and DACA renewal applications for these existing recipients (regardless of when the renewal applications are submitted), the order of immediate vacatur and the permanent injunction (but not the order of remand) are temporarily stayed until a further order of this Court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, or the United States Supreme Court. … In addition to appellate review, the stay also serves the purpose of allowing DHS time to perform the review it has represented to the Court that it plans to do.

Subject to any further order as described above, nothing in this injunction should be read as ordering DHS or any other governmental entity to cancel or otherwise terminate DACA status for any individual who currently is, as of this date, a DACA recipient in good standing. Further, nothing in this injunction requires DHS or the Department of Justice to take any immigration, deportation, or criminal action against any DACA recipient, applicant, or any other individual that either would not otherwise take.

DHS is directed to post a public notice, within 3 calendar days of this Injunction, to be displayed prominently on its website and on the websites of all other relevant agencies, that a United States District Court has found the DACA program to be illegal and that, though applicants may continue to submit applications, the Government is prohibited from granting such applications. The Government shall provide a copy of the notice to all counsel and post it to the docket within 3 calendars days of this Order.

The Court finds this permanent injunction is reasonable and properly takes into account the reliance interests of the Plaintiff States on the duly enacted immigration laws of this country, the interests of the public in having the Government and its agencies and employees comply with the law, and the significant reliance interests that DACA has engendered since its inception. This Court retains jurisdiction of the matter for purposes of construction, modification, and enforcement of this Permanent Injunction. If the Government fails to take the appropriate steps to remedy the shortfalls in DACA within a reasonable time given the complexities inherent in such a process, the Court will reconsider its decision to stay portions of the relief that it has granted, if an appropriate motion is filed.

Signed at Houston, Texas, this 16th day of July, 2021.

Andrew S. Hanen

United States District Judge

[722] Webpage: “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Last updated October 14, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Important Information About DACA Requests

DACA Decision in State of Texas, et al., v. United States of America, et al., 1:18-CV-00068, (S.D. Texas July 16, 2021) (“Texas II”):

On July 16, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the DACA policy “is illegal.” The Court granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims; vacated the June 15, 2012 DACA memorandum issued by former Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano; remanded the memorandum to DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] for further consideration; and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the government’s continued administration of DACA and the reimplementation of DACA without compliance with the APA. The Court, however, temporarily stayed its order vacating the DACA memorandum and its injunction with regard to individuals who obtained DACA on or before July 16, 2021, including those with renewal requests.

Consistent with this order, DHS will continue to accept the filing of both initial and renewal DACA requests, as well as accompanying requests for employment authorization. However, pursuant to the July 16, 2021 order from the Southern District of Texas, DHS is prohibited from granting initial DACA requests and accompanying requests for employment authorization. Also consistent with that order, DHS will continue to grant or deny renewal DACA requests, according to existing policy.

[723] Ruling: State of Texas v. United States. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, October 5, 2022. Decided 3–0. Majority: Richman, Ho, Engelhardt. <www.ca5.uscourts.gov>

Procedurally, the States argue that DACA failed to undergo necessary notice and comment. The Government maintains that DACA is a general statement of policy exempt from notice and comment.

The APA [Administrative Procedures Act] requires substantive rules to undergo notice and comment, whereas policy statements need not.154 Substantive rules “create law.”155 They typically “grant rights impose obligations, or produce other significant effects on private interests.”156 By contrast, policy statements “announc[e] motivating factors the agency will consider, or tentative goals toward which it will aim, in determining the resolution of a substantive question of regulation.”157 The notice-and-comment exemption for policy statements “must be narrowly construed.”158

DHS asserts that the program set forth in the DACA Memorandum is an exercise of its inherent prosecutorial discretion. The district court cogently and thoroughly analyzed this argument and rejected it.202 We agree with the district court. As our court held in DAPA, “[a]lthough prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not unfettered.” Declining to prosecute does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change.203

The legal questions that DACA presents are serious, both to the parties and to the public. In our view, the defendants have not shown that there is a likelihood that they will succeed on the merits. But we are mindful that, in the similar DAPA case, the Supreme Court was equally divided over our judgment.247 We also recognize that DACA has had profound significance to recipients and many others in the ten years since its adoption.248 Given the “uncertainty of final disposition”249 and the “inevitable disruption that would arise from a lack of continuity and stability,”250 we preserve the stay as to existing recipients.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part. This case is REMANDED to the district court, rather than DHS. The motion for a partial stay is GRANTED pending a further order of this court or the Supreme Court.

[724] Article: “For Obama, Executive Order on Immigration Would Be Turnabout.” By Michael D. Shear. New York Times, November 17, 2014. <www.nytimes.com>

For years, he [Obama] has waved aside the demands of Latino activists and Democratic allies who begged him to act on his own, and he insisted publicly that a decision to shield millions of immigrants from deportation without an act of Congress would amount to nothing less than the dictates of a king, not a president. …

“If we start broadening that, then essentially I’ll be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally,” Mr. Obama told Jose Diaz-Balart in the interview. “So that’s not an option.” …

“This is something that I have struggled with throughout my presidency,” Mr. Obama said. “The problem is, is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

[725] Article: “Rep. Luis Gutierrez: Immigration Reform in the House ‘Is Over.’ ” By David Nakamura. Washington Post, June 25, 2014. <www.washingtonpost.com>

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), one of the most vocal immigration advocates on Capitol Hill, said in a fiery floor speech that the GOP’s “chance to play a role in immigration policy is over. We’ve given you time to craft legislation and you failed. The president has no other choice but to act on existing laws to make deportation policies more humane.” …

In an interview after his speech, Gutierrez said it is clear the GOP is unwilling to support legislation.

“Nothing’s going to happen,” he said. “My point of view is, this is over. There’s no reason to continue to wait. Every day, 1,000 people get deported. The president should stop deportations. There’s no reason to wait. Wait for what? Every day, they [Republicans] become not recalcitrant but even more energetically opposed to working with us. How many times does someone have to say no until you understand they mean no?”

[726] Memorandum: “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents.” By Jeh Charles Johnson. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, November 20, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1: “This memorandum is intended to reflect new policies for the use of deferred action. By memorandum dated June 15, 2012, Secretary Napolitano issued guidance entitled ‘Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.’ The following supplements and amends that guidance.”

Page 4:

I hereby direct USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] to establish a process, similar to DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals], for exercising prosecutorial discretion through the use of deferred action, on a case-by-case basis, to those individuals who:

• have, on the date of this memorandum, a son or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;

• have continuously resided in the United States since before January 1, 2010;

• are physically present in the United States on the date of this memorandum, and at the time of making a request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;

• have no lawful status on the date of this memorandum;

• are not an enforcement priority as reflected in the November 20, 2014 Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants Memorandum; and

• present no other factors that, in the exercise of discretion, makes the grant of deferred action inappropriate.

Page 5:

Deferred action granted pursuant to the program shall be for a period of three years. Applicants will pay the work authorization and biometrics fees, which currently amount to $465. There will be no fee waivers and, like DACA, very limited fee exemptions.

USCIS should begin accepting applications from eligible applicants no later than one hundred and eighty (180) days after the date of this announcement. As with DACA, the above criteria are to be considered for all individuals encountered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or USCIS, whether or not the individual is already in removal proceedings or subject to a final order of removal. Specifically:

• ICE and CBP are instructed to immediately begin identifying persons in their custody, as well as newly encountered individuals, who meet the above criteria and may thus be eligible for deferred action to prevent the further expenditure of enforcement resources with regard to these individuals.

• ICE is further instructed to review pending removal cases, and seek administrative closure or termination of the cases of individuals identified who meet the above criteria, and to refer such individuals to USCIS for case-by-case determinations. ICE should also establish a process to allow individuals in removal proceedings to identify themselves as candidates for deferred action.

• USCIS is instructed to implement this memorandum consistent with its existing guidance regarding the issuance of notices to appear. The USCIS process shall also be available to individuals subject to final orders of removal who otherwise meet the above criteria.

[727] Memorandum: “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.” By Jeh Johnson. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, November 20, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 3:

The following shall constitute the Department’s civil immigration enforcement priorities:

Priority 1 (Threats to National Security, Border Security, and Public Safety)

Aliens described in this priority represent the highest priority to which enforcement resources should be directed:

(a) aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security;

(b) aliens apprehended at the border or ports of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States;

(c) aliens convicted of an offense for which an element was active

participation in a criminal street gang … or aliens not younger than 16 years of age who intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang to further the illegal activity of the gang;

(d) aliens convicted of an offense classified as a felony in the convicting jurisdiction, other than a state or local offense for which an essential element was the alien’s immigration status; and

(e) aliens convicted of an “aggravated felony,” as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act at the time of the conviction.

The removal of these aliens must be prioritized unless they qualify for asylum or another form of relief under our laws, or unless, in the judgment of an ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Field Office Director, CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] Sector Chief or CBP Director of Field Operations, there are compelling and exceptional factors that clearly indicate the alien is not a threat to national security, border security, or public safety and should not therefore be an enforcement priority.

Priority 2 (Misdemeanants and New Immigration Violators)

Priority 3 (Other Immigration Violations)

[728] Ruling: Texas v. United States. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, November 25, 2015. Decided 2–1. Majority: Smith, Elrod. Dissent: King. <www.ca5.uscourts.gov>

Majority: “Of the approximately 11.3 million illegal aliens14 in the United States, 4.3 million would be eligible for lawful presence pursuant to DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans].”

[729] Article: “Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Immigration Plans.” By Michael D. Shear and Julia Preston. New York Times, November 9, 2015. <www.nytimes.com>

“A federal appeals court said Monday that President Obama could not move forward with his plans to overhaul immigration rules by providing up to five million people with work permits and protection from deportation.”

[730] Article: “A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn. Pew Hispanic, April 14, 2009. <www.pewhispanic.org>

Unauthorized immigrants living in the United States are more geographically dispersed than in the past and are more likely than either U.S. born residents or legal immigrants to live in a household with a spouse and children. In addition, a growing share of the children of unauthorized immigrant parents—73%—were born in this country and are U.S. citizens.

These are among the key findings of a new analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center, which builds on previous work estimating the size and growth of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population.

[731] Ruling: Texas v. United States. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, November 25, 2015. Decided 2–1. Majority: Smith, Elrod. Dissent: King. <www.ca5.uscourts.gov>

Majority:

The [Homeland Security] Secretary stated that, although “[d]eferred action does not confer any form of legal status in this country, much less citizenship[,] it [does] mean[] that, for a specified period of time, an individual is permitted to be lawfully present in the United States.”13

“Lawful presence” is not an enforceable right to remain in the United States and can be revoked at any time, but that classification nevertheless has significant legal consequences. … But as the government admits in its opening brief … “Each person who applies for deferred action pursuant to the [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA)] criteria … shall also be eligible to apply for work authorization for the [renewable three-year] period of deferred action.” DAPA Memo at 4. The United States concedes that “[a]n alien with work authorization may obtain a Social Security Number,” “accrue quarters of covered employment,” and “correct wage records to add prior covered employment within approximately three years of the year in which the wages were earned or in limited circumstances there-after.”17 The district court determined—and the government does not dispute—“that DAPA recipients would be eligible for earned income tax credits once they received a Social Security number.”18

[732] Ruling: Texas v. United States. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, November 25, 2015. Decided 2–1. Majority: Smith, Elrod. Dissent: King. <www.ca5.uscourts.gov>

Majority:

The [Homeland Security] Secretary stated that, although “[d]eferred action does not confer any form of legal status in this country, much less citizenship[,] it [does] mean[] that, for a specified period of time, an individual is permitted to be lawfully present in the United States.”13

“Lawful presence” is not an enforceable right to remain in the United States and can be revoked at any time, but that classification nevertheless has significant legal consequences. …

As for state benefits, although “[a] State may provide that an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States is eligible for any State or local public benefit for which such alien would otherwise be ineligible under subsection (a),” § 1621(d), Texas has chosen not to issue driver’s licenses to unlawfully present aliens.19 Texas maintains that documentation confirming lawful presence pursuant to DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans] would allow otherwise ineligible aliens to become eligible for state-subsidized driver’s licenses. Likewise, certain unemployment compensation “[b]enefits are not payable based on services performed by an alien unless the alien … was lawfully present for purposes of performing the services….”20 Texas contends that DAPA recipients would also become eligible for unemployment insurance.

As we will show, DAPA would have a major effect on the states’ fiscs [finances], causing millions of dollars of losses in Texas alone, and at least in Texas, the causal chain is especially direct: DAPA would enable beneficiaries to apply for driver’s licenses, and many would do so, resulting in Texas’s injury. …

Texas subsidizes its licenses and would lose a minimum of $130.89 on each one it issued to a DAPA beneficiary. …

Texas has satisfied the second standing requirement by establishing that its injury is “fairly traceable” to DAPA. It is undisputed that DAPA would enable beneficiaries to apply for driver’s licenses, and there is little doubt that many would do so because driving is a practical necessity in most of the state. …

DAPA beneficiaries would be eligible for driver’s licenses and other benefits, and a substantial number of the more than four million potential beneficiaries—many of whom live in the plaintiff states—would take advantage of that opportunity. The district court found that retracting those benefits would be “substantially difficult—if not impossible,” Dist. Ct. Op., 86 F. Supp. 3d at 673, and the government has given us no reason to doubt that finding.

[733] Ruling: Texas v. United States. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, November 25, 2015. Decided 2–1. Majority: Smith, Elrod. Dissent: King. <www.ca5.uscourts.gov>

Majority:

The [Homeland Security] Secretary stated that, although “[d]eferred action does not confer any form of legal status in this country, much less citizenship[,] it [does] mean[] that, for a specified period of time, an individual is permitted to be lawfully present in the United States.”13

“Lawful presence” is not an enforceable right to remain in the United States and can be revoked at any time, but that classification nevertheless has significant legal consequences. Unlawfully present aliens are generally not eligible to receive federal public benefits … or state and local public benefits unless the state otherwise provides…. But as the government admits in its opening brief, persons granted lawful presence pursuant to DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans] are no longer “bar[red] … from receiving social security retirement benefits, social security disability benefits, or health insurance under Part A of the Medicare program.”16 That follows from § 1611(b)(2)–(3), which provides that the exclusion of benefits in § 1611(a) “shall not apply to any benefit[s] payable under title[s] II [and XVIII] of the Social Security Act … to an alien who is lawfully present in the United States as determined by the Attorney General….” (emphasis added). A lawfully present alien is still required to satisfy independent qualification criteria before receiving those benefits, but the grant of lawful presence removes the categorical bar and thereby makes otherwise ineligible persons eligible to qualify.

[734] “Guide to Public Benefits for Immigrants.” By Daniel Browne and others. City of New York, Public Advocate and the New York Immigration Coalition, November 2008. <www.nyc.gov>

Page 4:

In New York State, immigrants who are PRUCOL (Permanently Residing Under Color of Law) can qualify ONLY for state and city benefits. PRUCOL is not an official immigration status, but many immigrants are described this way. The PRUCOL category is used to describe many different situations in which an immigrant can get certain benefits. PRUCOL immigrants are people who are living in the United States; DHS [Department of Homeland Security] knows they are here and is not taking steps to deport them. Examples of PRUCOL include victims of crime (U visa holders), immigrants granted parole in the U.S. for less than 1 year, immigrants with deferred action status, and other types of visa holders. Like the “qualified alien” category, PRUCOL is NOT an immigration status. It is just a category used to qualify for public benefits.

Pages 6–7:

Public Benefits Chart with Eligibility Categories

PRUCOL [benefits not available to the undocumented]:

Cash Assistance (Safety Net Assistance)

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (Federal)

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (State)

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (City)

Unemployment Insurance

Healthy NY (Sole Proprietor)

Healthy NY (Small Employer)

Medicaid [non-pregnant adults]

Medicaid Excess Income

Family Health Plus

Children’s Medicaid (Child Health Plus A)

Family Planning Benefit Program (FPBP)

Disability Rent Increase Exemption (DRIE)

Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption (SCRIE)

Senior Citizen Homeowner’s Exemption (SCHE)

School Tax Relief (STAR) (Basic and Enhanced)

Disabled Homeowner’s Exemption (DHE)

Veteran’s Exemption

[735] Ruling: Texas v. United States. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, November 25, 2015. Decided 2–1. Majority: Smith, Elrod. Dissent: King. <www.ca5.uscourts.gov>

Majority:

The United States1 appeals a preliminary injunction, pending trial, for-bidding implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”). Twenty-six states (the “states”2) challenged DAPA under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution;3 in an impressive and thorough Memorandum Opinion and Order issued February 16, 2015, the district court enjoined the program on the ground that the states are likely to succeed on their claim that DAPA is subject to the APA’s procedural requirements.

[736] Article: “Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Immigration Plans.” By Michael D. Shear and Julia Preston. New York Times, November 9, 2015. <www.nytimes.com>

A federal appeals court said Monday that President Obama could not move forward with his plans to overhaul immigration rules by providing up to five million people with work permits and protection from deportation. …

Before the effort began, it was blocked in February by a federal district court judge in Texas, who ruled that allowing millions of illegal immigrants to remain lawfully in the United States would prove costly to the State of Texas, the lead plaintiff in the case. The judge also said the government had not followed the proper procedures for enacting the new immigration rules.

[737] Ruling: Texas v. United States. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, November 25, 2015. Decided 2–1. Majority: Smith, Elrod. Dissent: King. <www.ca5.uscourts.gov>

The United States maintains that DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans] is presumptively unreviewable prosecutorial discretion because “ ‘lawful presence’ is not a status and is not something that the alien can legally enforce; the agency can alter or revoke it at any time.”102 The government further contends that “[e]very decision under [DAPA] to defer enforcement action against an alien necessarily entails allowing the individual to be lawfully present…. Deferred action under DAPA and ‘lawful presence’ during that limited period are thus two sides of the same coin.”103

The United States asserts that 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14),111 rather than DAPA, makes aliens granted deferred action eligible for work authorizations. But if DAPA’s deferred-action program must be subjected to notice-and-comment, then work authorizations may not be validly issued pursuant to that subsection until that process has been completed and aliens have been “granted deferred action.” …

Moreover, the government’s limitless reading of that subsection—allowing for the issuance of employment authorizations to any class of illegal aliens whom DHS [Department of Homeland Security] declines to remove—is beyond the scope of what the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] can reasonably be interpreted to authorize, as we will explain. …

In specific and detailed provisions, the INA expressly and carefully provides legal designations allowing defined classes of aliens to be lawfully present162 and confers eligibility for “discretionary relief allowing [aliens in deportation proceedings] to remain in the country.”163 Congress has also identified narrow classes of aliens eligible for deferred action, including certain petitioners for immigration status under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994,164 immediate family members of lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) killed by terrorism,165 and immediate family members of LPRs killed in combat and granted posthumous citizenship.166 Entirely absent from those specific classes is the group of 4.3 million illegal aliens who would be eligible for lawful presence under DAPA were it not enjoined. See DAPA Memo at 4.

Congress has enacted an intricate process for illegal aliens to derive a lawful immigration classification from their children’s immigration status: In general, an applicant must (i) have a U.S. citizen child who is at least twenty-one years old, (ii) leave the United States, (iii) wait ten years, and then (iv) obtain one of the limited number of family-preference visas from a United States consulate.167 Although DAPA does not confer the full panoply of benefits that a visa gives, DAPA would allow illegal aliens to receive the benefits of lawful presence solely on account of their children’s immigration status without complying with any of the requirements, enumerated above, that Congress has deliberately imposed. DAPA requires only that prospective beneficiaries “have … a son or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident”—without regard to the age of the child—and there is no need to leave the United States or wait ten years168 or obtain a visa.169 Further, the INA does not contain a family-sponsorship process for parents of an LPR child,170 but DAPA allows a parent to derive lawful presence from his child’s LPR status.

The INA also specifies classes of aliens eligible172 and ineligible173 for work authorization, including those “eligible for work authorization and deferred action”―with no mention of the class of persons whom DAPA would make eligible for work authorization. Congress “forcefully” made combating the employment of illegal aliens central to “[t]he policy of immigration law,”174 in part by “establishing an extensive ‘employment verification system,’ ”designed to deny employment to aliens who … are not lawfully present in the United States.”175 The INA’s careful employment-authorization scheme “protect[s] against the displacement of workers in the United States,”176 and a “primary purpose in restricting immigration is to preserve jobs for American workers.”177 DAPA would dramatically increase the number of aliens eligible for work authorization, thereby undermining Congress’s stated goal of closely guarding access to work authorization and preserving jobs for those lawfully in the country.

DAPA would make 4.3 million otherwise removable aliens eligible for lawful presence, employment authorization, and associated benefits, and “we must be guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency.”178

The interpretation of those provisions that the Secretary advances would allow him to grant lawful presence and work authorization to any illegal alien in the United States—an untenable position in light of the INA’s intricate system of immigration classifications and employment eligibility. Even with “special deference” to the Secretary,192 the INA flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization. …

DAPA is far from interstitial: Congress has repeatedly declined to enact the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (“DREAM Act”),199 features of which closely resemble DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] and DAPA.

Historical practice that is so far afield from the challenged program sheds no light on the Secretary’s authority to implement DAPA. Indeed, as the district court recognized, the President explicitly stated that “it was the failure of Congress to enact such a program that prompted him … to ‘change the law.’ 200 At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes. And the dissent attempts to avoid the impact of the President’s statement by accusing the district court and this panel majority of “relying … on selected excerpts of the President’s public statements.” Dissent at 24, 33 n.41 …

DAPA beneficiaries would be eligible for driver’s licenses and other benefits, and a substantial number of the more than four million potential beneficiaries—many of whom live in the plaintiff states—would take advantage of that opportunity. The district court found that retracting those benefits would be “substantially difficult—if not impossible,” Dist. Ct. Op., 86 F. Supp. 3d at 673, and the government has given us no reason to doubt that finding. …

The district court did not err and most assuredly did not abuse its discretion. The order granting the preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED.

[738] Ruling: Texas v. United States. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, November 25, 2015. Decided 2–1. Majority: Smith, Elrod. Dissent: King. <www.ca5.uscourts.gov>

Dissent:

It is true that Congress has specified certain categories of aliens that are eligible for deferred action. See id. at 56. This line of argument follows from the legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius (“the expression of one is the exclusion of others”) suggesting that because DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans] was not specified by Congress, it is contrary to the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act]. But this argument is nonetheless incorrect. The expressio unius “canon has little force in the administrative setting.” Tex. Rural Legal Aid, Inc. v. Legal Servs. Corp., 940 F.2d 685, 694 (D.C. Cir. 1991). And the inquiry at step one is “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue,” not whether it legislated in the general area or around the periphery. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842 (emphasis added). Congress has never prohibited or limited ad hoc deferred action, which is no different than DAPA other than scale.58 In fact, each time Congress spoke to this general issue, it did so incidentally and as part of larger statutes not concerned with deferred action. …

The majority makes a similar mistake with respect to the work authorization regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14). The majority holds that this regulation as “to any class of illegal aliens whom DHS [Department of Homeland Security] declines to remove—is beyond the scope of what the INA can reasonably be interpreted to authorize.” Majority Op. at 40. It bases its conclusion on provisions of the INA that specify classes of aliens eligible and ineligible for work authorization and scattered statements from past cases supposedly stating that Congress restricted immigration to preserve jobs for American workers. Yet, much like with deferred action, Congress has never directly spoken to the question at issue and, if anything, has indirectly approved of it. In one form or another, 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14) has been on the books since 1981. It follows from a grant of discretion to the Secretary to establish work authorizations for aliens … and it predates the INA provisions the majority cites. See Perales v. Casillas, 903 F.2d 1043, 1048 (5th Cir. 1990) (noting that up to that point there was “nothing in the [INA] [that] expressly provid[ed] for the grant of employment authorization”). Had Congress wanted to negate this regulation, it presumably would have done so expressly, but by specifying the categories of aliens eligible for work authorization, Congress signaled its implicit approval of this longstanding regulation. …

There can be little doubt that Congress’s choices as to the level of funding for immigration enforcement have left DHS with difficult prioritization decisions. But those decisions, which are embodied in the DAPA Memorandum, have been delegated to the Secretary by Congress. Because federal courts should not inject themselves into such matters of prosecutorial discretion, I would dismiss this case as non-justiciable.

[739] Article: “Supreme Court Won’t Revive Obama Plan to Shield Illegal Immigrants From Deportation.” By Robert Barnes. Washington Post, June 23, 2016. <www.washingtonpost.com>

President Obama suffered the biggest legal defeat of his administration Thursday when a deadlocked Supreme Court failed to revive his stalled plan to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and give them the right to work legally in the United States. …

The court’s action crushed the hopes of about 4 million illegal immigrants estimated to be covered by Obama’s plan, which would have deferred deportation for those who have been in the country since 2010, have not committed any serious crimes and have family ties to U.S. citizens or others lawfully in the country.

[740] “Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Immigration.” By Barack Obama. White House, November 20, 2014. <obamawhitehouse.archives.gov>

Now here’s the thing: We expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes—you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.

[741] Memorandum: “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.” By Jeh Johnson. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, November 20, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This memorandum reflects new policies for the apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens in this country. This memorandum should be considered Department-wide guidance, applicable to the activities of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This memorandum should inform enforcement and removal activity, detention decisions, budget requests and execution, and strategic planning.

In general, our enforcement and removal policies should continue to prioritize threats to national security, public safety, and border security. The intent of this new policy is to provide clearer and more effective guidance in the pursuit of those priorities.

Page 2:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its immigration components-CBP, ICE, and USCIS-are responsible for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. Due to limited resources, DHS and its Components cannot respond to all immigration violations or remove all persons illegally in the United States. As is true of virtually every other law enforcement agency, DHS must exercise prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of the law. And, in the exercise of that discretion, DHS can and should develop smart enforcement priorities, and ensure that use of its limited resources is devoted to the pursuit of those priorities. DHS’s enforcement priorities are, have been, and will continue to be national security, border security, and public safety. DHS personnel are directed to prioritize the use of enforcement personnel , detention space, and removal assets accordingly.

In the immigration context, prosecutorial discretion should apply not only to the decision to issue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear, but also to a broad range of other discretionary enforcement decisions, including deciding: whom to stop, question, and arrest; whom to detain or release; whether to settle, dismiss, appeal, or join in a motion on a case; and whether to grant deferred action, parole, or a stay of removal instead of pursuing removal in a case. While DHS may exercise prosecutorial discretion at any stage of an enforcement proceeding, it is generally preferable to exercise such discretion as early in the case or proceeding as possible in order to preserve government resources that would otherwise be expended in pursuing enforcement and removal of higher priority cases. Thus, DHS personnel are expected to exercise discretion and pursue these priorities at all stages of the enforcement process—from the earliest investigative stage to enforcing final orders of removal—subject to their chains of command and to the particular responsibilities and authorities applicable to their specific position.

Page 3:

The following shall constitute the Department’s civil immigration enforcement priorities:

Priority 1 (Threats to National Security, Border Security, and Public Safety)

Aliens described in this priority represent the highest priority to which enforcement resources should be directed:

(a) aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security;

(b) aliens apprehended at the border or ports of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States;

(c) aliens convicted of an offense for which an element was active

participation in a criminal street gang … or aliens not younger than 16 years of age who intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang to further the illegal activity of the gang;

(d) aliens convicted of an offense classified as a felony in the convicting jurisdiction, other than a state or local offense for which an essential element was the alien’s immigration status; and

(e) aliens convicted of an “aggravated felony,” as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act at the time of the conviction.

The removal of these aliens must be prioritized unless they qualify for asylum or another form of relief under our laws, or unless, in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, CBP Sector Chief or CBP Director of Field Operations, there are compelling and exceptional factors that clearly indicate the alien is not a threat to national security, border security, or public safety and should not therefore be an enforcement priority.

Priority 2 (Misdemeanants and New Immigration Violators)

Priority 3 (Other Immigration Violations)

Page 5:

Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Other Aliens Unlawfully in the United States

Nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit or discourage the apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens unlawfully in the United States who are not identified as priorities herein. However, resources should be dedicated, to the greatest degree possible, to the removal of aliens described in the priorities set forth above, commensurate with the level of prioritization identified. Immigration officers and attorneys may pursue removal of an alien not identified as a priority herein, provided, in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, removing such an alien would serve an important federal interest.

Page 6:

In making such judgments, DHS personnel should consider factors such as: extenuating circumstances involving the offense of conviction; extended length of time since the offense of conviction; length of time in the United States; military service; family or community ties in the United States; status as a victim, witness or plaintiff in civil or criminal proceedings; or compelling humanitarian factors such as poor health, age, pregnancy, a young child, or a seriously ill relative. These factors are not intended to be dispositive nor is this list intended to be exhaustive. Decisions should be based on the totality of the circumstances.

[742] “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2015.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 22, 2015. <www.ice.gov>

Page 1: “The Department’s clearer and more refined civil immigration enforcement priorities, which ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] began implementing in FY 2015, placed increased emphasis and focus on the removal of convicted felons and other public safety threats over non-criminals.”

[743] Memorandum: “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.” By Jeh Johnson. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, November 20, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 6:

The revised guidance shall be effective on January 5, 2015. Implementing training and guidance will be provided to the workforce prior to the effective date. The revised guidance in this memorandum applies only to aliens encountered or apprehended on or after the effective date, and aliens detained, in removal proceedings, or subject to removal orders who have not been removed from the United States as of the effective date.

[744] United States Code Title 31, Subtitle II, Chapter 11, Section 1102: “Fiscal Year.” Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

“The fiscal year of the Treasury begins on October 1 of each year and ends on September 30 of the following year.”

[745] Calculated with data from:

a) “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2016.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 30, 2016. <www.ice.gov>

Page 2: “Figure 1: FY 2008–2016 ICE Removals.”

Page 5: “FY 2008–2016 ICE Removals by Criminality”

b) “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2017.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 13, 2017. <www.ice.gov>

Page 12: “Figure 14. FY2015–FY2017 ICE Removals”

Page 13: “Figure 15. FY2015–FY2017 Interior vs. Border Program Removals by Criminality”

c) “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2018.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 13, 2018. <www.ice.gov>

Page 10: “Figure 9. FY2016–FY2018 ICE Removals”

Page 11: “Figure 11. FY2016–FY2018 ICE Removals by Criminality”

d) “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Fiscal Year 2019 Enforcement and Removal Operations Report.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 10, 2019. <www.ice.gov>

Page 19: “Figure 13: FY 2017–FY 2019 ICE Removals”

Page 22: “Figure 16: FY 2017–FY 2019 ICE Removals by Criminality”

e) “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Fiscal Year 2020 Enforcement and Removal Operations Report.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 23, 2020. <www.ice.gov>

Page 19: “Figure 13: FY 2018–FY 2020 ICE Removals”

Page 23: “Figure 16: FY 2018–FY 2020 ICE Removals by Criminality”

f) “ICE Annual Report Fiscal Year 2021.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, March 11, 2022. <www.ice.gov>

Page 9: “In FY 2021, ICE removed 59,011 noncitizens…. The percentage of convicted criminal removals increased from 56 percent of ICE removals in FY 2020 to 66 percent of ICE removals in FY 2021.”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[746] Letter from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, February 11, 2016. <www.judiciary.senate.gov>

Pages 27–29:

10. In FY 2014, ICE Released From Its Custody 30,558 Criminal Aliens with a Total of 79,059 Convictions Instead of Deporting Them.

ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] exercises its detention and release authorities in accordance with applicable law, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, ICE has very limited authority to detain an individual who is subject to a final order of removal for more than 180 days in the absence of a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. In some cases, ICE has discretion to determine which individuals will be held in custody or released from ICE custody while in removal proceedings or while awaiting removal, often on conditions of release such as electronic monitoring or regular reporting requirements.

a. How Many of These Criminal Aliens Have Been Charged with a Crime Following Their Release in FY 2014?

As of July 25, 2015, a total of 1,895 were charged with a crime following their release.

b. How Many of These Criminal Aliens Have Been Convicted of a Crime Following Their Release in FY 2014?

As of July 25, 2015, a total of 1,607 were convicted of a crime following their release.

c. How Many Crimes Have These 30,558 Criminal Aliens Been Convicted of Following Their Release in FY 2014? Please Identify Each Specific Offense by NCIC Code and the Jurisdiction in Which the Conviction Occurred.

As of July 25, 2015, a total of 1,607 aliens convicted of a crime had a total of 2,560 convictions following their release. The following table lists the crimes of which the aliens were convicted. Please note that custody and release determinations are made as a matter of controlling law, regulation, and precedential decisions. …

d. How Many of These Criminal Aliens Have Been Removed From the United States Subsequent to Their Release in FY 2014?

As of July 25, 2015, a total of 974 were removed from the United States following their release.

e. How Many of These 30,558 Criminal Aliens Remain in the United States Today?

A total of 28,017 have an active case12 with ICE, as of July 25, 2015.

Of the 30,558 criminal aliens, there are 1,567 individuals who do not have an active case with ICE, nor were removed following their release. These individuals may have been subject to the termination of their removal proceedings or granted relief by an immigration judge. …

12 Aliens with an active case with ICE include those who are in immigration proceedings, as well as those who have been ordered removed but whom ICE is still supervising on the non-detained docket, coordinating removal, and/or has been unable to confirm departure. Not included in active cases are cases that are closed, and cases in which the alien was removed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or not turned over to ICE.

[747] Letter from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, February 11, 2016. <www.judiciary.senate.gov>

Page 1:

Enclosed, please find the answers to your specific questions regarding the release of undocumented aliens from the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from Fiscal Years 2010[†] through 2015. …

The release of aliens on bond is clearly provided for by statute. It would not be permissible for DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] to categorically prohibit the release of certain aliens who are not subject to detention under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] § 236(c), and who do not pose a risk to public safety or a flight risk.

3. As of the date of this letter, and beginning in FY 2010, how many criminal aliens who have been released from ICE custody have been charged with homicide? Please provide a breakdown by each fiscal year beginning with FY 2010 through FY 2015.

Between FY 2010 and FY 2015 year-to-date (YTD) through July 21, 2015, 124 criminal aliens who had been released from ICE custody were subsequently charged with homicide-related crimes. Please note that custody and release determinations are made as a matter of controlling law, regulation, and precedential decisions. The breakdown by FY is as follows:

Fiscal Year

Number of Criminal Aliens

2010

32

2011

26

2012

31

2013

23

2014

9

2015 YTD

3

TOTAL

124

[748] United States Code Title 31, Subtitle II, Chapter 11, Section 1102: “Fiscal Year.” Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

“The fiscal year of the Treasury begins on October 1 of each year and ends on September 30 of the following year.”

[749] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protects the American people from a wide range of foreign and domestic threats. DHS has a broad and diverse mission set, including to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect critical infrastructure and civilian computer networks, facilitate lawful trade and travel, respond to and recover from natural disasters, protect our borders, and regulate the migration of individuals to and from our country.

The third largest Cabinet department, DHS employs more than 250,000 people and deploys an $58 billion annual budget across more than 20 components, including the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U. S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Department in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and brought together 22 executive branch agencies.

[750] Article: “Obama Administration Deported Record 1.5 Million People.” By Corey Dade. NPR, December 24, 2012. <www.npr.org>

“Although President Obama supports setting a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants, his administration deported a record 1.5 million of them in his first term.”

[751] Article: “No One Expected Obama Would Deport More People Than Any Other U.S. President.” By Sarah Gonzalez. WNYC New York Public Radio, January 19, 2017. <www.wnyc.org>

“No one expected Barack Obama would become the president to deport more people than any other president in U.S. history.”

[752] Article: “Low-Priority Immigrants Still Swept Up in Net of Deportation.” By Julia Preston. New York Times, June 24, 2016. <www.nytimes.com>

“Mr. Obama has carried out many more deportations than previous presidents, setting a record of more than 2.4 million formal removals.”

[753] Article: “Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President.” By Serena Marshall. ABC News, August 29, 2016. <abcnews.go.com>

According to governmental data, the Obama administration has deported more people than any other president’s administration in history.

In fact, they have deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century.

President George W. Bush’s administration deported just over two million during his time in office; and Obama’s numbers don’t reflect his last year in office, for which data is not yet available.

[754] “Remarks by the President in an ‘Open for Questions’ Roundtable.” White House,

September 28, 2011. <obamawhitehouse.archives.gov>

MR. SIADE: Ladies and gentlemen, señores y señoras, welcome to “Open for Questions with President Obama.” I’m Jose Siade from Yahoo Español—your host today, coming to you from the White House. I’m honored to be joined by industry colleagues Karine Medina from MSN Latino, and Gabriel Lerner from AOL Latino and Huff-Post Latino Voices. …

MR. LERNER: Just to follow up, Mr. President, you just mentioned enforcement of immigration laws in the subject of deportations, and you said that many of those—or it’s aimed at criminals. But until now, and until recently, it hadn’t been just criminals, or a majority of criminals, those that have been deported. And also, you have been deporting much more immigrants than the previous administration did in eight years. So laws didn’t change; enforcement was done even then. Why that emphasis on deportation during your administration?

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, what happened, if you look at the statistics, two things happened: Number one is, is that there was a much greater emphasis on criminals rather than non-criminals. And there’s been a huge shift in terms of enforcement, and that began as soon as I came into office. That change has taken place.

Secondly, the statistics are actually a little deceptive because what we’ve been doing is with the stronger border enforcement we’ve been apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back. That is counted as a deportation, even though they may have only been held for a day or 48 hours, sent back—that’s counted as a deportation. So we’ve been much more effective on the borders. But we have not been more aggressive when it comes to dealing, for example, with DREAM [Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors] Act kids. That’s just not the case.

[755] As shown in the graph above, illegal immigrant apprehensions at the Southwest border declined under Obama.

[756] Webpage: “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS).” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. Last updated December 21, 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

• What are Removals?

• A removal is the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed, as opposed to being returned or leaving the country under an order of voluntary departure, is subject to administrative penalties and may face criminal charges upon subsequent re-entry.

• What are Returns?

• A return is the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal. An alien subject to return waives his or her right to a formal proceeding and chooses to depart the United States and return to his or her home country in lieu of removal proceedings.

• What is the difference between a removal and a return?

• Removals and returns are both forms of DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] repatriations (commonly referred to as deportations). An alien who is removed, as opposed to being returned or leaving the country under an order of voluntary departure, is subject to administrative penalties and may face criminal charges upon subsequent re-entry.

[757] Webpage: “Definition of Terms.” Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. Last updated August 12, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

deportation: The removal or return of a noncitizen from the United States.

removal (noncitizen removed): Confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable noncitizen out of the United States based on the compulsory execution of an order of removal against the person.

voluntary departure: The departure of a noncitizen from the United States without an order of removal and may or may not have been preceded by a hearing before an immigration judge. A noncitizen allowed to voluntarily depart concedes removability but does not have a bar to seeking admission at a POE [point of entry] at any time. Failure to depart within the time granted results in a fine and a 10-year bar to several forms of relief from deportation.

[758] Report: “Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2012.” By John F. Simanski and Lesley M. Sapp. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2013. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1: “Each year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) undertakes immigration enforcement actions involving hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals. These actions include the apprehension or arrest, detention, return, and removal from the United States of foreign nationals who are removable under U.S. immigration law (see Box 1).”

[759] Article: “High Deportation Figures Are Misleading.” By Brian Bennett. Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2014. <www.latimes.com>

Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called “voluntary returns,” but which critics derisively termed “catch and release.” Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deportation statistics.

Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records.

[760] Webpage: “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS).” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. Last updated December 21, 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

• What are Removals?

• A removal is the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed, as opposed to being returned or leaving the country under an order of voluntary departure, is subject to administrative penalties and may face criminal charges upon subsequent re-entry.

• What are Returns?

• A return is the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal. An alien subject to return waives his or her right to a formal proceeding and chooses to depart the United States and return to his or her home country in lieu of removal proceedings.

• What is the difference between a removal and a return?

• Removals and returns are both forms of DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] repatriations (commonly referred to as deportations). An alien who is removed, as opposed to being returned or leaving the country under an order of voluntary departure, is subject to administrative penalties and may face criminal charges upon subsequent re-entry.

[761] Calculated with data from the report: “2020 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, April 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 103:

Table 39. Noncitizens Removed or Returned: Fiscal Years 1892 to 2020

1 Removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable noncitizen out of the United States based on an order of removal. A noncitizen who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.

2 Returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable noncitizen out of the United States not based on an order of removal.

NOTES:

  • Data on returns is not available from 1892 to 1926.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[762] Constitution of the United States. Signed September 17, 1787. Enacted June 21, 1788. <www.justfacts.com>

Article 2, Section 3: “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

[763] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

“Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government.”

[764] Webpage: “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.ice.gov>

ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] was created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the former U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. ICE now has more than 20,000 law enforcement and support personnel in more than 400 offices in the United States and around the world.

The agency has an annual budget of approximately $8 billion, primarily devoted to three operational directorates—Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). A fourth directorate—Management and Administration (M&A)—supports the three operational branches to advance the ICE mission.

[765] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protects the American people from a wide range of foreign and domestic threats. DHS has a broad and diverse mission set, including to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect critical infrastructure and civilian computer networks, facilitate lawful trade and travel, respond to and recover from natural disasters, protect our borders, and regulate the migration of individuals to and from our country.

The third largest Cabinet department, DHS employs more than 250,000 people and deploys an $58 billion annual budget across more than 20 components, including the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U. S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Department in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and brought together 22 executive branch agencies.

[766] Webpage: “Past Inauguration Ceremonies.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed July 27, 2021 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

58th Inaugural Ceremonies

President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Michael Richard Pence

January 20th, 2017

West Front, U.S. Capitol

Washington, DC

[767] Executive order: “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, January 25, 2017. <www.govinfo.gov>

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), and in order to ensure the public safety of the American people in communities across the United States as well as to ensure that our Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed, I hereby declare the policy of the executive branch to be, and order, as follows:

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:

(a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code;

(b) Make use of all available systems and resources to ensure the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States;

(c) Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law;

(d) Ensure that aliens ordered removed from the United States are promptly removed; and

(e) Support victims, and the families of victims, of crimes committed by removable aliens. …

Sec. 5. Enforcement Priorities. In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who:

(a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;

(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;

(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;

(d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;

(e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;

(f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or

(g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

[768] Constitution of the United States. Signed September 17, 1787. Enacted June 21, 1788. <www.justfacts.com>

Article 2, Section 3: “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

[769] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

“Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government.”

[770] Webpage: “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.ice.gov>

ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] was created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the former U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. ICE now has more than 20,000 law enforcement and support personnel in more than 400 offices in the United States and around the world.

The agency has an annual budget of approximately $8 billion, primarily devoted to three operational directorates—Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). A fourth directorate—Management and Administration (M&A)—supports the three operational branches to advance the ICE mission.

[771] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protects the American people from a wide range of foreign and domestic threats. DHS has a broad and diverse mission set, including to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect critical infrastructure and civilian computer networks, facilitate lawful trade and travel, respond to and recover from natural disasters, protect our borders, and regulate the migration of individuals to and from our country.

The third largest Cabinet department, DHS employs more than 250,000 people and deploys an $58 billion annual budget across more than 20 components, including the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U. S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Department in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and brought together 22 executive branch agencies.

[772] Webpage: “Past Inauguration Ceremonies.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed May 19, 2021 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

59th Inaugural Ceremonies

President Joseph R. Biden and Vice President Kamala D. Harris

January 20th, 2021

West Front, U.S. Capitol

Washington, DC

[773] Executive order: “Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities.” By Joseph R. Biden. White House, January 20, 2021. <www.govinfo.gov>

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: …

Sec. 2. Revocation. Executive Order 13768 of January 25, 2017 (Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States), is hereby revoked. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the heads of any other relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall review any agency actions developed pursuant to Executive Order 13768 and take action, including issuing revised guidance, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, that advances the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

[774] Proclamation: “Ending Discriminatory Bans on Entry to the United States.” By Joseph R. Biden. White House, January 20, 2021. <www.govinfo.gov>

Now, Therefore, I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., President of the United States, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), hereby find that it is in the interests of the United States to revoke Executive Order 13780 of March 6, 2017 (Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States), Proclamation 9645 of September 24, 2017 (Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats), Proclamation 9723 of April 10, 2018 (Maintaining Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats), and Proclamation 9983 of January 31, 2020 (Improving Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats). Our national security will be enhanced by revoking the Executive Order and Proclamations.

Accordingly, I hereby proclaim:

Section 1. Revocations. Executive Order 13780, and Proclamations 9645, 9723, and 9983 are hereby revoked.

Sec. 2. Resumption of Visa Processing and Clearing the Backlog of Cases in Waiver Processing. (a) The Secretary of State shall direct all Embassies and Consulates, consistent with applicable law and visa processing procedures, including any related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to resume visa processing in a manner consistent with the revocation of the Executive Order and Proclamations specified in section 1 of this proclamation.

(b) Within 45 days of the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of State shall provide to the President a report that includes the following elements:

(i) The number of visa applicants who were being considered for a waiver of restrictions under Proclamation 9645 or 9983 on the date of this proclamation and a plan for expeditiously adjudicating their pending visa applications.

(ii) A proposal to ensure that individuals whose immigrant visa applications were denied on the basis of the suspension and restriction on entry imposed by Proclamation 9645 or 9983 may have their applications reconsidered. This proposal shall consider whether to reopen immigrant visa applications that were denied due to the suspension and restriction on entry imposed by Proclamation 9645 or 9983, whether it is necessary to charge an additional fee to process those visa applications, and development of a plan for the Department of State to expedite consideration of those visa applications.

(iii) A plan to ensure that visa applicants are not prejudiced as a result of a previous visa denial due to the suspension and restriction on entry imposed by Proclamation 9645 or 9983 if they choose to re-apply for a visa.

[775] Proclamation: “Termination of Emergency with Respect to the Southern Border of the United States and Redirection of Funds Diverted to Border Wall Construction.” By Joseph R. Biden. White House, January 20, 2021. <www.govinfo.gov>

Now, Therefore, I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), hereby declare that the national emergency declared by Proclamation 9844, and continued on February 13, 2020 … and January 15, 2021, is terminated and that the authorities invoked in that proclamation will no longer be used to construct a wall at the southern border. I hereby further direct as follows:

Section 1. Pause in Construction and Obligation of Funds. (a) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall direct the appropriate officials within their respective departments to:

(i) pause work on each construction project on the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law, as soon as possible but in no case later than seven days from the date of this proclamation, to permit:

(A) assessment of the legality of the funding and contracting methods used to construct the wall;

(B) assessment of the administrative and contractual consequences of ceasing each wall construction project; and

(C) completion and implementation of the plan developed in accordance with section 2 of this proclamation;

(ii) pause immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law; and

(iii) compile detailed information on all southern border wall construction contracts, the completion status of each wall construction project, and the funds used for wall construction since February 15, 2019, including directly appropriated funds and funds drawn from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (31 U.S.C. 9705(g)(4)(B)), the Department of Defense Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities account (10 U.S.C. 284), and the Department of Defense Military Construction account (pursuant to the emergency authorities in 10 U.S.C. 2808(a) and 33 U.S.C. 2293(a)).

(b) The pause directed in subsection (a)(i) of this section shall apply to wall projects funded by redirected funds as well as wall projects funded by direct appropriations. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security may make an exception to the pause, however, for urgent measures needed to avert immediate physical dangers or where an exception is required to ensure that funds appropriated by the Congress fulfill their intended purpose.

Sec. 2. Plan for Redirecting Funding and Repurposing Contracts. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies, and in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, shall develop a plan for the redirection of funds concerning the southern border wall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. The process of developing the plan shall include consideration of terminating or repurposing contracts with private contractors engaged in wall construction, while providing for the expenditure of any funds that the Congress expressly appropriated for wall construction, consistent with their appropriated purpose. The plan shall be developed within 60 days from the date of this proclamation. After the plan is developed, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate steps to resume, modify, or terminate projects and to otherwise implement the plan.

Sec. 3. Definition. Consistent with Executive Order 13767 of January 25, 2017 (Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements), for the purposes of this proclamation, “wall” means a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier.

[776] Executive order: “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, January 25, 2017. <www.govinfo.gov>

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), and in order to ensure the public safety of the American people in communities across the United States as well as to ensure that our Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed, I hereby declare the policy of the executive branch to be, and order, as follows:

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:

(a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code;

(b) Make use of all available systems and resources to ensure the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States;

(c) Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law;

(d) Ensure that aliens ordered removed from the United States are promptly removed; and

(e) Support victims, and the families of victims, of crimes committed by removable aliens. …

Sec. 5. Enforcement Priorities. In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who:

(a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;

(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;

(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;

(d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;

(e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;

(f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or

(g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

[777] Executive order: “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, March 6, 2017. <www.govinfo.gov>

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the Nation from terrorist activities by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals. The screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) play a crucial role in detecting foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism and in preventing those individuals from entering the United States. It is therefore the policy of the United States to improve the screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the USRAP. …

In light of the conditions in these six countries, until the assessment of current screening and vetting procedures required by section 2 of this order is completed, the risk of erroneously permitting entry of a national of one of these countries who intends to commit terrorist acts or otherwise harm the national security of the United States is unacceptably high. Accordingly, while that assessment is ongoing, I am imposing a temporary pause on the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers, as described in section 3 of this order. …

Recent history shows that some of those who have entered the United States through our immigration system have proved to be threats to our national security. Since 2001, hundreds of persons born abroad have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States. They have included not just persons who came here legally on visas but also individuals who first entered the country as refugees. …

Sec. 5. Implementing Uniform Screening and Vetting Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence shall implement a program, as part of the process for adjudications, to identify individuals who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry. This program shall include the development of a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that applicants are who they claim to be; a mechanism to assess whether applicants may commit, aid, or support any kind of violent, criminal, or terrorist acts after entering the United States; and any other appropriate means for ensuring the proper collection of all information necessary for a rigorous evaluation of all grounds of inadmissibility or grounds for the denial of other immigration benefits. …

Sec. 6. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend travel of refugees into the United States under the USRAP, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall suspend decisions on applications for refugee status, for 120 days after the effective date of this order, subject to waivers pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication processes to determine what additional procedures should be used to ensure that individuals seeking admission as refugees do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. The suspension described in this subsection shall not apply to refugee applicants who, before the effective date of this order, have been formally scheduled for transit by the Department of State. The Secretary of State shall resume travel of refugees into the United States under the USRAP 120 days after the effective date of this order, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall resume making decisions on applications for refugee status only for stateless persons and nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that the additional procedures implemented pursuant to this subsection are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States. …

Sec. 11. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people and to implement more effectively policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available the following information:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism related activity, affiliation with or provision of material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national-security-related reasons;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and who have engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States;

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called ‘‘honor killings,’’ in the United States by foreign nationals; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

[778] Proclamation: “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, September 24, 2017. <www.govinfo.gov>

In Executive Order 13780 of March 6, 2017 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States), on the recommendations of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, I ordered a worldwide review of whether, and if so what, additional information would be needed from each foreign country to assess adequately whether their nationals seeking to enter the United States pose a security or safety threat. This was the first such review of its kind in United States history. As part of the review, the Secretary of Homeland Security established global requirements for information sharing in support of immigration screening and vetting. The Secretary of Homeland Security developed a comprehensive set of criteria and applied it to the information-sharing practices, policies, and capabilities of foreign governments. …

Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks and other public-safety threats. Screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with visa adjudications and other immigration processes play a critical role in implementing that policy. They enhance our ability to detect foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism, or otherwise pose a safety threat, and they aid our efforts to prevent such individuals from entering the United States.

(b) Information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices of foreign governments are important for the effectiveness of the screening and vetting protocols and procedures of the United States. Governments manage the identity and travel documents of their nationals and residents. They also control the circumstances under which they provide information about their nationals to other governments, including information about known or suspected terrorists and criminal-history information. It is, therefore, the policy of the United States to take all necessary and appropriate steps to encourage foreign governments to improve their information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices and to regularly share identity and threat information with our immigration screening and vetting systems.

(c) Section 2(a) of Executive Order 13780 directed a ‘‘worldwide review to identify whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public safety threat.’’ That review culminated in a report submitted to the President by the Secretary of Homeland Security on July 9, 2017. In that review, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, developed a baseline for the kinds of information required from foreign governments to support the United States Government’s ability to confirm the identity of individuals seeking entry into the United States as immigrants and nonimmigrants, as well as individuals applying for any other benefit under the immigration laws, and to assess whether they are a security or public-safety threat. That baseline incorporates three categories of criteria:

(i) Identity-management information. The United States expects foreign governments to provide the information needed to determine whether individuals seeking benefits under the immigration laws are who they claim to be. The identity-management information category focuses on the integrity of documents required for travel to the United States. The criteria assessed in this category include whether the country issues electronic passports embedded with data to enable confirmation of identity, reports lost and stolen passports to appropriate entities, and makes available upon request identity-related information not included in its passports.

(ii) National security and public-safety information. The United States expects foreign governments to provide information about whether persons who seek entry to this country pose national security or public-safety risks. The criteria assessed in this category include whether the country makes available, directly or indirectly, known or suspected terrorist and criminal-history information upon request, whether the country provides passport and national-identity document exemplars, and whether the country impedes the United States Government’s receipt of information about passengers and crew traveling to the United States.

(iii) National security and public-safety risk assessment. The national security and public-safety risk assessment category focuses on national security risk indicators. The criteria assessed in this category include whether the country is a known or potential terrorist safe haven, whether it is a participant in the Visa Waiver Program established under section 217 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187, that meets all of its requirements, and whether it regularly fails to receive its nationals subject to final orders of removal from the United States.

(d) The Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Department of State, collected data on the performance of all foreign governments and assessed each country against the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section. The assessment focused, in particular, on identity management, security and public-safety threats, and national security risks. Through this assessment, the agencies measured each country’s performance with respect to issuing reliable travel documents and implementing adequate identity-management and information-sharing protocols and procedures, and evaluated terrorism-related and public-safety risks associated with foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States from each country.

(e) The Department of Homeland Security evaluated each country against the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security identified 16 countries as being ‘‘inadequate’’ based on an analysis of their identity-management protocols, information-sharing practices, and risk factors. Thirty-one additional countries were classified ‘‘at risk’’ of becoming ‘‘inadequate’’ based on those criteria.

(f) As required by section 2(d) of Executive Order 13780, the Department of State conducted a 50-day engagement period to encourage all foreign governments, not just the 47 identified as either ‘‘inadequate’’ or ‘‘at risk,’’ to improve their performance with respect to the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section. Those engagements yielded significant improvements in many countries. Twenty-nine countries, for example, provided travel document exemplars for use by Department of Homeland Security officials to combat fraud. Eleven countries agreed to share information on known or suspected terrorists.

(g) The Secretary of Homeland Security assesses that the following countries continue to have ‘‘inadequate’’ identity-management protocols, information-sharing practices, and risk factors, with respect to the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section, such that entry restrictions and limitations are recommended: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The Secretary of Homeland Security also assesses that Iraq did not meet the baseline, but that entry restrictions and limitations under a Presidential proclamation are not warranted. The Secretary of Homeland Security recommends, however, that nationals of Iraq who seek to enter the United States be subject to additional scrutiny to determine if they pose risks to the national security or public safety of the United States. In reaching these conclusions, the Secretary of Homeland Security considered the close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected government of Iraq, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of United States forces in Iraq, and Iraq’s commitment to combating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(h) Section 2(e) of Executive Order 13780 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to ‘‘submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of appropriate categories of foreign nationals of countries that have not provided the information requested until they do so or until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the country has an adequate plan to do so, or has adequately shared information through other means.’’ On September 15, 2017, the Secretary of Homeland Security submitted a report to me recommending entry restrictions and limitations on certain nationals of 7 countries determined to be ‘‘inadequate’’ in providing such information and in light of other factors discussed in the report. According to the report, the recommended restrictions would help address the threats that the countries’ identity-management protocols, information-sharing inadequacies, and other risk factors pose to the security and welfare of the United States. The restrictions also encourage the countries to work with the United States to address those inadequacies and risks so that the restrictions and limitations imposed by this proclamation may be relaxed or removed as soon as possible. …

Sec. 2. Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern. The entry into the United States of nationals of the following countries is hereby suspended and limited, as follows, subject to categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers, as described in sections 3 and 6 of this proclamation:

(a) Chad. …

(b) Iran. …

(c) Libya. …

(d) North Korea. …

(e) Syria. …

(f) Venezuela. …

(g) Yemen. …

(h) Somalia.…

[779] Proclamation: “Maintaining Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, April 10, 2018. <www.govinfo.gov>

Now, Therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, find that the entry into the United States of the nationals of Chad, as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on business (B–1), tourist (B–2), and business/tourist (B–1/B–2) visas, no longer would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and therefore hereby proclaim the following:

Section 1. Removal of Restrictions and Limitations on Chad. Section 2 of Proclamation 9645 is amended by striking subsection (a).

Sec. 2. Effective Date. This proclamation is effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on April 13, 2018.

[780] Proclamation: “Improving Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, January 31, 2020. <www.govinfo.gov>

Now, Therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the immigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim the following:

Section 1. Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern. The entry into the United States of nationals of the following countries is hereby suspended and limited, as follows, subject to section 2 of this proclamation.

(a) The entry suspensions and limitations enacted by section 2 of Proclamation 9645 are not altered by this proclamation, and they remain in force by their terms, except as modified by Proclamation 9723.

(b) Burma (Myanmar) …

(c) Eritrea …

(d) Kyrgyzstan …

(d) Kyrgyzstan …

(e) Nigeria …

(f) Sudan …

(g) Tanzania …

[781] Proclamation: “Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, February 15, 2019. <www.govinfo.gov>

The current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency. The southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics. The problem of large-scale unlawful migration through the southern border is long-standing, and despite the executive branch’s exercise of existing statutory authorities, the situation has worsened in certain respects in recent years. In particular, recent years have seen sharp increases in the number of family units entering and seeking entry to the United States and an inability to provide detention space for many of these aliens while their removal proceedings are pending. If not detained, such aliens are often released into the country and are often difficult to remove from the United States because they fail to appear for hearings, do not comply with orders of removal, or are otherwise difficult to locate. In response to the directive in my April 4, 2018, memorandum and subsequent requests for support by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense has provided support and resources to the Department of Homeland Security at the southern border. Because of the gravity of the current emergency situation, it is necessary for the Armed Forces to provide additional support to address the crisis.

Now, Therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States, and that section 12302 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretaries of the military departments concerned, subject to the direction of the Secretary of Defense in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense to support the Federal Government’s response to the emergency at the southern border, I hereby declare that this emergency requires use of the Armed Forces and, in accordance with section 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), that the construction authority provided in section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary of Defense and, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretaries of the military departments. I hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. The Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of each relevant military department, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, shall order as many units or members of the Ready Reserve to active duty as the Secretary concerned, in the Secretary’s discretion, determines to be appropriate to assist and support the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security at the southern border.

Sec. 2. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and, subject to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the military departments, shall take all appropriate actions, consistent with applicable law, to use or support the use of the authorities herein invoked, including, if necessary, the transfer and acceptance of jurisdiction over border lands.

Sec. 3. This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-third.

Donald J. Trump

[782] Report: “The Funds Available to Address the National Emergency at Our Border.” White House, February 26, 2019. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

Legal Justification: President Donald J. Trump is clearly justified in declaring a national emergency and utilizing other statutory authorities to address the crisis at our border. …

• Separate from the national emergency, the President invoked two other statutory authorities to direct needed funds to the border.

◦ Congress expressly authorized the military to support Federal agencies in blocking drug-smuggling corridors across international boundaries, using 10 U.S.C. § 284(b).

◦ Under 10 U.S.C. § 284(b)(7), the United States military may construct “fences and road and [install] lighting … to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States” upon request from the responsible agency.

• DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] has requested that DOD [U.S. Department of Defense] use this counterdrug authority to construct fencing and roads and to install lighting in high-priority drug-smuggling corridors.

• To devote additional resources to such construction, DOD will augment existing counterdrug funds by transferring up to $2.5 billion from other DOD accounts.

• DOD’s transfer authority is provided in section 8005 of the FY19 DOD appropriations act.

• In past years, DOD has relied upon its general transfer authority to reallocate up to $4 billion from within the DOD budget.

• Under 31 U.S.C. § 9705(g)(4)(B), the Secretary of the Treasury may provide money from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to other agencies for use “in connection with the law enforcement activities of any Federal agency.”

◦ Treasury has identified about $601 million that will be made available to DHS for use in law enforcement border security efforts. …

Funding Sources: President Trump is using funds appropriated by Congress, funds reallocated under statutory authority, and funds available when a national emergency is declared.

• Nearly $8.1 billion has been identified as available, including:

◦ $1.375 billion appropriated by Congress

◦ $3.1 billion under other statutory authorities

◦ $3.6 billion in military construction funds available under a national emergency

• These funding sources will be used sequentially and as needed, with the $1.375 from appropriated funds used first, then the $3.1 billion from other statutory authorities, then the $3.6 billion from military construction.

• Only $3.6 billion of the nearly $8.1 billion is dependent on the President’s declaration of a national emergency.

• Under the President’s non-emergency statutory authority, $3.1 billion is available.

◦ $601 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund will be made available to support border security.

• The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to use funds in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund not reserved for other purposes to support law enforcement activities.

• The $601 million will be available in two allocations, $242 million available immediately and $359 million from future anticipated forfeitures.

◦ Up to $2.5 billion will be made available from DOD funds transferred to its FY 2019 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities account.

• This construction to support counterdrug activities will be used on land already owned by the Federal Government.

• Based on the President’s national emergency declaration, DOD is authorized to undertake certain military construction projects using up to $3.6 billion in unobligated military construction funding.

◦ DOD will ensure that high-priority projects with national security implications remain funded. Family housing projects will remain funded.

◦ The Administration will ask Congress for new military construction funding for the existing projects affected by this, so that no projects will be canceled—only delayed.

How Funds Can Be Used: These funds will be available to help secure the border and protect the safety and well-being of our country.

• The potential projects that could be built using these funds include:

◦ Constructing new, 18 to 30 foot high steel primary pedestrian barriers in various areas.

◦ Replacing outdated pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers with modern, 18 to 30 foot high steel barrier.

◦ Constructing new secondary barriers to provide a patrol zone in between the secondary and primary barriers.

[783] “Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Southern Border of the United States.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, February 13, 2020. <www.govinfo.gov>

On February 15, 2019, by Proclamation 9844, I declared a national emergency concerning the southern border of the United States to deal with the border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests.

The ongoing border security and humanitarian crisis at the southern border of the United States continues to threaten our national security, including the security of the American people. The executive branch has taken steps to address the crisis, but further action is needed to address the humanitarian crisis and to control unlawful migration and the flow of narcotics and criminals across the southern border of the United States.

For these reasons, the national emergency declared on February 15, 2019, and the measures adopted on that date to respond to that emergency, must continue in effect beyond February 15, 2020. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Proclamation 9844 concerning the southern border of the United States.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

[784] Calculated with data from:

a) Twitter post: “Border Wall System Update.” By Rodney Scott (Chief of the U.S Border Patrol), January 20, 2020. <twitter.com>

“Border Wall System update: • 106 miles completed. • 128 miles under construction. • 342 miles in pre-construction.”

b) Twitter post: “Border Wall System Update.” By Rodney Scott (Chief of the U.S Border Patrol), December 7, 2020. <twitter.com>

“Border Wall System update: • 423 miles completed. • 228 miles under construction. • 87 miles in pre-construction.”

CALCULATION: 423 miles – 106 miles = 317 miles

[785] Ruling: Cook County, Illinois v. Chad Wolf. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, March 9, 2021. <storage.courtlistener.com>

Cook County, Illinois and Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Plaintiffs – Appellees

v.

Chad F. Wolf, and others, Defendants – Appellants

Upon consideration of the Unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal, filed on March 9, 2021, by counsel for appellants,

It Is Ordered that this case is Dismissed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b).

[786] Press release: “DHS Secretary Statement on the 2019 Public Charge Rule.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, March 9, 2021. <www.dhs.gov>

Today, DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas announced that the government will no longer defend the 2019 public charge rule as doing so is neither in the public interest nor an efficient use of limited government resources.

“The 2019 public charge rule was not in keeping with our nation’s values. It penalized those who access health benefits and other government services available to them,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “Consistent with the President’s vision, we will continue to implement reforms that improve our legal immigration system.”

President Biden’s Executive Order on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans called for an immediate review of agency actions on public charge inadmissibility and deportability. DHS’s review, in consultation with the Departments of Justice and State and the federal benefits-granting agencies, is ongoing.

As discussed in DHS’s litigation statement, and consistent with the government’s decision not to defend the rule, the Department of Justice is no longer pursuing appellate review of judicial decisions invalidating or enjoining enforcement of the 2019 public charge rule. Today, the Department of Justice dismissed its pending appeals in the Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit, and is in the process of doing so in the Fourth Circuit. Following the Seventh Circuit dismissal this afternoon, the final judgment from the Northern District of Illinois, which vacated the 2019 public charge rule, went into effect. As a result, the 1999 interim field guidance on the public charge inadmissibility provision (i.e., the policy that was in place before the 2019 public charge rule) is now in effect.

[787] Webpage: “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule: Litigation.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Last reviewed April 23, 2021. <www.uscis.gov>

History of Court Decisions

On March 9, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit lifted its stay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’ Nov. 2, 2020, decision vacating the Public Charge Final Rule nationwide. USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] immediately stopped applying the Public Charge Final Rule to all pending applications and petitions that would have been subject to the rule. In turn, USCIS is applying the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, which was in place before the Public Charge Final Rule was implemented, to the adjudication of any application for adjustment of status that was pending or received on or after March 9, 2021. In addition, USCIS is adjudicating any application or petition for extension of nonimmigrant stay or change of nonimmigrant status pending or received on or after March 9, 2021, consistent with regulations in place before the Public Charge Rule was implemented; in other words, USCIS is not applying the “public benefits condition.”

[788] Letter from Tracy Renaud (Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) to Interagency Partners, April 12, 2021. <www.uscis.gov>

This letter provides key information about a change in the way the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is administering the public charge ground of inadmissibility. My message to you is simple: The 2019 public charge rule is no longer in effect, and we are seeking your support in communicating this change to the public.

On February 2, 2021, the President issued Executive Order 14012, directing, among other things, the Secretary of Homeland Security, along with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to review their respective agencies’ actions related to the public charge grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. Consistent with the Executive Order, DHS has begun its review, as well as its consultation with other relevant agencies.

As part of its review, DHS determined that continuing to defend the 2019 Public Charge Rule1 (2019 Rule)—pursuant to which the lawful receipt of Medicaid, public housing, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) could lead to a finding of inadmissibility—was neither in the public interest nor an efficient use of limited government resources. …

In compliance with this judgment, DHS is no longer applying the 2019 public charge rule and has removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations.2 DHS has instead reverted to the 1999 interim field guidance issued by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service.3 This is the policy that was in effect prior to the 2019 Rule.

Under the 1999 interim field guidance, DHS will not consider a person’s receipt of Medicaid (except for Medicaid for long-term institutionalization), public housing, or SNAP benefits as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination. In addition, medical treatment or preventive services for COVID-19, including vaccinations, will not be considered for public charge purposes. This policy will help ensure that noncitizens are able to access important government services for which they may be eligible.

[789] Final rule: “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds; Implementation of Vacatur.” Federal Register, March 15, 2021. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 12221:

On March 9, 2021, DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] moved to dismiss its appeal before the Seventh Circuit, and the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal and the Rule 54(b) judgment went into effect. DHS is now implementing the judgment, i.e., the vacatur of the August 2019 rule.

This rule removes from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) the regulatory text that DHS promulgated in the August 2019 rule and restores the regulatory text to appear as it did prior to the issuance of the August 2019 rule.6

[790] Press release: “DHS Publishes Fair and Humane Public Charge Rule.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, September 8, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a final rule, to be published in the Federal Register, that provides clarity and consistency for noncitizens on how DHS will administer the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The rule restores the historical understanding of a “public charge” that had been in place for decades, until the prior Administration began to consider supplemental public health benefits such as Medicaid and nutritional assistance as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination. …

Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) renders a noncitizen inadmissible if they are “likely at any time to become a public charge.”

A noncitizen who is deemed likely to become a “public charge,” meaning that they are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, can be denied admission or lawful permanent residence (known colloquially as a green card). Prior to 2019, almost all non-cash government benefits such as Medicaid or nutrition assistance were excluded from consideration. The 2019 rule, which was ultimately vacated and is no longer in effect, resulted in a drop in enrollments in such programs among individuals who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, such as U.S. citizen children in mixed-status households. The publication of this rule in the Federal Register avoids these effects by formally codifying the historical understanding of the term.

Under this rule, as under the 1999 Interim Field Guidance that was in place for most of the past two decades, a noncitizen would be considered likely to become a public charge if DHS determines that they are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. …

DHS will not consider in public charge determinations benefits received by family members other than the applicant. DHS will also not consider receipt of certain non-cash benefits for which noncitizens may be eligible. These benefits include: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or other nutrition programs, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid (other than for long-term institutionalization), housing benefits, any benefits related to immunizations or testing for communicable diseases, or other supplemental or special-purpose benefits.

[791] Final rule: “ Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility.” Federal Register, September 9, 2022. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 55472:

Agency: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.

Action: Final Rule.

Summary: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its regulations to prescribe how it determines whether noncitizens are inadmissible to the United States because they are likely at any time to become a public charge. Noncitizens who are applicants for visas, admission, and adjustment of status must establish that they are not likely at any time to become a public charge unless Congress has expressly exempted them from this ground of inadmissibility or has otherwise permitted them to seek a waiver of inadmissibility. Under this rule, DHS would determine that a noncitizen is likely at any time to become a public charge if the noncitizen is likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. On August 14, 2019, DHS issued a different rule on this topic, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule (2019 Final Rule), which is no longer in effect. This rule implements a different policy than the 2019 Final Rule.

Dates: This final rule is effective December 23, 2022. This final rule will apply to applications postmarked on or after the effective date.

Page 55473:

In this rule, DHS has declined to include certain aspects of the 2019 Final Rule that in DHS’s view caused undue fear and confusion, such as (1) a complicated and unnecessarily broad definition of “public charge”; (2) mandatory consideration of past, current, and future receipt of certain supplemental public benefits, notwithstanding that most noncitizens subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility would not have been eligible for such benefits at the time of application (and notwithstanding the potential collateral effects of this policy on U.S. citizen children in mixed-status households and noncitizens who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility)….

Page 55474:

This final rule also makes important clarifications and changes as compared to the 1999 Interim Field Guidance. For instance, this rule clarifies DHS’s approach to consideration of disability and long-term institutionalization at government expense; states a bright-line rule against considering the receipt of public benefits by an applicant’s dependents (such as a U.S. citizen child in a mixed-status household)…. Finally, later in this preamble, in response to public comments, DHS further clarifies that primary dependence connotes significant reliance on the government for support, and means something more than dependence that is merely transient or supplementary.

Pages 55636–55637:

An individual’s receipt of public benefits occurs when a public benefit-granting agency provides either public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense to the individual, where the individual is listed as a beneficiary of such benefits. An individual’s application for a public benefit on their own behalf or on behalf of another does not constitute receipt of public benefits by such individual.

Approval for future receipt of a public benefit that an individual applied for on their own behalf or on behalf of another does not constitute receipt of public benefits by such an individual. An individual’s receipt of public benefits solely on behalf of a third party (including a member of the alien’s household as defined in paragraph (f) of this section) does not constitute receipt of public benefits by such individual. The receipt of public benefits solely by a third party (including a member of the alien’s household as defined in paragraph (f) of this section), even if an individual assists with the application process, does not constitute receipt for such individual.

[792] Press release: “DHS Publishes Fair and Humane Public Charge Rule.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, September 8, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a final rule, to be published in the Federal Register, that provides clarity and consistency for noncitizens on how DHS will administer the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The rule restores the historical understanding of a “public charge” that had been in place for decades, until the prior Administration began to consider supplemental public health benefits such as Medicaid and nutritional assistance as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination. …

Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) renders a noncitizen inadmissible if they are “likely at any time to become a public charge.”

A noncitizen who is deemed likely to become a “public charge,” meaning that they are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, can be denied admission or lawful permanent residence (known colloquially as a green card). Prior to 2019, almost all non-cash government benefits such as Medicaid or nutrition assistance were excluded from consideration. The 2019 rule, which was ultimately vacated and is no longer in effect, resulted in a drop in enrollments in such programs among individuals who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, such as U.S. citizen children in mixed-status households. The publication of this rule in the Federal Register avoids these effects by formally codifying the historical understanding of the term.

Under this rule, as under the 1999 Interim Field Guidance that was in place for most of the past two decades, a noncitizen would be considered likely to become a public charge if DHS determines that they are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. …

DHS will not consider in public charge determinations benefits received by family members other than the applicant. DHS will also not consider receipt of certain non-cash benefits for which noncitizens may be eligible. These benefits include: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or other nutrition programs, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid (other than for long-term institutionalization), housing benefits, any benefits related to immunizations or testing for communicable diseases, or other supplemental or special-purpose benefits.

[793] Final rule: “ Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility.” Federal Register, September 9, 2022. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 55472:

Agency: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.

Action: Final Rule.

Summary: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its regulations to prescribe how it determines whether noncitizens are inadmissible to the United States because they are likely at any time to become a public charge. Noncitizens who are applicants for visas, admission, and adjustment of status must establish that they are not likely at any time to become a public charge unless Congress has expressly exempted them from this ground of inadmissibility or has otherwise permitted them to seek a waiver of inadmissibility. Under this rule, DHS would determine that a noncitizen is likely at any time to become a public charge if the noncitizen is likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. On August 14, 2019, DHS issued a different rule on this topic, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule (2019 Final Rule), which is no longer in effect. This rule implements a different policy than the 2019 Final Rule.

Dates: This final rule is effective December 23, 2022. This final rule will apply to applications postmarked on or after the effective date.

Page 55473:

In this rule, DHS has declined to include certain aspects of the 2019 Final Rule that in DHS’s view caused undue fear and confusion, such as (1) a complicated and unnecessarily broad definition of “public charge”; (2) mandatory consideration of past, current, and future receipt of certain supplemental public benefits, notwithstanding that most noncitizens subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility would not have been eligible for such benefits at the time of application (and notwithstanding the potential collateral effects of this policy on U.S. citizen children in mixed-status households and noncitizens who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility)….

Page 55474:

This final rule also makes important clarifications and changes as compared to the 1999 Interim Field Guidance. For instance, this rule clarifies DHS’s approach to consideration of disability and long-term institutionalization at government expense; states a bright-line rule against considering the receipt of public benefits by an applicant’s dependents (such as a U.S. citizen child in a mixed-status household)…. Finally, later in this preamble, in response to public comments, DHS further clarifies that primary dependence connotes significant reliance on the government for support, and means something more than dependence that is merely transient or supplementary.

Pages 55636–55637:

An individual’s receipt of public benefits occurs when a public benefit-granting agency provides either public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense to the individual, where the individual is listed as a beneficiary of such benefits. An individual’s application for a public benefit on their own behalf or on behalf of another does not constitute receipt of public benefits by such individual.

Approval for future receipt of a public benefit that an individual applied for on their own behalf or on behalf of another does not constitute receipt of public benefits by such an individual. An individual’s receipt of public benefits solely on behalf of a third party (including a member of the alien’s household as defined in paragraph (f) of this section) does not constitute receipt of public benefits by such individual. The receipt of public benefits solely by a third party (including a member of the alien’s household as defined in paragraph (f) of this section), even if an individual assists with the application process, does not constitute receipt for such individual.

[794] Dataset: “Average Family Income by Citizenship Status, 2021.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

[795] Webpage: “Supplemental Surveys.” U.S. Census Bureau. Last revised July 29, 2022. <www.census.gov>

“Annual Social and Economic Supplement … March … Provide data concerning … previous year’s income from all sources…. Periodicity: Annual”

[796] Report: “Design and Methodology: Current Population Survey—America’s Source for Labor Force Data.” U.S. Census Bureau, October 2019. <www2.census.gov>

Page 19: “A major reason for conducting the ASEC [Annual Social and Economic Supplement] in the month of March is to obtain better income data, given proximity to tax season.”

[797] Constructed with data from:

a) Dataset: “Average Family Income by Citizenship Status, 2021.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

b) Dataset: “Average Family Income by Hispanic Origin and Citizenship Status, 2021.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

NOTE: Like all Census Bureau measures of “money” income, this dataset doesn’t include noncash benefits like subsidized housing, food stamps, charitable services, and government or employer-provided health benefits. Also, the data is collected via government surveys, and low-income households substantially underreport their income on such surveys.

[798] Webpage: “Supplemental Surveys.” U.S. Census Bureau. Last revised July 29, 2022. <www.census.gov>

“Annual Social and Economic Supplement … March … Provide data concerning … previous year’s income from all sources…. Periodicity: Annual”

[799] Report: “Design and Methodology: Current Population Survey—America’s Source for Labor Force Data.” U.S. Census Bureau, October 2019. <www2.census.gov>

Page 19: “A major reason for conducting the ASEC [Annual Social and Economic Supplement] in the month of March is to obtain better income data, given proximity to tax season.”

[800] Dataset: “2017 Median Family Income by Detailed Nativity and Hispanic Origin.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed December 14, 2019 at <www.census.gov>

NOTE: Like all Census Bureau measures of “money” income, this dataset doesn’t include noncash benefits like subsidized housing, food stamps, charitable services, and government or employer-provided health benefits. Also, the data is collected via government surveys, and low-income households substantially underreport their income on such surveys.

[801] Report: “Income in the United States: 2021.” By Jessica Semega and Melissa Kollar. U.S. Census Bureau, September 2022. <www.census.gov>

Page 13:

How Income Is Measured

For each person 15 years and older in the sample, the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) asks questions on the amount of money income received in the preceding calendar year from each of the following sources.

1. Earnings

2. Unemployment compensation

3. Workers’ compensation

4. Social Security

5. Supplemental Security Income

6. Public assistance

7. Veterans’ payments

8. Survivor benefits

9. Disability benefits

10. Pension or retirement income

11. Interest

12. Dividends

13. Rents, royalties, and estates and trusts

14. Educational assistance

15. Alimony

16. Child support

17. Financial assistance from outside of the household

18. Other income

Data on income collected in the CPS ASEC by the U.S. Census Bureau cover money income received (exclusive of certain money receipts such as capital gains) before payments for personal income taxes, Social Security, union dues, Medicare deductions, etc. Money income also excludes tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and special COVID-19- related stimulus payments. Money income does not reflect that some families receive noncash benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance/food stamps, health benefits, and subsidized housing. In addition, money income does not reflect the fact that noncash benefits often take the form of the use of business transportation and facilities, full or partial payments by business for retirement programs, or medical and educational expenses.

The income of the household does not include amounts received by people who were members during all or part of the previous year if these people no longer resided in the household at the time of the interview. However, the CPS ASEC includes income data for people who are current residents but did not reside in the household during the previous year. It should be noted that although the income statistics refer to receipts during the preceding calendar year, the demographic characteristics, such as age, labor force status, and household composition, are as of the survey date.

Data users should consider these elements when comparing income levels. Moreover, readers should be aware that for many different reasons there is a tendency in household surveys for respondents to underreport their income. Based on an analysis of independently derived income estimates, the Census Bureau determined that respondents report income earned from wages or salaries more accurately than other sources of income, and that the reported wage and salary income is nearly equal to independent estimates of aggregate income.

[802] Report: “Income in the United States: 2021.” By Jessica Semega and Melissa Kollar. U.S. Census Bureau, September 2022. <www.census.gov>

Page 15: “Table A-1. Income Summary Measures by Selected Characteristics: 2020 and 2021.” <www2.census.gov>

Page 13:

How Income Is Measured

For each person 15 years and older in the sample, the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) asks questions on the amount of money income received in the preceding calendar year from each of the following sources.

1. Earnings

2. Unemployment compensation

3. Workers’ compensation

4. Social Security

5. Supplemental Security Income

6. Public assistance

7. Veterans’ payments

8. Survivor benefits

9. Disability benefits

10. Pension or retirement income

11. Interest

12. Dividends

13. Rents, royalties, and estates and trusts

14. Educational assistance

15. Alimony

16. Child support

17. Financial assistance from outside of the household

18. Other income

Data on income collected in the CPS ASEC by the U.S. Census Bureau cover money income received (exclusive of certain money receipts such as capital gains) before payments for personal income taxes, Social Security, union dues, Medicare deductions, etc. Money income also excludes tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and special COVID-19- related stimulus payments. Money income does not reflect that some families receive noncash benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance/food stamps, health benefits, and subsidized housing. In addition, money income does not reflect the fact that noncash benefits often take the form of the use of business transportation and facilities, full or partial payments by business for retirement programs, or medical and educational expenses.

The income of the household does not include amounts received by people who were members during all or part of the previous year if these people no longer resided in the household at the time of the interview. However, the CPS ASEC includes income data for people who are current residents but did not reside in the household during the previous year. It should be noted that although the income statistics refer to receipts during the preceding calendar year, the demographic characteristics, such as age, labor force status, and household composition, are as of the survey date.

Data users should consider these elements when comparing income levels. Moreover, readers should be aware that for many different reasons there is a tendency in household surveys for respondents to underreport their income. Based on an analysis of independently derived income estimates, the Census Bureau determined that respondents report income earned from wages or salaries more accurately than other sources of income, and that the reported wage and salary income is nearly equal to independent estimates of aggregate income.

Page 55:

The Current Population Survey (CPS) is the longest-running survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The CPS is a household survey primarily used to collect employment data. The sample universe for the basic CPS consists of the resident civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States. People in institutions, such as prisons, long-term care hospitals, and nursing homes, are not eligible to be interviewed in the CPS. Students living in dormitories are included in the estimates only if information about them is reported in an interview at their parents’ home. Since the CPS is a household survey, people who are homeless and not living in shelters are not included in the sample.

The CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC), which estimates in this report are based on, collects data in February, March, and April each year, asking detailed questions categorizing income into over 50 sources. The key purpose of the survey is to provide timely and comprehensive estimates of income, poverty, and health insurance and to measure change in these national-level estimates. The CPS ASEC collects data in the 50 states and the District of Columbia; these data do not represent residents of Puerto Rico or the U.S. Island Areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands). The 2022 CPS ASEC sample consists of about 89,200 addresses.

[803] Dataset: “Table S0501: Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed October 11, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

Median earnings (dollars) for full-time, year-round workers

Total … Male [=] 60,428 … Female [=] 49,263

Native … Male [=] 61,346 … Female [=] 50,042

Foreign born; Naturalized citizen … Male [=] 64,035 … Female [=] 51,628

Foreign born; Not a U.S. citizen … Male [=] 44,643 Female [=] 36,098

NOTE: Like all Census Bureau measures of “money” income, this dataset doesn’t include noncash benefits like subsidized housing, food stamps, charitable services, and government or employer-provided health benefits. Also, the data is collected via government surveys, and low-income households substantially underreport their income on such surveys.

[804] Report: “Income in the United States: 2021.” By Jessica Semega and Melissa Kollar. U.S. Census Bureau, September 2022. <www.census.gov>

Page 13:

How Income Is Measured

For each person 15 years and older in the sample, the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) asks questions on the amount of money income received in the preceding calendar year from each of the following sources.

1. Earnings

2. Unemployment compensation

3. Workers’ compensation

4. Social Security

5. Supplemental Security Income

6. Public assistance

7. Veterans’ payments

8. Survivor benefits

9. Disability benefits

10. Pension or retirement income

11. Interest

12. Dividends

13. Rents, royalties, and estates and trusts

14. Educational assistance

15. Alimony

16. Child support

17. Financial assistance from outside of the household

18. Other income

Data on income collected in the CPS ASEC by the U.S. Census Bureau cover money income received (exclusive of certain money receipts such as capital gains) before payments for personal income taxes, Social Security, union dues, Medicare deductions, etc. Money income also excludes tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and special COVID-19- related stimulus payments. Money income does not reflect that some families receive noncash benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance/food stamps, health benefits, and subsidized housing. In addition, money income does not reflect the fact that noncash benefits often take the form of the use of business transportation and facilities, full or partial payments by business for retirement programs, or medical and educational expenses.

The income of the household does not include amounts received by people who were members during all or part of the previous year if these people no longer resided in the household at the time of the interview. However, the CPS ASEC includes income data for people who are current residents but did not reside in the household during the previous year. It should be noted that although the income statistics refer to receipts during the preceding calendar year, the demographic characteristics, such as age, labor force status, and household composition, are as of the survey date.

Data users should consider these elements when comparing income levels. Moreover, readers should be aware that for many different reasons there is a tendency in household surveys for respondents to underreport their income. Based on an analysis of independently derived income estimates, the Census Bureau determined that respondents report income earned from wages or salaries more accurately than other sources of income, and that the reported wage and salary income is nearly equal to independent estimates of aggregate income.

[805] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Pages 85–87:

Following Borjas (2016a), the panel investigated the rate of economic assimilation by calculating age-adjusted wage differentials between each immigrant cohort and its native-born cohort, using a regression estimated separately for each year—1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010–2012—from the Decennial Census and ACS [American Community Survey] IPUMS [Integrated Public Use Microdata Series] data. The dependent variable is the log of weekly earnings, and the regressors initially include age (introduced as a third-order polynomial, or cubic term) and arrival-cohort fixed effects, and then education as a third regressor.10 Tables 3-12 and 3-13 show how the wages of immigrants relative to native-born workers of the same age evolve with time in the United States, computed separately for different immigrant arrival cohorts.11 Male immigrants who arrived between 1965 and 1969 began with an initial wage disadvantage of 23.5 percent, but the gap narrowed to 12 percent 10 years after arrival. By 40 years after arrival, this immigrant arrival cohort earned 17.6 percent more per week than comparable native-born males. Later-arriving cohorts began with a larger wage disadvantage: 31.4 percent lower than native-born males for those admitted between 1975 and 1979, 33.1 percent lower for those admitted between 1985 and 1989, and 27.3 percent lower for those admitted between 1995 and 1999. Moreover, the wage disadvantage does not disappear for these arrival cohorts, and the rate at which it narrows has slowed. For example, the 1965 cohort made up 21.5 percentage points of the gap in their first 20 years, whereas the 1975 cohort made up only 13.8 percentage points and the 1985 cohort only 7.9 percentage points.

When the panel additionally controlled for education, which allows for comparison of the degree to which immigrants catch up with their native-born peers with similar skills, the sizes of the immigrant-to-native-born wage gaps are much reduced. Moreover, it is only the two most recent arrival cohorts that have not yet closed the gap with their native-born peers with the same education. Of these two cohorts, 1985–89 arrivals have nearly closed the gap after 20 years in the United States, earning only 2.6 percent less than natives with the same education.

Since immigrants are disproportionately low-skilled, it is also likely that growing wage inequality in the economy generally, which is associated with a widening wage gap between high- and low-skilled workers, has adversely affected immigrant entry wages and impeded their capacity to catch up to natives. Putting this somewhat differently, even if immigrant skills had remained constant, their wages relative to natives would have fallen. Borjas (1995a) examined relative wages during the 1980s (a time when low-skilled immigrant workers fared particularly poorly) and found that, although the change in wage structure accounted for some (16–17%) of the decline in the relative wages of immigrants, most of it remained and was attributable to declining educational attainment relative to natives.12 A larger role for wage structure was obtained by Butcher and DiNardo (1998). They analyzed the role of the changing wage structure in the native-immigrant wage gap by estimating wage distributions of male and female immigrants who were recent arrivals in 1970, simulating what would have happened had they faced the wage structure obtaining in 1990. The counterfactual analysis allowed the researchers to tease out how much of the gap in native-immigrant wage distribution could be attributed to changing immigrant skills versus change in the wage structure. Depending on where a worker was along the wage distribution, the wage structure was found to have dramatic effects. For male workers at the higher end of the distribution, the wage structure changes explained 68 percent of the increase in wage gap.

The following key conclusions can be drawn from the above analyses. As their time spent in the United States lengthened, male immigrants who arrived between 1965 and 1969 experienced rapid relative growth in their wages, which allowed them to close the gap with natives. This indication of economic integration has slowed somewhat in more recent decades; the aging profile for relative wages has flattened across arrival cohorts, indicating a slowing rate of wage convergence for immigrants admitted after 1979. These overall conclusions hold after controlling for immigrants’ educational attainment, although the relative wage picture for immigrants is considerably more favorable when education is controlled for.

Compared to male immigrants of the same cohort, female immigrants start off with a less dramatic wage disadvantage, particularly if earlier cohorts are considered, but they experience slower growth in their wages relative to their native-born than do male immigrants (compare Tables 3-12 and 3-13). The 1995–99 arrival cohort did not experience any relative wage growth during its first 10 years in the United States. Much of the wage disadvantage of female immigrants disappears, however, when years of education are accounted for (lower half of Table 3-13), indicating that education differences explain much of the wage difference for immigrant women compared with native-born women. Even the large wage disadvantage for the 1995–99 cohort is mostly accounted for by that group’s lesser educational attainment compared with native-born females. Recent trends in part reflect increasing rates of inflow of Mexican immigrants with low education during the 1990s (Borjas, 2014b).

Table 3-12. Weekly Wage Assimilation of Male Immigrants, by Cohort (Percentage Difference between Native-born and Foreign born Wages)

Controlling for Age (Cubic) Only

Arrival Cohort

Years Since Migration

0

10

20

30

40

1965–69 Arrivals

–0.235

–0.12

–0.02

–0.014

0.176

1975–79 Arrivals

–0.314

–0.185

–0.176

–0.136

1985–89 Arrivals

–0.331

–0.269

–0.252

1995–99 Arrivals

–0.273

–0.269

10 Age is introduced as a third order polynomial to control for nonlinear effects of age on earnings.

[806] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Pages 85–86:

Following Borjas (2016a), the panel investigated the rate of economic assimilation by calculating age-adjusted wage differentials between each immigrant cohort and its native-born cohort, using a regression estimated separately for each year—1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010–2012—from the Decennial Census and ACS [American Community Survey] IPUMS [Integrated Public Use Microdata Series] data. The dependent variable is the log of weekly earnings, and the regressors initially include age (introduced as a third-order polynomial, or cubic term) and arrival-cohort fixed effects, and then education as a third regressor.

Page 87: “Table 3-12. Weekly Wage Assimilation of Male Immigrants, by Cohort (Percentage Difference between Native-born and Foreign born Wages)”

[807] Book: Immigration in America Today: An Encyclopedia. By James Loucky, Jeanne Armstrong, and Lawrence J. Estrada. Greenwood Press, 2006.

Page 308:

Economic Factors

The liberalization of immigration policy following the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act dramatically changed the immigrant composition in America. In the 1960s, the traditional dominance of European immigration began to decline. By the 1980s, only 11 percent of the total immigration came from Europe, whereas in 1900 they made up 90 percent of total immigration (Ueda 1998). After this reversal, the majority of immigrants coming to the United States were from Asia and Latin America. Whereas immigrants before the Great Depression were almost entirely working-class, all the immigrants of the 1970s through the 1990s can be divided into two economic classes, either highly skilled or poorly skilled. Many post-1965 immigrants were highly educated and trained workers. In the 1970s, 25 percent of immigrants were professionals and often more than 40 percent were white-collar workers. This trend continued into the 1980s. From 1976 to 1990, more than 35 percent of employed immigrants were in professional and other white-collar jobs, and an additional 12 percent were in skilled crafts (Ueda 1998).

This human capital migration was counteracted by a large group of low-skilled workers. Service workers, laborers, and semiskilled operatives composed about 46 percent of employed immigrants in this same time period. The flow of the low-skilled and under-educated immigrants rose in numbers and in percentages in the 1980s and 1990s. Hispanic, Asian, and West Indian workers moved into the service and semi-skilled job markets in large cities like Los Angeles and New York, causing increasing friction and conflict with native black workers (Ueda 1998).

[808] Book: Immigration in America Today: An Encyclopedia. By James Loucky, Jeanne Armstrong, and Lawrence J. Estrada. Greenwood Press, 2006.

Page 308:

The liberalization of immigration policy following the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act dramatically changed the immigrant composition in America. In the 1960s, the traditional dominance of European immigration began to decline. By the 1980s, only 11 percent of the total immigration came from Europe, whereas in 1900 they made up 90 percent of total immigration (Ueda 1998). After this reversal, the majority of immigrants coming to the United States were from Asia and Latin America. Whereas immigrants before the Great Depression were almost entirely working-class, all the immigrants of the 1970s through the 1990s can be divided into two economic classes, either highly skilled or poorly skilled. Many post-1965 immigrants were highly educated and trained workers. In the 1970s, 25 percent of immigrants were professionals and often more than 40 percent were white-collar workers. This trend continued into the 1980s. From 1976 to 1990, more than 35 percent of employed immigrants were in professional and other white-collar jobs, and an additional 12 percent were in skilled crafts (Ueda 1998).

This human capital migration was counteracted by a large group of low-skilled workers. Service workers, laborers, and semiskilled operatives composed about 46 percent of employed immigrants in this same time period. The flow of the low-skilled and under-educated immigrants rose in numbers and in percentages in the 1980s and 1990s. Hispanic, Asian, and West Indian workers moved into the service and semi-skilled job markets in large cities like Los Angeles and New York, causing increasing friction and conflict with native black workers (Ueda 1998).

[809] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 2:

Workers from Mexico and Central America are concentrated in a different set of occupations than are people from other regions of the world. In 2009, 21 percent of workers from that region were in construction, mining, agriculture, or related occupations, compared with 5 percent of native-born workers. Reflecting their high level of educational attainment, 39 percent of workers from Asia were in the professional or technical occupations, compared with 30 percent of native-born workers in those occupations.

[810] Calculated with the dataset: “Educational Attainment by Place of Birth, Ages 25–64, 2022.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[811] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population—2013 Update.” Congressional Budget Office, May 8, 2013. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 13 (of PDF): “Exhibit 11. Educational Attainment of People Ages 25 to 64, by Birthplace, 2012 (Percent) … Source: Congressional Budget Office based on monthly data from Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Groups, 2012, <www.census.gov>. … [Oceania] includes Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands.”

[812] Webpage: “Supplemental Surveys.” U.S. Census Bureau. Last revised July 29, 2022. <www.census.gov>

“Annual Social and Economic Supplement … March … Provide data concerning … previous year’s income from all sources…. Periodicity: Annual”

[813] Report: “Design and Methodology: Current Population Survey—America’s Source for Labor Force Data.” U.S. Census Bureau, October 2019. <www2.census.gov>

Page 19: “A major reason for conducting the ASEC [Annual Social and Economic Supplement] in the month of March is to obtain better income data, given proximity to tax season.”

[814] Calculated with the dataset: “Educational Attainment by Place of Birth, Ages 25–64, 2022.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[815] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population—2013 Update.” Congressional Budget Office, May 8, 2013. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 13 (of PDF): “Exhibit 11. Educational Attainment of People Ages 25 to 64, by Birthplace, 2012 (Percent) … Source: Congressional Budget Office based on monthly data from Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Outgoing Rotation Groups, 2012, <www.census.gov>. … [Oceania] includes Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands.”

[816] Book: The Economics of Immigration. By Cynthia Bansak, Nicole B. Simpson, and Madeline Zavodny. Routledge, 2015.

Page 28:

For example, immigrants who learn the language spoken in the destination country are likely to be more successful in the labor market than immigrants who do not. But if the number of immigrants who all speak the same language is large enough, it may not be necessary for them to learn the destination’s language in order to be successful. In such cases, natives who speak only their country’s language may be at a disadvantage in the labor market. Such changes may spur considerable tension.

[817] Report: “Investing in English Skills: The Limited English Proficient Workforce in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” By Jill H. Wilson. Brookings Institution, September 2014. <www.brookings.edu>

Page 1:

Nearly One in 10 Working-Age U.S. Adults—19.2 Million Persons Aged 16 to 64—Is Considered Limited English Proficient.

Two-thirds of this population speaks Spanish, but speakers of Asian and Pacific Island languages are most likely to be LEP [limited English proficient]. The vast majority of working-age LEP adults are immigrants, and those who entered the United States more recently are more likely to be LEP.

Working-Age LEP Adults Earn 25 to 40 Percent Less Than Their English Proficient Counterparts.

While less educated overall than English proficient adults, most LEP adults have a high school diploma, and 15 percent hold a college degree. LEP workers concentrate in low-paying jobs and different industries than other workers.

Page 2:

English proficiency is a strong predictor of economic standing among immigrants regardless of educational attainment. Numerous studies have shown that immigrants who are proficient in English earn more than those who lack proficiency, with higher skilled immigrants reaping the greatest advantage.2 Conversely, high-skilled immigrants who are not proficient in English are twice as likely to work in “unskilled” jobs (i.e. those requiring low levels of education or training) as those who are proficient in English.3 This underemployment represents a loss of productivity that yields lower wages for individuals and families and lower tax revenues and consumer spending for local areas. LEP immigrants also have higher rates of unemployment and poverty than their English proficient counterparts.4 Moreover, higher proficiency in English among immigrants is associated with the greater academic and economic success of their children.5 English skills also contribute to immigrants’ civic involvement and social connection to their new home.6

[818] Dataset: “Table S0501: Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed October 11, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

“Speak English less than ‘very well’ … Total [=] 8.3% … Native [=] 1.9% … Foreign born; Naturalized citizen [=] 37.3% … Foreign born; Not a U.S. citizen [=] 56.2%”

[819] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Pages 89–90:

Following Borjas (2014b), Figures 3-6 and 3-7 show the assimilation profile for English language proficiency of male and female wage-earning immigrants by arrival cohort. The age-adjusted probability of “speaking English very well” is calculated from a linear probability model estimated separately for datasets from the Decennial Census Public Use Microdata Series for 1970–2000 and the ACS Public Use Microdata Series for 2010–2012, restricting the sample to immigrants originating in countries outside the British sphere of influence.14 The dependent variable is a dummy that is set to unity if the immigrant speaks only English or speaks English very well and is set to zero otherwise. The regressors include the worker’s age (introduced as a cubic polynomial). This regression analysis gives the following results:15

• Male immigrants who arrived between 1975 and 1979 experienced a 12 percentage point increase in their fraction with English proficiency by 1990 and a 19 percentage point increase by 2012.

• The age-language proficiency profile for this arrival cohort is steeper than that of the 1985–89 and 1995–99 arrival cohorts.

• In the case of female immigrants, all arrival cohorts have a steeper age-language proficiency profile than male immigrants, although the general result holds that immigrants who arrived during the late 1980s and 1990s are slower in accumulating language skills than those who arrived in the late 1970s.

Figure 3-6. Aging Profile for High English Language Proficiency of Male Immigrants (Wage Earners), by Arrival Cohort

Figures 3-8 and 3-9 repeat the age-adjusted probability calculations but for a lower threshold of language proficiency: the probability of speaking English well (or better). These trends generally corroborate the finding discussed above that earlier cohorts of immigrants experienced more rapid language assimilation than recent cohorts. The relative slowdown of language assimilation may again be partly explained by high rates of immigration from Mexico during the 1990s. Lazear (2007) found that Mexicans start below immigrants from other countries in terms of English language fluency and never catch up; in general, non-Hispanics were more fluent than Hispanics at all times after arrival in the United States. One possible explanation, articulated by Borjas (2014b, p. 35), is that “immigrants who enter the country and find a large welcoming ethnic enclave have much less incentive to engage in these types of investments since they will find a large market for their pre-existing skills.”

[820] Textbook: Business Process Modeling, Simulation and Design. By Manuel Laguna and Johan Marklund. Pearson, 2011.

Page 55:

Each market segment where goods and services are sold establishes the basis for competition. The same product, for example, may be sold in different markets by emphasizing price in one, quality in another, functionality (attributes) in yet another, and reliability or service elsewhere. Free trade agreements among countries, such as the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), or within the European Union (EU) compound the complexity and the intensity of competition because governments are less willing to implement policies designed to protect the local industry. The good news for consumers is that this intense competition tends to drive quality up and prices down. The challenge for companies is that the level of efficiency in their operations must increase (to various degrees, depending upon the status quo), because companies must be able to compete with the world’s best.

[821] Book: Antitrust Law (2nd edition). By Richard A. Posner. University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Pages 12–13:

The optimum monopoly price may be much higher than the competitive price, depending on the intensity of consumer preference for the monopolized product—how much of it they continue to buy at successively higher prices-in relation to its cost. And the monopoly output will be smaller.3

So we now know that output is smaller under monopoly4 than under competition but not that the reduction in output imposes a loss on society. After all, the reduction in output in the monopolized market frees up resources that can and will be put to use in other markets. There is a loss in value, however. The increase in the price of the monopolized product above its cost induces the consumer to substitute products that must cost more (adjusting for any quality difference) to produce (or else the consumer would have substituted them before the price increase), although now they are relatively less expensive, assuming they are priced at a competitive level, that is, at the economically correct measure of cost. Monopoly pricing confronts the consumer with false alternatives: the product that he chooses because it seems cheaper actually requires more of society’s scarce resources to produce. Under monopoly, consumer demands are satisfied at a higher cost than necessary.

This analysis identifies the cost of monopoly with the output that the monopolist does not produce, and that a competitive industry would. I have said nothing about the higher prices paid by those consumers who continue to purchase the product at the monopoly price. Those higher prices are the focus of the layperson’s concern about monopoly—an example of the often sharp divergence between lay economic intuition and economic analysis. Antitrust economists used to treat the transfer of wealth from consumer to monopoly producer as completely costless to society, on the theory that the loss to the consumer was exactly offset by the gain to the producer.6 The only cost of monopoly in that analysis was the loss in value resulting from substitution for the monopolized product, since the loss to the substituting consumers is not recouped by the monopolist or anyone else and is thus a net loss, rather than merely a transfer payment and therefore a mere bookkeeping entry on the social books. But the traditional analysis was shortsighted.7 It ignored the fact that an opportunity to obtain a lucrative transfer payment in the form of monopoly profits will attract real resources into efforts by sellers to monopolize and by consumers to avoid being charged monopoly prices (other than by switching to other products, the source of the cost of monopoly on which the conventional economic analysis of monopoly focused). The costs of the resources consumed in these endeavors are costs of monopoly just as much as the costs resulting from the substitution of products that cost society more to produce than the monopolized product, though we’ll see that there may sometimes be offsetting benefits in this competition to become or fend off a monopolist.

[822] Textbook: Economics: Private and Public Choice. By James D. Gwartney and others. South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009.

Page 338:

As Adam Smith stressed long ago, when competition is present, even self-interested individuals will tend to promote the general welfare. Conversely, when competition is weakened, business firms will have more leeway to raise prices and pursue their own objectives and less incentive to innovate and develop better ways of doing things.

Competition is a disciplining force for both buyers and sellers. In a competitive environment, producers must provide goods at a low cost and serve the interests of consumers; if they don’t, other suppliers will. Firms that develop improved products and figure out how to produce them at low cost will succeed. Sellers that are unwilling or unable to provide consumers with quality goods at competitive prices will be driven from the market. This process leads to improved products and production methods and directs resources toward projects that create more value. It is a powerful stimulus for economic progress.

[823] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Page 216:

Increases in the share of low-skilled immigrants in the labor force appear to have reduced, over time, the prices of immigrant-intensive services such as child care, eating out, house cleaning and repair, landscaping and gardening, taxi rides, and construction. Most of these services are “nontradable,” which means they must be produced and consumed in the same geographic area. The decrease in prices is found to be driven by lower wages paid by those hiring in labor markets populated by low-skilled workers of Hispanic origin, particularly those with relatively low English proficiency and/or who are not legally authorized to work (Cortés, 2008; Baghdadi and Jansen, 2010). Through lower prices, low-skilled immigration creates positive net benefits to users of these services. Furthermore, the availability of low-cost, flexible housekeeping and child care services provided by the foreign-born appears to have allowed women in high-salary jobs to increase their work hours (Cortés and Tessada, 2011).

Housing is a specific sector in which immigrants play an important role. On the supply side, immigrants are disproportionately represented in construction industries (see Chapter 3). Their addition to the labor force may reduce the cost of construction and maintenance services. However, new arrivals also provide a major source of housing demand and, by raising both prices and rents, generate a potential windfall for native owners of housing. Studies of U.S. metropolitan areas have detected this demand-driven impact on the price of housing services.

Page 225: “Among the foreign-born, unauthorized workers may do disproportionately more to reduce prices because they earn less than otherwise comparable authorized workers, foreign- or native-born.”

Page 226:

The overall effect on consumption baskets was found to be largest for high-income households, who are more likely than low-income households to consume products such as child care, landscaping, and restaurant meals that are immigrant-intensive in production. Immigrants working in child care and other household services influence labor market dynamics (and patterns of consumption) in a particularly important way.

Page 228:

The discussion above suggests that immigration, like any increase in the population, has the potential to drive up an area’s house prices because, at least in the short run, the supply of housing is relatively inelastic. This is beneficial for homeowners and those who derive income from renting out accommodations. For natives who do not already own homes, whether they plan to continue renting or aspire to eventually purchase a home, this represents an increase in the cost of living.

[824] Report: “Immigration and Farm Labor: Challenges and Opportunities.” By Philip L. Martin. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics at the University of California, June 2017. <s.giannini.ucop.edu>

Page 29:

There is little relationship between farm wages and consumer prices for fresh fruits and vegetables for three major reasons. First, Americans do not spend much on fresh fruits and vegetables, an average $530 a year per household in 2015. Second, farmers receive only a third of what consumers pay for produce, about $165 per household per year. Third, farm labor costs are usually less than a third of farmer revenue, about $55 per household per year. If farm labor costs were zero because, say, prisoners picked produce at no charge to the farmer, the typical household would save $55 a year, or one-tenth of one percent of average spending of $55,000. …

If the influx of immigrant workers were slowed or stopped and farm wages rose, what would happen to expenditures on fresh fruits and vegetables? In 1966, the United Farm Workers union won a 40-percent wage increase for some table grape harvesters, largely because Bracero workers were not available. The average earnings of field workers were $11.72 an hour in 2015, so another 40-percent increase would raise them by $4.69 to $16.40 an hour.

For a typical household, a 40-percent increase in farm wages translates into a four percent increase in retail prices (0.30 farm share of retail prices x 0.33 farm labor share of farm revenue = 10 percent, farm labor costs rise 40 percent, and 0.4 x 10 = 3.6 percent). If farm wages rose 40 percent, and the increase were passed on fully to consumers, average spending on fresh fruits and vegetables would rise by about $21 a year (4 percent x $530 = $21), the cost of two movie tickets.

[825] Textbook: Economics. By Paul Anthony Samuelson and William D. Nordhaus. McGraw-Hill, 1992.

Page 234:

After World War I, however, laws were passed that severely limited immigration. By keeping labor supply down, a restrictive immigration policy tends to keep wages high. This interference exemplifies a basic point about the competitive determination of wages: Limiting the supply of any grade of labor relative to all other productive factors can be expected to raise its wage rate. An increase in labor supply will, other things being equal, tend to depress wage rates.

[826] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Page 149:

The primary determinant of how immigration affects wages and employment is the extent to which newly arriving workers substitute for or complement existing workers. As laid out theoretically in Chapter 4, wages may fall in the short run for workers viewed by employers as easily substitutable by immigrants, while wages may rise for individuals whose skills are complemented by new workers. For example, suppose foreign-born construction workers enter the labor market, causing a decrease in construction workers’ wages. Firms will respond by hiring more construction workers. Since additional first-line supervisors may be needed to oversee and coordinate the activities of the expanded workforce, the demand and hence the wages of these complementary workers could receive a boost. On the other hand, where immigrants compete for the same jobs, whether as construction workers or academic mathematicians (Borjas and Doran, 2012), employment opportunities or wages of natives are likely to suffer.

[827] Paper: “Immigration and the Effects on the U.S. Labor Market (1960–2000).” By George J. Borjas (Harvard University). U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 2005. <wdr.doleta.gov>

Page 3: “As a result of the relative increase in the number of immigrants who lack a high school diploma, figure 3 shows that the immigrant share in the population of workers who are high school dropouts rose from 6.1 percent in 1970 to 38.7 percent in 2000. Among college graduates, the increase was much more modest, from 5.7 percent to 12.4 percent.”

[828] Report: “Foreign-Born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2021.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 18, 2022. <www.bls.gov>

Page 7 (of PDF): “Table 1. Employment Status of the Foreign-Born and Native-Born Populations by Selected Characteristics, 2020–2021 Annual Averages [Numbers in thousands] … 2021 Civilian Labor Force … Employed … Less than a high school diploma … Foreign Born [=] 4,708 … Native [=] 3,556 … Bachelor’s degree and higher … Foreign Born [=] 10,237… Native [=] 48,729”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 10,237 / (10,237 + 48,729) = 17%
  • 4,708 / (4,708 + 3,556) = 57%

[829] Report: “Foreign-Born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2021.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 18, 2022. <www.bls.gov>

Page 5 (of PDF):

The estimates in this release are based on annual average data from the Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS, which is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is a monthly survey of about 60,000 eligible households that provides information on the labor force status, demographics, and other characteristics of the nation's civilian noninstitutional population age 16 and over.

NOTE: Like all Census Bureau measures of “money” income, this dataset doesn’t include noncash benefits like subsidized housing, food stamps, charitable services, and government or employer-provided health benefits. Also, the data is collected via government surveys, and low-income households substantially underreport their income on such surveys.

[830] Calculated with data from the report: “Foreign-Born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2021.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 18, 2022. <www.bls.gov>

Page 13 (of PDF): “Table 5. Median Usual Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers for the Foreign Born and Native Born by Selected Characteristics, 2020–2021 Annual Averages [Numbers in thousands] … Total, 25 years and over … 2021 … Foreign born … Median weekly earnings [=] 921 … Native born … Median weekly earnings [=] 1,091”

CALCULATION: ($1,091 – $921) / $1,091 = 16%

[831] Calculated with data from the report: “Foreign-Born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2021.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 18, 2022. <www.bls.gov>

Page 13 (of PDF): “Table 5. Median Usual Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers for the Foreign Born and Native Born by Selected Characteristics, 2020–2021 Annual Averages [Numbers in thousands] … Educational Attainment … Less than a high school diploma … 2021 … Foreign born … Median weekly earnings [=] 610 … Native born … Median weekly earnings [=] 669”

CALCULATION: ($669 – $610) / $669 = 9%

[832] Calculated with data from the report: “Foreign-Born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2021.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 18, 2022. <www.bls.gov>

Page 13 (of PDF): “Table 5. Median Usual Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers for the Foreign Born and Native Born by Selected Characteristics, 2020–2021 Annual Averages [Numbers in thousands] … Educational Attainment … High school graduates, no college2 … 2021 … Foreign born … Median weekly earnings [=] 735 … Native born … Median weekly earnings [=] 826”

CALCULATION: ($826 – $735) / $826 = 11%

[833] Calculated with data from the report: “Foreign-Born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2021.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 18, 2022. <www.bls.gov>

Page 13 (of PDF): “Table 5. Median Usual Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers for the Foreign Born and Native Born by Selected Characteristics, 2020–2021 Annual Averages [Numbers in thousands] … Educational Attainment … Bachelor’s degree and higher3 … 2021 … Foreign born … Median weekly earnings [=] 1,521 … Native born … Median weekly earnings [=] 1,440”

CALCULATION: ($1,440 – $1521) / $1,440 = –6%

[834] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Pages 3–4:

Given the potential for multiple, differentiated, and sometimes simultaneous effects, economic theory alone is not capable of producing definitive answers about the net impacts of immigration on labor markets over specific periods or episodes. Empirical investigation is needed. But wage and employment impacts created by flows of foreign-born workers into labor markets are difficult to measure. The effects of immigration have to be isolated from many other influences that shape local and national economies and the relative wages of different groups of workers. …

… Researchers have made great strides in addressing these issues in recent decades; even so, the degree of success in dealing with them is still debated.

Page 17:

The definitiveness of the panel’s conclusions is tempered by the fact that measurement of the impacts created by flows of foreign-born individuals into labor markets is difficult. … Although a labor market emphasis has created a rich economics literature on immigration, there are still a number of unresolved empirical questions, which this report explores.

Pages 150–151:

Given the complexity of mechanisms through which immigration shapes the economy, it is not surprising that the empirical literature has produced a range of wage and employment impact estimates. The basic challenge to overcome in empirical work is that, while wages before and after immigration can be observed, the counterfactual—what the wage change would have been if immigration had not occurred—cannot. A range of techniques has been used in the construction of this counterfactual, and all require assumptions to facilitate causal inference (i.e., identifying assumptions). The different approaches can be judged in part by the plausibility of these assumptions.

Page 169: “The misalignment of the study results described above [about the Mariel boatlift] suggests that differences in the implementation of a methodology can result in quite different estimates of the impact of immigration.”

Page 170:

Using a natural experiment approach in the study of immigration is quite attractive, although, as one can see in our discussion of the impact of the Mariel boatlift, the results are still not free from disagreement. It would certainly be of considerable interest to have a number of such studies for the United States. But, by its nature, this type of exogenous inflow of immigrants is a rare occurrence.

[835] Calculated with data from the report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Pages 182–183:

As is apparent from the literature review above, the results of a given study of the impact of immigration on wages or employment are typically directly comparable to only a handful of others. Sometimes two studies are not directly comparable because the underlying methodology is fundamentally different. For example, skill cell studies estimate the effect of immigrants on the most similar natives, omitting the effect of immigrants on less similar natives that is captured in most spatial studies, while structural studies build in the assumption that average wages are unchanged by immigration in the long run and hence are essentially studies of relative wages. But often, even within a methodology, studies are not immediately comparable because of differences in the way the number of immigrants is captured. For example, the study may focus on immigrants as a share of the labor force or the share of the labor force that is of a particular skill (instrumented by the predicted immigrant inflows of that skill type). For this reason, in Table 5-2, the panel presents in terms of a common metric the results of several prominent spatial and skill cell papers discussed in this chapter, along with the largest and smallest structural impacts for all natives and for native high school dropouts, based on the results in Table 5-1. For each study, the table shows calculations of the wage effect on the indicated group of natives of an increase in immigrants that raises labor supply of the state, occupation, skill cell, or education group by 1 percent. Wage effects in bold are the coefficients reported in the source study; other coefficients were calculated by the panel as outlined in the Technical Notes in Section 5.9.

Table 5-2. Effect on Native Wages of an Inflow of Immigrants that Increases Labor Supply by 1 Percent

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[836] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Page 241:

Some notable patterns emerge. Confirming expectations based on economic theory about which groups are most negatively affected by immigration, native dropouts tend to be more negatively affected than better-educated natives (as indicated by comparing results for dropouts with the overall results for all workers or all men or women). The results in the table also suggest that this negative effect may be compounded for native minorities. Altonji and Card (1991) found more-negative results for low-education blacks than low-education whites: the coefficient for black males reported in the table is the most negative effect they reported. Cortés examined a number of groups and found the largest negative effects for Hispanic dropouts with poor English, as well as larger negative effects for Hispanic dropouts than for all dropouts. This could be because native dropout minorities are the closest native substitutes for immigrants.

[837] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Page 205:

Finally, immigrants influence the rate of innovation in the economy, which potentially affects long run economic growth. While research in this area is very recent, literature on the topic as a whole indicates that immigrants are more innovative than natives; more specifically, high-skilled immigrants raise patenting per capita, which is likely to boost productivity and per capita economic growth. Immigrants appear to innovate more than natives not because of greater inherent ability but due to their concentration in science and engineering fields.

[838] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Page 65:

Immigration confers economic benefits on the native-born population as a whole but, among the native-born, there are likely to be winners and losers. While pre-existing workers most similar to immigrants may experience lower wages or a lower employment rate, preexisting workers who are complementary to immigrants are likely to benefit, as are native-born owners of capital.

[839] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Average Family Income by Citizenship Status, 2021.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

“Average of Total income amount – Family … Native-Born [=] $110,905 … Foreign-Born [=] $113,631 … Non-Citizen [=] $86,285”

b) Dataset: “Average Family Income by Hispanic Origin and Citizenship Status, 2021.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

“Average of Total income amount – Family … Hispanic … Native-Born [=] $83,121 … Foreign-Born [=] $83,214 … Non-Citizen [=] $63,398”

CALCULATIONS:

  • ($113,631 – $110,905) / $110,905 = 2%
  • ($86,285 – $110,905) / $110,905 = –22%
  • ($63,398 – $110,905) / $110,905 = –43%

NOTE: Like all Census Bureau measures of “money” income, this dataset doesn’t include noncash benefits like subsidized housing, food stamps, charitable services, and government or employer-provided health benefits. Also, the data is collected via government surveys, and low-income households substantially underreport their income on such surveys.

[840] Webpage: “Supplemental Surveys.” U.S. Census Bureau. Last revised July 29, 2022. <www.census.gov>

“Annual Social and Economic Supplement … March … Provide data concerning … previous year’s income from all sources…. Periodicity: Annual”

[841] Report: “Design and Methodology: Current Population Survey—America’s Source for Labor Force Data.” U.S. Census Bureau, October 2019. <www2.census.gov>

Page 19: “A major reason for conducting the ASEC [Annual Social and Economic Supplement] in the month of March is to obtain better income data, given proximity to tax season.”

[842] Webpage: “Listings of WHO’s Response to Covid-19.” World Health Organization, June 29, 2020. Last updated January 29, 2021. <bit.ly>

11 Mar 2020: Deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction, WHO made the assessment that Covid-19 could be characterized as a pandemic.”

[843] Calculated with the dataset: “The Distribution of Household Income, 2019.” Congressional Budget Office, November 2022. <www.cbo.gov>

“Table 3. Average Household Income, by Income Source and Income Group, 1979 to 2019, 2019 Dollars”

“Table 7. Components of Federal Taxes, by Income Group, 1979 to 2019, 2019 Dollars”

NOTES:

  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.
  • The next two footnotes contain important context for these calculations.

[844] Report: “The Distribution of Household Income, 2019.” Congressional Budget Office, November 2022. <www.cbo.gov>

Pages 33–34:

Data

The core data used in CBO’s [Congressional Budget Office’s] distributional analyses come from the Statistics of Income (SOI), a nationally representative sample of individual income tax returns collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The number of returns sampled grew over the period studied—1979 to 2019—rising from roughly 90,000 in some of the early years to more than 350,000 in later years. That sample of tax returns becomes available to CBO approximately two years after the returns are filed. …

Information from tax returns is supplemented with data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS), which contains survey data on the demographic characteristics and income of a large sample of households.5 The two sources are combined by statistically matching each SOI record to a corresponding CPS record on the basis of demographic characteristics and income. Each pairing results in a new record that takes on some characteristics of the CPS record and some characteristics of the SOI record.6

Page 35:

Measures of Income, Federal Taxes, and Means-Tested Transfers

Most distributional analyses rely on a measure of annual income as the metric for ranking households. In CBO’s analyses, information on taxable income sources for tax-filing units that file individual income tax returns comes from the SOI, whereas information on nontaxable income sources and income for tax-filing units that do not file individual income tax returns comes from the CPS. Among households at the top of the distribution, the majority of income data are drawn from the SOI. In contrast, among households in the lower and middle quintiles, a larger portion of income data is drawn from the CPS….

Pages 39–40:

Household income, unless otherwise indicated, refers to income before accounting for the effects of means-tested transfers and federal taxes. Throughout this report, that income concept is called income before transfers and taxes. It consists of market income plus social insurance benefits.

Market income consists of the following:

Labor income. Wages and salaries, including those allocated by employees to 401(k) and other employment-based retirement plans; employer-paid health insurance premiums (as measured by the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey); the employer’s share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes; and the share of corporate income taxes borne by workers.

Business income. Net income from businesses and farms operated solely by their owners, partnership income, and income from S corporations.

Capital income (including capital gains). Net profits realized from the sale of assets (but not increases in the value of assets that have not been realized through sales); taxable and tax-exempt interest; dividends paid by corporations (but not dividends from S corporations, which are considered part of business income); positive rental income; and the share of corporate income taxes borne by capital owners.†

Other income sources. Income received in retirement for past services and other nongovernmental sources of income.

Social insurance benefits consist of benefits from Social Security (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance), Medicare (measured by the average cost to the government of providing those benefits), unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.

Means-tested transfers are cash payments and in-kind services provided through federal, state, and local government assistance programs. Eligibility to receive such transfers is determined primarily on the basis of income, which must be below certain thresholds. Means-tested transfers are provided through the following programs: Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (measured by the average cost to the government of providing those benefits); the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as the Food Stamp program); housing assistance programs; Supplemental Security Income; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and its predecessor, Aid to Families With Dependent Children; child nutrition programs; the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; and state and local government general assistance programs.

Average means-tested transfer rates are calculated as means-tested transfers divided by income before transfers and taxes.

Federal taxes consist of individual income taxes, payroll (or social insurance) taxes, corporate income taxes, and excise taxes. Those four sources accounted for 93 percent of federal revenues in fiscal year 2019. Revenue sources not examined in this report include states’ deposits for unemployment insurance, estate and gift taxes, net income of the Federal Reserve System that is remitted to the Treasury, customs duties, and miscellaneous fees and fines.

In this analysis, taxes for a given year are the amount a household owes on the basis of income received that year, regardless of when the taxes are paid. Those taxes comprise the following:

Individual income taxes. Individual income taxes are paid by U.S. citizens and residents on their income from all sources, except those sources exempted under the law. Individual income taxes can be negative because they include the effects of refundable tax credits, which can result in net payments from the government. Specifically, if the amount of a refundable tax credit exceeds a filer’s tax liability before the credit is applied, the government pays that excess to the filer. Statutory marginal individual income tax rates are the rates set in law that apply to the last dollar of income.

Payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are levied primarily on wages and salaries and generally have a single rate and few exclusions, deductions, or credits. Payroll taxes include those that fund the Social Security trust funds, the Medicare trust fund, and unemployment insurance trust funds. The federal portion of the unemployment insurance payroll tax covers only administrative costs for the program; state-collected unemployment insurance payroll taxes are not included in the Congressional Budget Office’s measure of federal taxes (even though they are recorded as revenues in the federal budget). Households can be entitled to future social insurance benefits, including Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance, as a result of paying payroll taxes. In this analysis, average payroll tax rates capture the taxes paid in a given year and do not capture the benefits households may receive in the future.

Corporate income taxes. Corporate income taxes are levied on the profits of U.S.-based corporations organized as C corporations. In its analysis, CBO allocated 75 percent of corporate income taxes in proportion to each household’s share of total capital income (including capital gains) and 25 percent to households in proportion to their share of labor income.

Excise taxes. Sales of a wide variety of goods and services are subject to federal excise taxes. Most revenues from excise taxes are attributable to the sale of motor fuels (gasoline and diesel fuel), tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, and aviation-related goods and services (such as aviation fuel and airline tickets).

Average federal tax rates are calculated as federal taxes divided by income before transfers and taxes.

Income after transfers and taxes is income before transfers and taxes plus means-tested transfers minus federal taxes.

Income groups are created by ranking households by their size-adjusted income before transfers and taxes. A household consists of people sharing a housing unit, regardless of their relationships. The income quintiles (fifths) contain approximately the same number of people but slightly different numbers of households…. Similarly, each full percentile (hundredth) contains approximately the same number of people but a different number of households. If a household has negative income (that is, if its business or investment losses are larger than its other income), it is excluded from the lowest income group but included in totals.

NOTE: † See Just Facts’ research on the distribution of the federal tax burden for details about how the Congressional Budget Office determines the share of corporate income taxes borne by workers and owners of capital.

[845] Economists typically use a “comprehensive measure of income” to calculate effective tax rates, because this provides a complete “measure of ability to pay” taxes.† In keeping with this, Just Facts determines effective tax rates by dividing all measurable taxes by all income. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) previously did the same,‡ but in 2018, CBO announced that it would exclude means-tested transfers from its measures of income and effective tax rates.§ #

Given this change, Just Facts now uses CBO data to determine comprehensive income and effective tax rates by adding back the means-tested transfers that CBO publishes but takes out of these measures. To do this, Just Facts makes a simplifying assumption that households in various income quintiles do not significantly change when these transfers are added. This is mostly true, but as CBO notes:

Almost one-fifth of the households in the lowest quintile of income before transfers and taxes would have been in higher quintiles if means-tested transfers were included in the ranking measure (see Table 5). Because net movement into a higher income quintile entails a corresponding net movement out of those quintiles, more than one-fifth of the households in the second quintile of income before transfers and taxes would have been bumped down into the bottom before-tax income quintile. Because before-tax income excludes income in the form of means-tested transfers, almost one-fifth of the people in the lowest quintile of income before transfers and taxes were in higher before-tax income quintiles. There is no fundamental economic change represented by those changes in income groups—just a change in the income definition used to rank households. Because means-tested transfers predominantly go to households in the lower income quintiles, there is not much shuffling across income quintile thresholds toward the top of the distribution.§

NOTES:

  • † Report: “Fairness and Tax Policy.” U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation. February 27, 2015. <www.jct.gov>. Page 2: “The notion of ability to pay (i.e., the taxpayer’s capacity to bear taxes) is commonly applied to determine fairness, though there is no general agreement regarding the appropriate standard by which to assess a taxpayer’s ability to pay. … Many analysts have advocated a comprehensive measure of income as a measure of ability to pay.”
  • ‡ Report: “The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2013.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2016. <www.cbo.gov>. Page 31: “Before-tax income is market income plus government transfers. … Government transfers are cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs.”
  • § Report: “The Distribution of Household Income, 2014.” Congressional Budget Office, March 19, 2018. <www.cbo.gov>. Page 4: “The new measure of income used in this report—income before transfers and taxes—is equal to market income plus social insurance benefits. That new measure is similar to the previous measure, except that means-tested transfers are no longer included….”
  • # Report: “The Distribution of Household Income, 2019.” Congressional Budget Office, November 2022. <www.cbo.gov>. Page 33: “The estimates in this report were produced using the agency’s framework for analyzing the distributional effects of both means-tested transfers and federal taxes.2 That framework uses income before transfers and taxes, which consists of market income plus social insurance benefits.”
  • § Working paper: “CBO’s New Framework for Analyzing the Effects of Means-Tested Transfers and Federal Taxes on the Distribution of Household Income.” By Kevin Perese. Congressional Budget Office, December 2017. <www.cbo.gov>. Page 18.

[846] Article: “How Many Workers Are Employed in Sectors Directly Affected by Covid-19 Shutdowns, Where Do They Work, and How Much Do They Earn?” By Matthew Dey and Mark A. Loewenstein. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Monthly Labor Review, April 2020. <www.bls.gov>

Page 1: “To reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), nearly all states have issued stay-at-home orders and shut down establishments deemed nonessential.”

[847] Article: “Covid-19 Restrictions.” USA Today. Last updated July 11, 2022. <www.usatoday.com>

Throughout the pandemic, officials across the United States have rolled out a patchwork of restrictions on social distancing, masking and other aspects of public life. The orders vary by state, county and even city. At the height of restrictions in late March and early April 2020, more than 310 million Americans were under directives ranging from “shelter in place” to “stay at home.” Restrictions are now ramping down in many places, as most states have fully reopened their economies.

[848] During 2020 and early 2021, federal politicians enacted six “Covid relief” laws that will cost a total of about $5.2 trillion over the course of a decade. This amounts to an average of $40,444 in spending per U.S. household.

Calculated with data from:

a) Report: “CBO Estimate for H.R. 6074, the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020, as Posted on March 4, 2020.” Congressional Budget Office, March 4, 2020. <www.cbo.gov>

b) Report: “Cost Estimate for H.R. 6201, Families First Coronavirus Response Act, Enacted as Public Law 116-127 on March 18, 2020.” Congressional Budget Office, April 2, 2020. <www.cbo.gov>

c) Report: “Cost Estimate for H.R. 748, CARES Act, Public Law 116-136.” Congressional Budget Office, April 16, 2020. <www.cbo.gov>

d) Report: “CBO Estimate for H.R. 266, the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act as Passed by the Senate on April 21, 2020.” Congressional Budget Office, April 22, 2020. <www.cbo.gov>

e) Report: “Estimate for Division N—Additional Coronavirus Response and Relief, H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, Enacted on December 27, 2020.” Congressional Budget Office, January 14, 2021. <www.cbo.gov>

f) Report: “Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 1319, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 as Passed by the Senate on March 6, 2021.” Congressional Budget Office, March 10, 2021. <www.cbo.gov>

g) Dataset: “HH-1. Households by Type: 1940 to Present.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 2021. <www.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[849] Calculated with the dataset: “The Distribution of Household Income, 2020.” Congressional Budget Office, November 2023. <www.cbo.gov>

“Table 3. Average Household Income, by Income Source and Income Group, 1979 to 2020, 2020 Dollars”

“Table 7. Components of Federal Taxes, by Income Group, 1979 to 2020, 2020 Dollars”

NOTES:

  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.
  • The next two footnotes contain important context for these calculations.

[850] Report: “The Distribution of Household Income, 2020.” Congressional Budget Office, November 2023. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 20:

Data

The core data used in CBO’s distributional analyses come from the Statistics of Income (SOI), a nationally representative sample of individual income tax returns collected by the IRS. That sample of tax returns becomes available to CBO approximately two years after the returns are filed. Data on household income are systematically and consistently reported in the SOI. The sample is therefore considered a reliable resource to use when analyzing the effects of fiscal policy on income. However, certain types of income are not reported in the SOI. In 2020, for example, the portion of payments from the Paycheck Protection Program that was not used to pay for employees’ wages was not taxable and therefore not available in the SOI data.

SOI data include information about tax filers’ family structure and age, but they do not include certain demographic information or data on people who do not file taxes. For that information, CBO uses data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS), which has data on the demographic characteristics and income of a large sample of households.6

CBO combines the two data sources, statistically matching each SOI record to a corresponding CPS record on the basis of demographic characteristics and income. Each pairing results in a new record that takes on some characteristics of the CPS record and some characteristics of the SOI record.7

Page 22:

Measures of Income, Federal Taxes, and Means-Tested Transfers

Most distributional analyses rely on a measure of annual income as the metric for ranking households. In CBO’s analyses of the distribution of household income, information about taxable income sources for tax-filing units that file individual income tax returns comes from the SOI, whereas information about nontaxable income sources and income for tax-filing units that do not file individual income tax returns comes from the CPS. Among households at the top of the income distribution, the majority of income data are drawn from the SOI. In contrast, among households in the lower and middle quintiles, a larger portion of income data is drawn from the CPS….

Pages 31–32:

Household income, unless otherwise indicated, refers to income before the effects of means-tested transfers and federal taxes are accounted for. Throughout this report, that income concept is called income before transfers and taxes. It consists of market income plus social insurance benefits.

Market income consists of the following five elements:

Labor income. Wages and salaries, including those allocated by employees to 401(k) and other employment-based retirement plans; employer-paid health insurance premiums (as measured by the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey); the employer’s share of payroll taxes for Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance; and the share of corporate income taxes borne by workers.

Business income. Net income from businesses and farms operated solely by their owners, partnership income, and income from S corporations.

Capital gains. Net profits realized from the sale of assets (but not increases in the value of assets that have not been realized through sales).

Capital income. Taxable and tax-exempt interest, dividends paid by corporations (but not dividends from S corporations, which are considered part of business income), rental income, and the share of corporate income taxes borne by capital owners.

Other income sources. Income received in retirement for past services and other nongovernmental sources of income.

Social insurance benefits consist of benefits from Social Security (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance), Medicare (measured by the average cost to the government of providing those benefits), regular unemployment insurance (but not expanded unemployment compensation), and workers’ compensation.

Means-tested transfers are cash payments and in-kind services provided through federal, state, and local government assistance programs. Eligibility to receive such transfers is determined primarily on the basis of income, which must be below certain thresholds. Means-tested transfers are provided through the following programs: Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (measured by the average cost to the federal government and state governments of providing those benefits); the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as the Food Stamp program); housing assistance programs; Supplemental Security Income; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and its predecessor, Aid to Families With Dependent Children; child nutrition programs; the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; and state and local governments’ general assistance programs. For 2020, CBO included expanded unemployment compensation in means-tested transfers.

Average means-tested transfer rates are calculated as means-tested transfers (totaled within an income group) divided by income before transfers and taxes (totaled within an income group).

Federal taxes consist of individual income taxes, payroll (or social insurance) taxes, corporate income taxes, and excise taxes. Those four sources accounted for 94 percent of federal revenues in fiscal year 2020. Revenue sources not examined in this report include states’ deposits for unemployment insurance, estate and gift taxes, net income of the Federal Reserve System that is remitted to the Treasury, customs duties, and miscellaneous fees and fines.

In this analysis, taxes for a given year are the amount a household owes on the basis of income received in that year, regardless of when the taxes are paid. Those taxes comprise the following four categories:

Individual income taxes. Individual income taxes are levied on income from all sources, except those excluded by law. Individual income taxes can be negative because they include the effects of refundable tax credits (including recovery rebate credits), which can result in net payments from the government. Specifically, if the amount of a refundable tax credit exceeds a filer’s tax liability before the credit is applied, the government pays that excess to the filer. Statutory marginal individual income tax rates are the rates set in law that apply to the last dollar of income.

Payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are levied primarily on wages and salaries. They generally have a single rate and few exclusions, deductions, or credits. Payroll taxes include those that fund the Social Security trust funds, the Medicare trust fund, and unemployment insurance trust funds. The federal portion of the unemployment insurance payroll tax covers only administrative costs for the program; state-collected unemployment insurance payroll taxes are not included in the Congressional Budget Office’s measure of federal taxes (even though they are recorded as revenues in the federal budget). Households can be entitled to future social insurance benefits, including Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance, as a result of paying payroll taxes. In this analysis, average payroll tax rates capture the taxes paid in a given year and do not capture the benefits that households may receive in the future.

Corporate income taxes. Corporate income taxes are levied on the profits of U.S.–based corporations organized as C corporations. In this analysis, CBO allocated 75 percent of corporate income taxes in proportion to each household’s share of total capital income (including capital gains) and 25 percent to households in proportion to their share of labor income.

Excise taxes. Sales of a wide variety of goods and services are subject to federal excise taxes. Most revenues from excise taxes are attributable to the sale of motor fuels (gasoline and diesel fuel), tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, and aviation-related goods and services (such as aviation fuel and airline tickets).

Average federal tax rates are calculated as federal taxes (totaled within an income group) divided by income before transfers and taxes (totaled within an income group).

Income after transfers and taxes is income before transfers and taxes plus means-tested transfers minus federal taxes.

Income groups are created by ranking households by their size-adjusted income before transfers and taxes. A household consists of people sharing a housing unit, regardless of their relationship. The income quintiles (or fifths of the distribution) contain approximately the same number of people but slightly different numbers of households…. Similarly, each full percentile (or hundredth of the distribution) contains approximately the same number of people but a different number of households. If a household has negative income (that is, if its business or investment losses exceed its other income), it is excluded from the lowest income group but included in totals.

NOTE: † See Just Facts’ research on the distribution of the federal tax burden for details about how the Congressional Budget Office determines the share of corporate income taxes borne by workers and owners of capital.

[851] Economists typically use a “comprehensive measure of income” to calculate effective tax rates because this provides a complete “measure of ability to pay” taxes.† In keeping with this, Just Facts determines effective tax rates by dividing all measurable taxes by all income. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) previously did the same,‡ but in 2018, CBO announced that it would exclude means-tested transfers from its measures of income and effective tax rates.§ #

Given this change, Just Facts now uses CBO data to determine comprehensive income and effective tax rates by adding back the means-tested transfers that CBO publishes but takes out of these measures. To do this, Just Facts makes a simplifying assumption that households in various income quintiles do not significantly change when these transfers are added. This is mostly true, but as CBO notes:

Almost one-fifth of the households in the lowest quintile of income before transfers and taxes would have been in higher quintiles if means-tested transfers were included in the ranking measure (see Table 5). Because net movement into a higher income quintile entails a corresponding net movement out of those quintiles, more than one-fifth of the households in the second quintile of income before transfers and taxes would have been bumped down into the bottom before-tax income quintile. Because before-tax income excludes income in the form of means-tested transfers, almost one-fifth of the people in the lowest quintile of income before transfers and taxes were in higher before-tax income quintiles. There is no fundamental economic change represented by those changes in income groups—just a change in the income definition used to rank households. Because means-tested transfers predominantly go to households in the lower income quintiles, there is not much shuffling across income quintile thresholds toward the top of the distribution.§

NOTES:

  • † Report: “Fairness and Tax Policy.” U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation. February 27, 2015. <www.jct.gov>. Page 2: “The notion of ability to pay (i.e., the taxpayer’s capacity to bear taxes) is commonly applied to determine fairness, though there is no general agreement regarding the appropriate standard by which to assess a taxpayer’s ability to pay. … Many analysts have advocated a comprehensive measure of income as a measure of ability to pay.”
  • ‡ Report: “The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2013.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2016. <www.cbo.gov>. Page 39: “Before-tax income is market income plus government transfers. Government transfers are cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs.”
  • § Report: “The Distribution of Household Income, 2014.” Congressional Budget Office, March 19, 2018. <www.cbo.gov>. Page 4: “The new measure of income used in this report—income before transfers and taxes—is equal to market income plus social insurance benefits.1 That new measure is similar to the previous measure, except that means-tested transfers are no longer included….”
  • # Report: “The Distribution of Household Income, 2020.” Congressional Budget Office, November 2023. <www.cbo.gov>. Page 19: “The estimates in this report were produced using the agency’s framework for analyzing the distributional effects of both means-tested transfers and federal taxes.2 That framework uses income before transfers and taxes, which consists of market income plus social insurance benefits.”
  • § Working paper: “CBO’s New Framework for Analyzing the Effects of Means-Tested Transfers and Federal Taxes on the Distribution of Household Income.” By Kevin Perese. Congressional Budget Office, December 2017. <www.cbo.gov>. Page 18.

[852] Report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Page 2:

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of people living in the U.S. who were foreign born and not U.S. citizens was 21.7 million in January 2009. Of these, 12.6 million individuals were not legal permanent residents of the U.S. We refer to this group as other immigrants (other than legal permanent resident immigrants). …

… The estimated number of other immigrants working is 8.3 million in 2010. OCACT [Office of the Chief Actuary] estimates 0.6 million of the 8.3 million other immigrant workers in 2010 had temporary work authorized at some point in the past and have overstayed the term of their visas. In addition, OCACT estimates that 0.7 million unauthorized workers in 2010 obtained fraudulent birth certificates at some point in the past and these birth certificates allowed the workers to get an SSN [Social Security number]. …

OCACT estimates 1.8 million other immigrants worked and used an SSN that did not match their name in 2010. … Finally, OCACT estimates 3.9 million other immigrants worked in the underground economy in 2010.

[853] Book: Economics of International Migration (Volume 1A, The Immigrants). Edited by Barry R. Chiswick and Paul W. Miller. Elsevier, 2015.

Chapter 13: “Undocumented Immigrants and Human Trafficking.” By Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny. Pages 659–716.

Page 686: “Unauthorized immigrants are more likely to work off the books than legal immigrants, further reducing how much they pay in taxes.”

[854] Report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Page 2:

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of people living in the U.S. who were foreign born and not U.S. citizens was 21.7 million in January 2009. Of these, 12.6 million individuals were not legal permanent residents of the U.S. We refer to this group as other immigrants (other than legal permanent resident immigrants). …

… Finally, OCACT [Office of the Chief Actuary] estimates 3.9 million other immigrants worked in the underground economy in 2010.

[855] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Page 242: “In addition to the potential for worker abuse, injury, and exploitation, another secondary economic effect of informal, unreported work is that employers may prefer immigrants to competing native workers when only the immigrants can be employed under arrangements in which payroll taxes are ignored and labor regulations are not observed.”

[856] Book: Invisible Work, Invisible Workers: The Informal Economy in Europe and the US. By Madeleine Leonard. St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

Page 79: “Since safety regulations are quite costly in Germany, employers can violate these regulations and evade taxes and social security contributions by employing illegal foreigners.”

[857] Paper: “The Cost of Worker Misclassification in New York State.” By Linda H. Donahue, James Ryan Lamare, and Fred B. Kotler. Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, February 1, 2007. <ecommons.cornell.edu>

Page 6: “In an employer–employee relationship, the employer must withhold income taxes, withhold and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, pay unemployment tax on wages paid, provide workers’ compensation insurance, pay minimum wage and overtime wages, and include employees in employee benefit plans.”

Page 8:

Construction is an expanding but fiercely competitive contract industry, characterized by slim profit margins, high injury and comp rates, comprised largely of numerous small to medium-sized companies whose numbers and size may make them more likely to operate beyond the view of state regulators. It is labor intensive, its jobs are temporary, and many jobs, particularly in unlicensed trades, can be broken down into piece work. It is a lucrative employment source for immigrant, often undocumented, workers and unscrupulous employers use their workers’ alleged independent contractor status to circumvent employer obligations under federal immigration laws. And the construction workforce is mobile—making it difficult for regulators to track down particular employers. All the elements are present throughout the industry, but misclassification and “under the table” practices operate with particular impunity in the large and expanding residential and commercial sectors.

[858] Report: “Making Tax Compliance Easier and Collecting What’s Due.” By Nina E. Olson. IRS, Taxpayer Advocate Service, June 28, 2011. <www.irs.gov>

Page 2: “According to the IRS’s most recent comprehensive estimate, the net tax gap stood at $290 billion in 2001,2 when 132 million tax returns were filed.3 This means that each taxpayer was effectively paying a ‘surtax’ of some $2,200 to subsidize noncompliance by others. For this reason, it is important to reduce the tax gap.”

[859] Written statement: “How Tax Complexity Hinders Small Businesses: The Impact On Job Creation And Economic Growth.” By Nina E. Olson. Internal Revenue Service, National Taxpayer Advocate, April 13, 2011. <www.irs.gov>

Page 4:

IRS data show that when taxpayers have a choice about reporting their income, tax compliance rates are remarkably low. Workers who are classified as employees have little opportunity to underreport their earned income because it is subject to tax withholding. Employees thus report about 99 percent of their earned income. But among workers whose income is not subject to withholding, compliance rates plummet. IRS studies show that nonfarm sole proprietors report only 43 percent of their business income and unincorporated farming businesses report only 28 percent.12

Noncompliance cheats honest taxpayers, who must pay more to make up the difference. To me, this raises an important question: Why is it that few Americans would steal from a local charity, yet a high percentage of taxpayers who have a choice about paying taxes appear to have no compunctions about cheating their fellow citizens?

The Taxpayer Advocate Service has conducted research into the causes of noncompliance and plans to conduct additional studies. While we do not have definitive answers, we can suggest at least two hypotheses. First, no one wants to feel like a “tax chump”—paying more while suspecting that others are taking advantage of loopholes to pay less. Taxpayers who believe they are unfairly paying more than others inevitably will feel more justified in “fudging” to right the perceived wrong. Transparency is a critical feature of a successful tax system. It is essential if the system is to build taxpayer confidence and maintain high rates of compliance. Simplifying the code to make computations more transparent would go a long way toward reassuring taxpayers that the system is not rigged against them.

12 See IRS News Release, IRS Updates Tax Gap Estimates, IR-2006-28 (Feb. 14, 2006) (accompanying charts at <www.irs.gov>).

[860] Report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Page 3:

While unauthorized immigrants worked and contributed as much as $13 billion in payroll taxes to the OASDI [Social Security] program in 2010, only about $1 billion in benefit payments during 2010 are attributable to unauthorized work. Thus, we estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally, and that this effect contributed roughly $12 billion to the cash flow of the program for 2010.

[861] Report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Page 2:

Laws enacted in 1996 and 2004 make Social Security benefits unavailable to unauthorized immigrants residing in the U.S. and to any noncitizen without a work-authorized SSN [Social Security number] at some point in time. …

… In addition, OCACT [Office of the Chief Actuary] estimates that 0.7 million unauthorized workers in 2010 obtained fraudulent birth certificates at some point in the past and these birth certificates allowed the workers to get an SSN. Combining these two groups with the 1.3 million current visa holders with temporary authorization, we estimate 2.7 million other immigrants have SSNs in their name and thus can work, pay taxes, and have earnings credited to their record for potential benefits in the future.

OCACT estimates 1.8 million other immigrants worked and used an SSN that did not match their name in 2010. Their earnings may be credited to someone else’s record (when the SSN and name submitted to the employer match Social Security records) or may be credited to the Earnings Suspense File (when submitted with nonmatching SSN and name).

[862] Booklet: “Understanding the Benefits.” United States Social Security Administration, January 2017. <www.ssa.gov>

Page 7:

You may start receiving benefits as early as age 62. We reduce your benefits if you start early by about one-half of one percent for each month you start receiving benefits before your full retirement age. For example, if your full retirement age is 66 and two months, and you sign up for Social Security when you’re 62, you would only get 74.2 percent of your full benefit.

NOTE: The reduction will be greater in future years as the full retirement age increases.

[863] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population, 2013 Update.” Congressional Budget Office, May 8, 2013. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 14 (of PDF): “Exhibit 12A. Unauthorized Foreign-Born Population, by Birthplace and Age, 2000, 2009, and 2011 … 2011 … Percentage of Total … 55 or older [=] 4%”

[864] Dataset: “2010–2016 Population by Detailed Nativity and Age.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed June 12, 2017 at <www.census.gov>

“2016 … Native … 55 to 80+ [=] 27.8%”

[865] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for ‘brief, casual, and innocent’ absences, from the beginning of 1982….”

NOTE: Click here for more facts about the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

[866] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population, 2013 Update.” Congressional Budget Office, May 8, 2013. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 2:

Compared with the native-born population, the foreign-born population includes relatively few people under the age of 25. In 2012, only 14 percent of the foreign-born population was under that age, compared with 37 percent of the native-born population. In contrast, nearly three-quarters of the foreign-born population was of working age (between 25 and 64 years old), compared with about half of the native-born population.

[867] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Highlights:

Many individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States, and thus not eligible to obtain a Social Security Number (SSN) for employment, earn income in the United States. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides such individuals with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to facilitate their filing of tax returns. Although the law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the United States from receiving most Federal public benefits, an increasing number of these individuals are filing tax returns claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), a refundable tax credit intended for working families.

Page 20: “Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Filing Statistics … Table 1—Forms 1040 With ITINs … Processing Year … 2010 … ITIN Returns [=] 3.02 M”

[868] Report: “Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 16, 2012. <www.justfacts.com>

Highlights: “In Calendar Year 1996, the IRS created the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) so that individuals who are not eligible to obtain Social Security Numbers could obtain an identification number for tax purposes.”

Page 2: “An ITIN is issued regardless of an individual’s immigration status. However, individuals assigned an ITIN should either be a resident not authorized to work in the United States or a nonresident. Nonresident aliens must file a tax return only if they are engaged in a trade or business in the United States or if they have any other U.S. sources of income on which the tax was not fully paid by the amount of tax withheld at the source.”

[869] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Highlights: “Although the law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the United States from receiving most Federal public benefits, an increasing number of these individuals are filing tax returns claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), a refundable tax credit intended for working families.”

Page 1: “An ITIN [Individual Taxpayer Identification Number] does not authorize an individual to work in the United States or provide eligibility for Social Security benefits or the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC); however, the IRS currently processes claims for the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), a refundable tax credit, filed by taxpayers with ITINs.”

Page 2:

Refundable credits can result in refunds even if no income tax is withheld or paid; that is, the credits can exceed the liability for the tax. Two of the largest refundable tax credits are the EITC and the ACTC. The appropriations for these credits in Fiscal Year 2010 were $54.7 billion for the EITC and $22.7 billion2 for the ACTC. Because concerns were raised by Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and the IRS regarding noncompliance with EITC requirements, a law was passed in Calendar Year 1996 to deny the EITC to individuals who file a tax return without an SSN that is valid for employment.3 As such, filers using an ITIN are not eligible for the EITC. The change in the law was made prior to the establishment of the ACTC.4 However, the same law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the United States from receiving most Federal public benefits, with the exception of certain emergency services and programs.

Nonetheless, IRS management’s view is that the law does not provide sufficient legal authority for the IRS to disallow the ACTC to ITIN filers. In addition, the Internal Revenue Code does not require an SSN [Social Security number] to claim the ACTC and does not provide the IRS math error authority to deny the credit without an examination. As such, the IRS continues to pay the ACTC to ITIN filers.

The ACTC is the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC). The CTC can reduce an individual’s taxes owed by as much as $1,000 for each qualifying child. The ACTC is provided in addition to the CTC to individuals whose taxes owed were less than the amount of CTC they were entitled to claim. The ACTC is always the refundable portion of the CTC, which means an individual claiming the ACTC receives a refund even if no income tax was withheld or paid.

Page 7: “ITIN filers are much more likely to claim the ACTC than other individual taxpayers. We found that in Processing Year 2010, 72 percent of all ITIN filers claimed the ACTC, while only 14 percent of non-ITIN filers claimed the ACTC.”

Page 20: “Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Filing Statistics … Table 1—Forms 1040 With ITINs … Processing Year … 2010 … % of Returns With Refund & No Tax [=] 73% … % of Returns With ACTC [=] 72%”

Page 21: “Table 3—Forms 1040 Non-ITIN (2010) … % Returns With Tax [=] 72% … % Returns With ACTC [=] 14%”

[870] Webpage: “What You Need to Know about CTC and ACTC.” Internal Revenue Service. Last reviewed or updated August 16, 2022. <www.eitc.irs.gov>

Here’s what you need to know about the Child Tax Credit (CTC), the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) the refundable portion and the Credit for Other Dependents (ODC). …

Know who is a qualifying child for CTC/ACTC. The child must: …

• Be U.S. citizen, U.S. National or a U.S. resident alien. For more information see Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens.

[871] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 20: “Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Filing Statistics … Table 1—Forms 1040 With ITINs [Individual Taxpayer Identification Number] … Processing Year … 2010 … ITIN Returns [=] 3.02 M … Total Tax [=] $870.07 M … % of Returns With Refund & No Tax [=] 73% … Total Refunds [=] $4.93 B”

[872] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Page 94: “By design, low-income households are more likely to access public benefits programs than are high-income households.”

[873] Calculated with the dataset: “Table S0501: Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

Poverty Status in the Last 12 Months … Population for Whom Poverty Status Is Determined …

Below 100 Percent of the Poverty Level … Total [=] 12.8% … Native [=] 12.6% … Foreign Born; Naturalized Citizen [=] 10.6% … Foreign Born; Not a U.S. Citizen [=] 17.8% …

100 to 199 Percent of the Poverty Level … Total [=] 15.8% … Native [=] 15.4% … Foreign Born; Naturalized Citizen [=] 15.2% … Foreign Born; Not a U.S. Citizen [=] 22.7%

CALCULATIONS:

  • 12.8% + 15.8% = 28.6%
  • 12.6% + 15.4% = 28.0%
  • 10.6% + 15.2% = 25.8%
  • 17.8% + 22.7% = 40.5%

NOTE: Like all Census Bureau measures of “money” income, this dataset doesn’t include noncash benefits like subsidized housing, food stamps, charitable services, and government or employer-provided health benefits. Also, the data is collected via government surveys, and low-income households substantially underreport their income on such surveys.

[874] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Page 95: “Table 3-14. Percentage of Immigrants and Their Children in Poverty and Near Poverty, by Source Country and World Region of Birth, 2011”

NOTE: Like all Census Bureau measures of “money” income, this dataset doesn’t include noncash benefits like subsidized housing, food stamps, charitable services, and government or employer-provided health benefits. Also, the data is collected via government surveys, and low-income households substantially underreport their income on such surveys.

[875] Calculated with data from the report: “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012.” By Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, March 2013. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 7: “Country of Birth and State of Residence of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population: January 2000 and 2005–2012”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[876] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 14, Section 1601: “Statements of National Policy Concerning Welfare and Immigration.” Accessed October 11, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

The Congress makes the following statements concerning national policy with respect to welfare and immigration:

(1) Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes.

(2) It continues to be the immigration policy of the United States that—

(A) aliens within the Nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations, and

(B) the availability of public benefits not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States.

(3) Despite the principle of self-sufficiency, aliens have been applying for and receiving public benefits from Federal, State, and local governments at increasing rates.

(4) Current eligibility rules for public assistance and unenforceable financial support agreements have proved wholly incapable of assuring that individual aliens not burden the public benefits system.

(5) It is a compelling government interest to enact new rules for eligibility and sponsorship agreements in order to assure that aliens be self-reliant in accordance with national immigration policy.

(6) It is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.

(7) With respect to the State authority to make determinations concerning the eligibility of qualified aliens for public benefits in this chapter, a State that chooses to follow the Federal classification in determining the eligibility of such aliens for public assistance shall be considered to have chosen the least restrictive means available for achieving the compelling governmental interest of assuring that aliens be self-reliant in accordance with national immigration policy.

[877] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 1:

Everyone who is employed in the United States (U.S.) is required to have a Social Security Number (SSN). An SSN is a unique, nine-digit identification number used for taxpayer identification, income reporting, and record-keeping purposes. The Social Security Administration issues numbers to all U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and eligible foreign nationals. Generally, only those noncitizens authorized to work in the United States by the Department of Homeland Security can get an SSN.

Any person required to file a tax return is required to include an identifying number, referred to as a taxpayer identification number. For the majority of filers, the taxpayer identification number is the individual’s SSN. Non-U.S. citizens who do not have employment authorization must prove a valid reason for requesting an SSN in order to receive one. There are very limited circumstances for this, and these Social Security Cards are marked “Not Valid for Employment.”

Many individuals who are not eligible to obtain an SSN earn income in the United States. This presents a problem for tax administration because the Internal Revenue Code requires foreign investors and individuals working without authorization in the United States to file tax returns and pay any Federal income taxes owed. As explained by a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner, “the IRS’s job is to make sure that everyone who earns income within our borders pays the proper amount of taxes, even if they may not be working here legally.” …

An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) is available to individuals who are required to have a taxpayer identification number for tax purposes, but do not have and are not eligible to obtain an SSN because they are not authorized to work in the United States. An ITIN is issued by the IRS and looks very similar to an SSN in that it is a nine-digit number. ITINs are issued regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code. ITINs are for Federal tax reporting only and are not intended to serve any other purpose. Even income obtained illegally is subject to income taxes. Therefore, the IRS issues ITINs to help individuals comply with the U.S. tax laws and to provide a means to process and account for tax returns and payments for those not eligible for SSNs. An ITIN does not authorize an individual to work in the United States or provide eligibility for Social Security benefits or the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC); however, the IRS currently processes claims for the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), a refundable tax credit, filed by taxpayers with ITINs.

Page 2:

Refundable credits can result in refunds even if no income tax is withheld or paid; that is, the credits can exceed the liability for the tax. Two of the largest refundable tax credits are the EITC and the ACTC. The appropriations for these credits in Fiscal Year 2010 were $54.7 billion for the EITC and $22.7 billion2 for the ACTC. Because concerns were raised by Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and the IRS regarding noncompliance with EITC requirements, a law was passed in Calendar Year 1996 to deny the EITC to individuals who file a tax return without an SSN that is valid for employment.3 As such, filers using an ITIN are not eligible for the EITC. The change in the law was made prior to the establishment of the ACTC.4 However, the same law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the United States from receiving most Federal public benefits, with the exception of certain emergency services and programs.

Nonetheless, IRS management’s view is that the law does not provide sufficient legal authority for the IRS to disallow the ACTC to ITIN filers. In addition, the Internal Revenue Code does not require an SSN to claim the ACTC and does not provide the IRS math error authority to deny the credit without an examination. As such, the IRS continues to pay the ACTC to ITIN filers.

The ACTC is the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC). The CTC can reduce an individual’s taxes owed by as much as $1,000 for each qualifying child. The ACTC is provided in addition to the CTC to individuals whose taxes owed were less than the amount of CTC they were entitled to claim. The ACTC is always the refundable portion of the CTC, which means an individual claiming the ACTC receives a refund even if no income tax was withheld or paid. As with all refundable credits, the risk of fraud for these types of claims is significant. …

3 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-193).

4 The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Pub. L. No. 105-34) established the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit.

Page 4:

Although they are not authorized to work in the United States, ITIN filers are receiving billions of dollars in CTCs and ACTCs intended for working families. Prior to Tax Year7 2001, the CTC was only refundable if the taxpayer had three or more qualifying children and Social Security taxes8 exceeding any earned income credits. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 20019 removed these requirements and increased the CTC over time from $500 to $1,000 per child, making more families eligible for the refundable portion of the credit (known as the ACTC). Since then, claims for the ACTC by ITIN filers have increased significantly. In Processing Year 2005, 796,000 ITIN filers claimed ACTCs totaling $924 million. By Processing Year 2008, these claims had risen to 1,526,276 ITIN filers claiming ACTCs totaling $2.1 billion.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)10 temporarily increased eligibility by changing the income threshold for calculating the ACTC for Tax Years 2009 and 2010. Prior to the Recovery Act, the ACTC would have been limited to 15 percent of earned income more than $12,550. The Recovery Act changed this threshold to 15 percent of earned income more than $3,000. As such, more taxpayers could claim the ACTC or claim a greater amount. In Processing Year 2010, 2.3 million ITIN filers claimed ACTCs totaling $4.2 billion.11

[878] Webpage: “What You Need to Know about CTC and ACTC.” Internal Revenue Service. Last reviewed or updated August 16, 2022. <www.eitc.irs.gov>

Here’s what you need to know about the Child Tax Credit (CTC), the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) the refundable portion and the Credit for Other Dependents (ODC). …

• Know that for CTC/ACTC:

• The maximum amount of CTC per qualifying child is $2,000.

• The refundable part of the credit, ACTC, is worth up to $1,400 for each qualifying child.

• A qualifying child must have a Social Security Number issued by the Social Security Administration before the due date of your tax return (including extensions).

• CTC/ACTC begins to decrease in value if your gross incomes exceed $200,000 ($400,000 for Married Filing Jointly).

• ACTC is not allowed if you or your spouse (if filing a joint return) file a Form 2555 or Form 2555EZ (excluding foreign earned income).

• Know who is a qualifying child for CTC/ACTC. The child must:

• Be under 17 at the end of the tax year.

• Meet the relationship and residency tests for uniform definition of a qualifying child, see the Child-Related Tax Benefits Comparison Chart.

• Not provide more than half of his or her own support for the tax year

• Have lived with you for more than half the tax year (see Publication 972, Child Tax Credit, for exceptions for birth or death during the year, temporary absences, kidnapped or missing or children of divorced or separated parents)

• Be claimed as a dependent on your return

• Not file a joint return for the year (or filed the joint return only to claim a refund of taxes withheld or estimated taxes)

• Be U.S. citizen, U.S. National or a U.S. resident alien. For more information see Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens.

• Must have a Social Security Number issued by the Social Security Administration before the due date of your tax return (including extensions).

[879] United States Code Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter XVIII, Part E, Section 1395dd: “Examination and Treatment for Emergency Medical Conditions and Women in Labor.” Accessed October 11, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Medical Screening Requirement

In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1)) exists.

(b) Necessary Stabilizing Treatment for Emergency Medical Conditions and Labor

(1) In General

If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—

(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or

(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c). …

(e) Definitions

In this section:

(1) The term “emergency medical condition” means—

(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—

(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,

(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or

(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—

(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or

(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

(2) The term “participating hospital” means a hospital that has entered into a provider agreement under section 1395cc of this title.

(3)

(A) The term “to stabilize” means, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(A), to provide such medical treatment of the condition as may be necessary to assure, within reasonable medical probability, that no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a facility, or, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(B), to deliver (including the placenta).

[880] Report: “EMTALA: Access to Emergency Medical Care.” By Edward C. Liu. Congressional Research Service, July 1, 2010. <www.everycrsreport.com>

Page 2 (of PDF):

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) ensures universal access to emergency medical care at all Medicare participating hospitals with emergency departments. Under EMTALA, any person who seeks emergency medical care at a covered facility, regardless of ability to pay, immigration status, or any other characteristic, is guaranteed an appropriate screening exam and stabilization treatment before transfer or discharge. Failure to abide by these requirements can subject hospitals or physicians to civil monetary sanctions or exclusion from Medicare. Hospitals may also be subject to civil liability under the statute for personal injuries resulting from the violation.

Page 1:

Only hospitals that (1) participate in Medicare and (2) maintain an emergency department are required to screen patients under EMTALA.7

7 … Although the screening and stabilization requirements are phrased such that they apply to “hospitals” generally, enforcement of EMTALA is only authorized against hospitals that have entered into a Medicare provider agreement.

[881] Report: “Underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid.” American Hospital Association, February 2022. <www.aha.org>

Page 1:

Hospital participation in Medicare and Medicaid is voluntary. However, as a condition for receiving federal tax exemption for providing health care to the community, not-for-profit hospitals are required to care for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Also, Medicare and Medicaid account for more than 60 percent of all care provided by hospitals. Consequently, very few hospitals can elect not to participate in Medicare and Medicaid.

[882] Report: “Review of Medicaid Funding for Emergency Services Provided to Nonqualified Aliens.” By Daniel R. Levinson. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General, September 2010. <oig.hhs.gov>

Page 1:

Pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the Act), the Medicaid program provides medical assistance to low-income individuals and low income individuals with disabilities. …

Federal Emergency Medicaid Funding for Aliens

Section 1903(v) of the Act states that Federal Medicaid funding is available to States for medical services provided to aliens who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law only when those services are necessary to treat an emergency medical condition. Further, 42 CFR § 440.255 states that Federal Medicaid funding is available to States for medical services provided to aliens granted lawful temporary resident status or lawful permanent resident status and who meet all other requirements for Medicaid only when those services are necessary to treat an emergency medical condition.

Section 1903(v) of the Act and 42 CFR § 440.255 define an emergency medical condition as one manifested by acute symptoms of such severity that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in (1) placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy, (2) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (3) serious dysfunction of any body part or organ. Further, 42 CFR § 440.255 specifies that there must be “sudden onset” of the condition. In addition, 42 CFR § 440.255 states that Federal Medicaid funding is available to States for services provided to pregnant women if a provision is included in the approved State plan. These services include routine prenatal care, labor and delivery, and routine postpartum care.

[883] Booklet: “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Your Guide to Putting the Pieces Together.” Washington, D.C. Department of Human Services, April 18, 2014. <dhs.dc.gov>

Page 41:

Social Services For Immigrants

Even if you do not have papers, you can get help such as:

• Emergency food assistance from food banks …

• Health care at community clinics

• Emergency shelter and rent assistance

• Job training

• Adult education

[884] Ruling: Plyler v. Doe. U.S. Supreme Court, June 15, 1982. Decided 5–4. Majority: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens. Concurring (all separately): Marshall Blackmun, Powell. Dissenting: Burger, White, Rehnquist, O’Connor. <www.law.cornell.edu>

Majority:

The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens. …

In May, 1975, the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to withhold from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States. The 1975 revision also authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in their public schools to children not “legally admitted” to the country. …

This is a class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in September, 1977, on behalf of certain school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Smith County, Tex., who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United States. …

Public education is not a “right” granted to individuals by the Constitution…. But neither is it merely some governmental “benefit” indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. Both the importance of education in maintaining our basic institutions and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child mark the distinction. The “American people have always regarded education and [the] acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance.” …

In addition to the pivotal role of education in sustaining our political and cultural heritage, denial of education to some isolated group of children poses an affront to one of the goals of the Equal Protection Clause: the abolition of governmental barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit. Paradoxically, by depriving the children of any disfavored group of an education, we foreclose the means by which that group might raise the level of esteem in which it is held by the majority. But more directly, “education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society.” … Illiteracy is an enduring disability. The inability to read and write will handicap the individual deprived of a basic education each and every day of his life. The inestimable toll of that deprivation on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological wellbeing of the individual, and the obstacle it poses to individual achievement, make it most difficult to reconcile the cost or the principle of a status-based denial of basic education with the framework of equality embodied in the Equal Protection Clause. …

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. …

These well-settled principles allow us to determine the proper level of deference to be afforded…. Undocumented aliens cannot be treated as a suspect class, because their presence in this country in violation of federal law is not a “constitutional irrelevancy.” Nor is education a fundamental right; a State need not justify by compelling necessity every variation in the manner in which education is provided to its population. …

If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is Affirmed.

Dissent:

However, the Constitution does not constitute us as “Platonic Guardians,” nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, “wisdom,” or “common sense.” … We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role as the Court does today. …

The dispositive issue in these cases, simply put, is whether, for purposes of allocating its finite resources, a state has a legitimate reason to differentiate between persons who are lawfully within the state and those who are unlawfully there. The distinction the State of Texas has drawn—based not only upon its own legitimate interests but on classifications established by the Federal Government in its immigration laws and policies—is not unconstitutional. …

The second strand of the Court’s analysis rests on the premise that, although public education is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, “neither is it merely some governmental ‘benefit’ indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation.” … Whatever meaning or relevance this opaque observation might have in some other context8 it simply has no bearing on the issues at hand. Indeed, it is never made clear what the Court’s opinion means on this score. …

The Equal Protection Clause guarantees similar treatment of similarly situated persons, but it does not mandate a constitutional hierarchy of governmental services. …

Without laboring what will undoubtedly seem obvious to many, it simply is not “irrational” for a state to conclude that it does not have the same responsibility to provide benefits for persons whose very presence in the state and this country is illegal as it does to provide for persons lawfully present. By definition, illegal aliens have no right whatever to be here, and the state may reasonably, and constitutionally, elect not to provide them with governmental services at the expense of those who are lawfully in the state.

[885] “Eligibility Manual for School Meals: Determining and Verifying Eligibility.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, Child Nutrition Programs, July 18, 2017. <fns-prod.azureedge.us>

Page 78:

An LEA [local education agency] may not request that applicants provide information regarding citizenship. USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] has determined the CNPs [Child Nutrition Programs] are not subject to Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which restricts certain welfare and public benefits for undocumented individuals. United States citizenship or immigration status is not a condition of eligibility for free and reduced price benefits. LEAs must apply the same eligibility criteria for citizens and non-citizens.

[886] Booklet: “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Your Guide to Putting the Pieces Together.” Washington, D.C. Department of Human Services, April 18, 2014. <dhs.dc.gov>

Page 41:

Social Services For Immigrants

Even if you do not have papers, you can get help such as …

• Head Start preschool for your children …

• Child care services

[887] Report: “Early Child Care and Education: HHS and Education Are Taking Steps to Improve Workforce Data and Enhance Worker Quality.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 2012. <www.gao.gov>

Page 1:

The federal government helps to improve access to high-quality ECCE [early child care and education] programs by subsidizing program costs. The two largest federal efforts are the Head Start program, funded at approximately $7.2 billion, and the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), funded at approximately $5.0 billion in fiscal year 2010. These funding sources, as well as billions of dollars in other ECCE federal funding, are overseen by the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education (Education) and the relevant state agencies to which these monies are allocated.

[888] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part A (Citizenship and Naturalization Policies and Procedures), Chapter 2 (Becoming a U.S. Citizen):

A person may derive or acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. Persons who are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens at birth. Persons who are born in certain territories of the United States also may be citizens at birth. In general, but subject in some cases to other requirements, including residence requirements as of certain dates, this includes persons born in:

• Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899;1

• Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904;2

• Virgin Islands on or after January 17, 1917;3

• Guam born after April 11, 1899;4 or

• Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) on or after November 4, 1986.5

Persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are generally considered nationals but not citizens of the United States.6

In addition, persons who are born outside of the United States may be U.S. citizens at birth if one or both parents were U.S. citizens at their time of birth. Persons who are not U.S. citizens at birth may become U.S. citizens through naturalization. Naturalization is the conferring of U.S. citizenship after birth by any means whatsoever.

1 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 302.

2 See INA 303. If the person was born in the Canal Zone, he or she acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if born between February 26, 1904 and October 1, 1979, and one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth. The Canal Zone ceased to exist on October 1, 1979. See the so-called Torrijos–Carter Treaties (September 7, 1977). If the person was born in the Republic of Panama, but not in the Canal Zone, one parent must have been a U.S. citizen parent employed by the U.S. Government, or by the Panama Railroad Company, at the time of the person’s birth.

3 See INA 306.

4 See INA 307.

5 See Section 303 of the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, Pub. L. 94-241 (PDF), 90 Stat. 263, 266 (March 24, 1976) (48 U.S.C. 1801 note). In addition, certain persons in the CNMI who were born before November 4, 1986, and their children if under age 18 on that date, became U.S. citizens at that time. See Section 301 of Pub. L. 94-241 (PDF), 90 Stat. 263, 265–66 (March 24, 1976) (48 U.S.C. 1801 note). In addition, the Department of State will issue U.S. passports to persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands between January 9, 1978 and November 3, 1986, pursuant to a judicial decision holding that such persons are U.S. citizens. See Sabangan v. Powell, 375 F. 3d 818 (9th Cir. 2004).

6 See INA 308.

NOTE: For more facts about this issue, see the birthright citizenship section of this research.

[889] Article: “Arriving as Pregnant Tourists, Leaving with American Babies.” By Jennifer Medina. New York Times, March 28, 2011. <www.nytimes.com>

For months, officials say, the house was home to “maternity tourists,” in this case, women from China who had paid tens of thousands of dollars to deliver their babies in the United States, making the infants automatic American citizens. …

Immigration experts say it is impossible to know precisely how widespread “maternity tourism” is. Businesses in China, Mexico and South Korea advertise packages that arrange for doctors, insurance and postpartum care. And the Marmara, a Turkish-owned hotel on the Upper East Side in New York City, has advertised monthlong “baby stays” that come with a stroller. …

The State Department, which grants tourist visas, is not permitted to deny visa applications simply because a woman is pregnant.

[890] Book: U.S. Immigration and Education: Cultural and Policy Issues Across the Lifespan. Edited by Elena L. Grigorenko. Springer, 2013.

Chapter 4: “Parent and Child Citizenship Status and Youth Development. By Xu Zhao and Hirokazu Yoshikawa. Pages 59–76.

Page 63: “U.S.-born citizen children are eligible for federal and state assistance programs regardless of their parents’ documentation or citizenship status.”

[891] “Guide to Public Benefits for Immigrants.” By Daniel Browne and others. City of New York, Public Advocate and the New York Immigration Coalition, November 2008. <www.nyc.gov>

Page 4: “Undocumented immigrants cannot get most state and federal public benefits, but these benefits are still available to their citizen children. For example, if you are an undocumented immigrant, you are not eligible for Food Stamps, but you can apply for Food Stamps for your citizen children.”

Page 5: “For needs-based benefit programs that look at household income (such as food stamps or welfare), an ineligible (PRUCOL [permanently residing under color of law] or undocumented) adult can apply for eligible household members (citizen children or qualified immigrant children).”

[892] Webpage: “Government Benefits.” USA.gov. Last updated August 9, 2022. <www.usa.gov>

Get information on government programs that may help you pay for food, housing, health care, and other basic living expenses. Find out about eligibility requirements for programs like food stamps, welfare, and Medicaid, and how to apply for them. …

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal nutrition program. Known previously as “food stamps,” SNAP benefits can help you stretch your food budget if you have a low income. …

To determine if you are eligible for SNAP benefits, you must meet certain requirements. States have income limits for SNAP recipients. They can also factor in your resources, such as money in the bank, to decide if you qualify for SNAP. …

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a federally funded, state-run benefits program. Also known as welfare, TANF helps families achieve independence after experiencing temporary difficulties. …

Medicaid is a federal and state health insurance program for people with a low income.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) offers health coverage to children. To be eligible, the child’s family must have an income that is:

• Too high to qualify for Medicaid

• Too low to afford private coverage …

If your income is too high for Medicaid, your child may still qualify for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). It covers medical and dental care for uninsured children and teens up to age 19.

[893] Booklet: “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Your Guide to Putting the Pieces Together.” Washington, D.C. Department of Human Services, April 18, 2014. <dhs.dc.gov>

Page 14:

Most people can now only get TANF [Temporary Assistance For Needy Families, a.k.a. cash welfare] money for 60 months. …

Some caregivers, like grandparents, aunts, and uncles who are receiving TANF just for children may be able to receive TANF for longer than 60 months (see page 30).

Page 40:

If you do not have papers, but your children do, or your children are U.S. citizens, you can get help for your children. If you only want help for your children, you do not have to tell the worker what type of immigration papers you have. You only need to show social security numbers for the people applying for help. …

If you say that you are “not qualified,” your worker should not ask questions about your [immigration] status. If your worker asks you questions about your status, you do not have to answer. To get information about TANF, Food Stamps, or Medicaid benefits, in your native language see page 40.

[894] Report: “Medicaid: An Overview.” By Alison Mitchell and others. Congressional Research Service. Updated February 22, 2021. <crsreports.congress.gov>

Pages 6–7:

Medicaid is also a means-tested program that is limited to those with financial need. However, the criteria used to determine financial eligibility—income and sometimes resource (i.e., asset) tests—vary by eligibility group.

For most eligibility groups the criteria used to determine eligibility are based on modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) income counting rules. There is no resource or asset test used to determine Medicaid financial eligibility for MAGI-eligible individuals.28

While MAGI applies to most Medicaid-eligible populations, certain populations such as older adults and individuals with disabilities are statutorily exempt from MAGI income counting rules. Instead, Medicaid financial eligibility for MAGI-exempted populations is based on the income counting rules that match the most closely related social program for the group involved (such as SSI program rules for aged, blind, or disabled eligibility groups). For MAGI-exempt eligibility groups, income disregards and assets or resource tests may apply.

[895] Webpage: “FAQ: Eligibility & Benefits.” Pennsylvania State Department of Human Services. Accessed October 11, 2022 at <www.dhs.pa.gov>

I live with my boyfriend or girlfriend – Do I have to include their income?

The CHIP [Children’s Health Insurance Program] application requires that you provide information including income for everyone who lives with you and everyone who is expected to be included on your tax return, even if they do not live with you. CHIP has rules that determine who is included and those that are not included when determining eligibility.

My child and I live with my parents – Do I have to include my parent’s income?

Yes, the CHIP application requires that you provide information, including income, for everyone who lives with you as well as everyone who is expected to be included on your tax return even if they do not live with you. CHIP has rules that determine who is included and who is not included when determining eligibility. For example, your parent’s income may be counted when determining eligibility for you and your child if you are claimed as a tax dependent on their tax return.

[896] “MaineCare Eligibility Guide.” Consumers for Affordable Health Care and Maine Equal Justice, September 9, 2022. <www.mainecahc.org>

Page 38:

What income does not count: (partial list)

• Income from someone living in the same space as the applicant(s) who does not have financial responsibility for the applicant. Those not legally responsible are not financially responsible and their income does not count. These other household members also do not count in figuring household size. These individuals may be eligible for MaineCare in a different category and as a separate household.

[897] Calculated with data from the report: “U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Total Dips to Lowest Level in a Decade.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and others. Pew Research Center, November 27, 2018. Updated 6/25/19. <www.pewresearch.org>

Page 12:

Most unauthorized immigrants live with spouses, partners, their children or other relatives. In 2016, 5.6 million children younger than 18 were living with unauthorized immigrant parents.5 Of these, 675,000 were unauthorized immigrants themselves, a number that has fallen by half since 2007. The other 5 million children were born in the U.S., a number that rose from 4.5 million in 2007.

5 More than 99% of the U.S.-born and unauthorized immigrant children live with their unauthorized immigrant parents or live in households where the only adult(s) are a related unauthorized immigrant or a related couple where one or both spouses/partners are unauthorized immigrants. See Methodology for details.

Page 48:

Small modifications to these definitions are made in defining “U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants” and “unauthorized immigrant children.” First, these groups comprise all individuals under 18 who are the child of an unauthorized immigrant in the household even if the child is a parent or spouse/partner themselves. More than 99% of individuals classified as children of unauthorized immigrants fit this definition. Then, individuals under 18 who live in households where the only adult(s) are an unauthorized immigrant or a couple in which one or both are unauthorized immigrants; further, an adult is a relative of the child. This group accounts for about 45,000 of the 5 million U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrant in 2016 and about 4,000 of the 675,000 unauthorized immigrant children. Finally, the 5 million U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants include about 10,000 children who are actually lawful immigrants with an unauthorized immigrant parent.

CALCULATION: (5,600,000 – 675,000) / 5,600,000 = 88%

[898] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Page 124:

One feature of PRWORA [Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996] and IIRIRA [Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996] is that states were allowed the option of providing fully state-funded safety net programs to legal immigrants not covered by federal programs. For example, several states or counties provide health coverage to children and/or pregnant women without a waiting period, regardless of their immigration status (Broder and Blazer, 2011). A report by the Pew Charitable Trusts (2014b) documented that 40 states and the District of Columbia either “supplement federal benefits programs with programs funded only by the states, or take the Unborn Child or CHIPRA [Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009] options that expand the federal programs with state and federal matching funds … [while] only 10 states have neither provided their own programs for immigrants nor taken up one of the federal-state options to expand eligibility.”

[899] Proposed regulation: “Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds.” U.S. Department of Justice, May 26, 1999. Pages 28676–8. <www.gpo.gov>

Page 28676:

Numerous states and localities also have funded public benefits, particularly medical and nutrition benefits, for aliens who are now ineligible for certain Federal public benefits. Congress further authorized states to enact laws after August 22, 1996, that affirmatively provide illegal aliens who would otherwise be ineligible for certain State and local benefits under the welfare reform law with such benefits. 8 U.S.C. 1621(d). A complete overview of all the public benefits and programs that remain available to various categories of aliens under the welfare reform law, as amended, is beyond the scope of this discussion.

[900] “Guide to Public Benefits for Immigrants.” By Daniel Browne and others. City of New York, Public Advocate and the New York Immigration Coalition, November 2008. <www.nyc.gov>

Page 4:

Undocumented immigrants cannot get most state and federal public benefits, but these benefits are still available to their citizen children. For example, if you are an undocumented immigrant, you are not eligible for Food Stamps, but you can apply for Food Stamps for your citizen children. …

In New York State, immigrants who are PRUCOL (Permanently Residing Under Color of Law) can qualify ONLY for state and city benefits. PRUCOL is not an official immigration status, but many immigrants are described this way. The PRUCOL category is used to describe many different situations in which an immigrant can get certain benefits. PRUCOL immigrants are people who are living in the United States; DHS [Department of Homeland Security] knows they are here and is not taking steps to deport them. Examples of PRUCOL include victims of crime (U visa holders), immigrants granted parole in the U.S. for less than 1 year, immigrants with deferred action status†, and other types of visa holders. Like the “qualified alien” category, PRUCOL is NOT an immigration status. It is just a category used to qualify for public benefits.

Page 5: “For needs-based benefit programs that look at household income (such as food stamps or welfare), an ineligible (PRUCOL or undocumented) adult can apply for eligible household members (citizen children or qualified immigrant children).”

Pages 6–7:

Public Benefits Chart with Eligibility Categories

PRUCOL (includes U visa holder):

Cash Assistance (Safety Net Assistance)

Child Tax Credit (Federal)

Empire State Child Tax Credit (State)

Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (Federal)

Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (State)

Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (City)

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (Federal)

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (State)

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (City)

Reduced Fare MetroCard for Seniors

Reduced Fare MetroCard for Disabled

Unemployment Insurance

School Meals (Breakfast and Lunch)

Summer Meals (Breakfast and Lunch)

Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC)

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)

Head Start

Universal Prekindergarten (UPK)

Out-of-School Time (OST)

Healthy NY (Working Individuals)

Healthy NY (Sole Proprietor)

Healthy NY (Small Employer)

Medicaid

Medicaid Excess Income

Family Health Plus

Children’s Medicaid (Child Health Plus A)

Child Health Plus B

Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP)

Nurse Family Partnership

Family Planning Benefit Program (FPBP)

Disability Rent Increase Exemption (DRIE)

Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption (SCRIE)

Senior Citizen Homeowner’s Exemption (SCHE)

School Tax Relief (STAR) (Basic and Enhanced)

Disabled Homeowner’s Exemption (DHE)

Veteran’s Exemption

Undocumented:

Child Tax Credit (Federal)

Empire State Child Tax Credit (State)

Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (Federal)

Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (State)

Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (City)

Reduced Fare MetroCard for Seniors

Reduced Fare MetroCard for Disabled

School Meals (Breakfast and Lunch)

Summer Meals (Breakfast and Lunch)

Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC)

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)

Head Start

Universal Prekindergarten (UPK)

Out-of-School Time (OST)

Healthy NY (Working Individuals)

Child Health Plus B [Undocumented children only]

Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP)

Nurse Family Partnership

NOTE: † This PRUCOL category applies to illegal immigrants who were granted a reprieve from deportation and other benefits by President Obama.

[901] Article: “Sources: Job Injury Fueled Slay Suspect’s Dispute with Lois Colley’s Family.” By Jonathan Bandler. Journal News (Westchester, NY), November 15, 2017. <www.lohud.com>

“Although Gomez was undocumented and in the United States illegally, he was entitled to file a workers compensation claim in New York.”

[902] Article: “Sources: Job Injury Fueled Slay Suspect’s Dispute with Lois Colley’s Family.” By Jonathan Bandler. Lower Hudson Valley Journal News, November 16, 2017. <www.lohud.com>

“Three law enforcement sources familiar with the investigation said Gomez had made a claim to the state Workers Compensation Board about a leg injury he had suffered.

Although Gomez was undocumented and in the United States illegally, he was entitled to file a workers compensation claim in New York.”

[903] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Page 96: “Unauthorized immigrants and individuals on nonimmigrant visas are not eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), non-emergency Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).”

[904] Book: U.S. Immigration and Education: Cultural and Policy Issues Across the Lifespan. Edited by Elena L. Grigorenko. Springer, 2013.

Chapter 4: “Parent and Child Citizenship Status and Youth Development. By Xu Zhao and Hirokazu Yoshikawa. Pages 59–76.

Page 63: “U.S.-born citizen children are eligible for federal and state assistance programs regardless of their parents’ documentation or citizenship status.”

[905] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Pages 96–97:

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) introduced additional restrictions. The former made lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and certain other lawfully residing immigrants ineligible for federal means-tested public benefit programs (such as Medicaid) for the first 5 years after receiving the relevant status. The latter also included a provision intended to prevent states from extending in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.18 LPRs who were previously eligible for assistance (before the enactment of these laws) became ineligible to receive assistance under the major federal benefits programs for a period of 5 years or longer. U.S.-born children of immigrants remained eligible for all programs, as they are citizens. Refugees and asylees also remained eligible for all programs.19 Subsequent amendments to the 1996 legislation restored benefits to legal immigrants for certain programs; for example, in 2002 SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] eligibility was extended to qualified immigrant children without a waiting period.

[906] Proposed regulation: “Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds.” U.S. Department of Justice, May 26, 1999. Pages 28676–8. <www.gpo.gov>

Page 28676:

On August 22, 1996, the President signed PRWORA [Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996], known as the welfare reform law. The welfare reform law and its amendments imposed new restrictions on the eligibility of aliens, whether present in the United States legally or illegally, for many Federal, State, and local public benefits. 8 U.S.C. 1601–1646 (as amended). Despite these new restrictions, many legal aliens remain eligible for at least some forms of public assistance, such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), among other benefits. Congress also chose not to apply the alien eligibility restrictions in the welfare reform law to emergency medical assistance; short-term, in-kind, non-cash emergency disaster relief; public health assistance related to immunizations and to treatment of the symptoms of a communicable disease; certain in-kind services (such as soup kitchens, etc.) designated by the Attorney General as necessary for the protection of life and safety; and assistance under certain Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs. 8 U.S.C. 1611(b)(1).

[907] Report: “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” By the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Edited by Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie. National Academies Press, September 22, 2016. <www.nap.edu>

Pages 96–97:

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) introduced additional restrictions. The former made lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and certain other lawfully residing immigrants ineligible for federal means-tested public benefit programs (such as Medicaid) for the first 5 years after receiving the relevant status. The latter also included a provision intended to prevent states from extending in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.18 LPRs who were previously eligible for assistance (before the enactment of these laws) became ineligible to receive assistance under the major federal benefits programs for a period of 5 years or longer. U.S.-born children of immigrants remained eligible for all programs, as they are citizens. Refugees and asylees also remained eligible for all programs.19 Subsequent amendments to the 1996 legislation restored benefits to legal immigrants for certain programs; for example, in 2002 SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] eligibility was extended to qualified immigrant children without a waiting period.

[908] Webpage: “Refugee Cash Assistance.” Washington State Department of Social and Health Service, Economic Services Administration. Accessed July 27, 2021 at <www.dshs.wa.gov>

The Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) program helps eligible refugees and other humanitarian immigrants by providing cash assistance for up to eight months from their arrival date in the United States (or from the date of their immigration status for asylees or victims of trafficking). RCA is for eligible people who do not have minor children.

To Be Eligible for RCA You Must:

• Provide documents issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) verifying your immigration status and date of arrival or eligibility;

• For refugees and Special Immigrant Visa holders, provide the name of the agency that resettled you;

• Meet immigration status requirements;

• Be willing and able to participate in work and training requirements (as allowed due to COVID-19 public health guidance and closures);

Meet income and resource requirements.

If you are otherwise eligible, you cannot be denied RCA because you have not yet received a Social Security Number.

Eligible Immigration Status Requirements:

Immigrants who entered the United States with one of the following statuses or were granted one them after entry may receive RCA benefits as long as they meet other eligibility requirements:

• Refugee

• Asylee

• Amerasian

• Cuban-Haitian entrant

• Certified victim of trafficking and their eligible family members

• Special Immigrant Visa holder from Iraq or Afghanistan and their eligible family members

If you have questions about whether or not you meet immigration status requirements, a staff member can help you.

[909] Dataset: “Table S0501: Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 16, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

“With Food Stamp/SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits… Total [=] 12.4% … Native [=] 11.8% … Foreign born; Naturalized citizen [=] 15.2% … Foreign born; Not a U.S. citizen [=] 16.4%”

[910] Report: “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2019.” By Kathryn Cronquist and Sarah Lauffer. U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 2021. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 24:

Seven percent of all SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] participants were citizen children living with noncitizen adults….38

38 Some of the noncitizen household members were legal residents of the United States and participated in SNAP with citizen children; others were ineligible because of their immigration status and did not participate.

Page 25:

Table 3.5. SNAP Benefits of Participants by Selected Demographic Characteristics

Participant Characteristic

Total Participants

Number (000)

Percent

Naturalized citizen

1,861

5.0

Refugee

295

0.8

Other noncitizen

1,141

3.1

Citizen children living with noncitizen adultsb

2,470

6.6

b Noncitizens may be inside or outside the SNAP household.

Page 36:

Noncitizen. In this report, noncitizen refers to individuals residing in the United States who are not natural-born or naturalized citizens. These include lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees, those granted a stay of deportation, and unauthorized aliens. Lawfully present noncitizens are subject to additional nonfinancial eligibility criteria (see Chapter 2). Unauthorized aliens are not eligible to receive SNAP benefits, but they may be nonparticipating members of SNAP households. …

Other Noncitizen. In this report, “other noncitizen” refers to eligible noncitizens who are not refugees, asylees or those granted a stay of deportation. See Noncitizen.

[911] Report: “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2019.” By Kathryn Cronquist and Sarah Lauffer. U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 2021. <fns-prod.azureedge.net>

Page 24:

Seven percent of all SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] participants were citizen children living with noncitizen adults….38

38 Some of the noncitizen household members were legal residents of the United States and participated in SNAP with citizen children; others were ineligible because of their immigration status and did not participate.

Page 25:

Table 3.5. SNAP Benefits of Participants by Selected Demographic Characteristics

Participant Characteristic

Total Participants

Number (000)

Percent

Naturalized citizen

1,861

5.0

Refugee

295

0.8

Other noncitizen

1,141

3.1

Citizen children living with noncitizen adultsb

2,470

6.6

b Noncitizens may be inside or outside the SNAP household.

Page 36:

Noncitizen. In this report, noncitizen refers to individuals residing in the United States who are not natural-born or naturalized citizens. These include lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees, those granted a stay of deportation, and unauthorized aliens. Lawfully present noncitizens are subject to additional nonfinancial eligibility criteria (see Chapter 2). Unauthorized aliens are not eligible to receive SNAP benefits, but they may be nonparticipating members of SNAP households. …

Other Noncitizen. In this report, “other noncitizen” refers to eligible noncitizens who are not refugees, asylees or those granted a stay of deportation. See Noncitizen.

[912] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Average Family Income by Citizenship Status, 2021.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

“Average of Total income amount – Family … Native-Born [=] $110,905 … Foreign-Born [=] $113,631 … Non-Citizen [=] $86,285”

b) Dataset: “Average Family Income by Hispanic Origin and Citizenship Status, 2021.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2022. <data.census.gov>

“Average of Total income amount – Family … Hispanic … Native-Born [=] $83,121 … Foreign-Born [=] $83,214 … Non-Citizen [=] $63,398”

CALCULATIONS:

  • ($113,631 – $110,905) / $110,905 = 2%
  • ($86,285 – $110,905) / $110,905 = –22%
  • ($63,398 – $110,905) / $110,905 = –43%

NOTE: Like all Census Bureau measures of “money” income, this dataset doesn’t include noncash benefits like subsidized housing, food stamps, charitable services, and government or employer-provided health benefits. Also, the data is collected via government surveys, and low-income households substantially underreport their income on such surveys.

[913] Webpage: “Supplemental Surveys.” U.S. Census Bureau. Last revised July 29, 2022. <www.census.gov>

“Annual Social and Economic Supplement … March … Provide data concerning … previous year’s income from all sources…. Periodicity: Annual”

[914] Report: “Design and Methodology: Current Population Survey—America’s Source for Labor Force Data.” U.S. Census Bureau, October 2019. <www2.census.gov>

Page 19: “A major reason for conducting the ASEC [Annual Social and Economic Supplement] in the month of March is to obtain better income data, given proximity to tax season.”

[915] Webpage: “Primary Insurance Amount.” United States Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary. Accessed November 2, 2020 at <www.ssa.gov>

PIA definition

The “primary insurance amount” (PIA) is the benefit (before rounding down to next lower whole dollar) a person would receive if he/she elects to begin receiving retirement benefits at his/her normal retirement age. At this age, the benefit is neither reduced for early retirement nor increased for delayed retirement.

PIA Formula Bend Points

The PIA is the sum of three separate percentages of portions of average indexed monthly earnings. The portions depend on the year in which a worker attains age 62, becomes disabled before age 62, or dies before attaining age 62.

For 2023 these portions are the first $1,115, the amount between $1,115 and $6,721, and the amount over $6,721. These dollar amounts are the “bend points” of the 2023 PIA formula. A table shows bend points, for years beginning with 1979, for both the PIA and maximum family benefit formulas.

PIA Formula

For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2023, or who dies in 2023 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of:

(a) 90 percent of the first $1,115 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus

(b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $1,115 and through $6,721, plus

(c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $6,721.

NOTE: The above PIA formula weights lower earnings (and thus lower taxes paid) more than greater earnings (and thus higher taxes paid).

[916] Calculated with data from:

a) Webpage: “Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates.” United States Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary. Accessed July 8, 2022 at <www.ssa.gov>

b) Webpage: “Social Security Quick Calculator.” United States Social Security Administration. Accessed July 8, 2022 at <www.ssa.gov>

NOTES:

  • On July 8, 2022, the following data was entered into the Quick Calculator:
    • An individual born December 29, 1998.
    • First year of work is 2022 (works the full year).
    • Retirement date of December 29, 2065 (67 years old).
    • Projected benefits to be quoted in today’s (2022) dollars.
  • For 1990 and later, the payroll tax rate for employees/employers combined or for self-employed persons is 12.4%. This does not account for the payroll tax holidays in 2011 and 2012, which are financed by general revenues. General revenue taxes are progressive so that higher-income households pay higher tax rates.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[917] Report: “Shorter Life Expectancy Reduces Projected Lifetime Benefits for Lower Earners.” Government Accountability Office, March 2016. <www.gao.gov>

Page 11:

Increasing life expectancy adds to the long-term financial challenges facing Social Security by contributing to the growing gap between annual program costs and revenues.28 Although life expectancy is only one factor contributing to this gap, as individuals live longer, on average, each year there are more individuals receiving benefits, adding to the upward pressure on program costs.

[918] Report: “Understanding the Benefits.” United States Social Security Administration, January 2022. <www.ssa.gov>

Page 7: “If you were born from 1943 to 1960, the age at which full retirement benefits are payable increases gradually to age 67 … Use the following chart to find out your full retirement age … Year of birth [=] 1960 or later … Full retirement age [=] 67.”

NOTE: Individuals who turned 40 years old in 2022 were born in 1982. Thus, their full retirement age is 67.

[919] Calculated with the data from the report: “Provisional Life Expectancy Estimates for 2021.” By Elizabeth Arias and others. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 2022. <www.cdc.gov>

Page 2:

Table. Provisional Expectation of Life, by Age, Hispanic Origin, Race for the Non-Hispanic Population, and Sex: United States, 2021 … Age (years) [=] 40 … Hispanic … Male [=] 37.3 … Female [=] 42.5 … Non-Hispanic white … Male [=] 36.5 … Female [=] 40.8 … Non-Hispanic black … Male [=] 32.0 … Female [=] 37.7 …

Life tables by Hispanic origin are based on death rates that have been adjusted for race and ethnicity misclassification on death certificates. Updated classification ratios were applied; see Technical Notes. Estimates are based on provisional data for 2021. Provisional data are subject to change as additional data are received.

NOTES:

  • The life expectancy for 40-year-olds beyond their full retirement age of 67 is determined by the formula: life expectancy for 40-year-olds (shown above) + 40 years – 67 years
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[920] Article: “U.S. Hispanics Outliving Whites, Blacks.” By Haya El Nasser. USA Today, October 14, 2010. <usatoday30.usatoday.com>

Hispanics live longer than whites or blacks, according to the first-ever life expectancy data for the U.S. Hispanic population, which were released Wednesday. …

Potential factors:

• Culture and lifestyle. Support from extended family and lower rates of smoking and drinking. “Latino groups in particular have very strong family and social ties,” says Hal Strelnick of the Montefiore Medical Center in New York City. “People who are very well socially connected do better than people who are isolated.”

• Migration. The “healthy migrant effect” argues that healthy people are more likely to emigrate. Hispanics have migrated to the USA in large numbers. Others theorize that when immigrants become ill, they might return home and die there.

[921] Book: Balancing Change and Tradition in Global Education Reform (2nd edition). Edited by Iris C. Rotberg. Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2010.

Chapter: “Concluding Thoughts: On Change, Tradition, and Choices.” By Iris C. Rotberg. Pages 381–403.

Page 385:

In many countries, immigration has led to increasingly diverse student populations, who are often concentrated in city centers or in the suburbs immediately surrounding. The dramatic increase in immigration (and, therefore, in the mix of racial/ethnic groups, cultures, and languages) has occurred in only a few decades. Even a country like the United States, with its long tradition of immigration and diversity, continues to have a significant increase in the proportion of students from minority populations. Indeed, in many parts of the country, the term minority is a misnomer.

The increasing diversity places new demands on school systems, which are often blamed for educational problems. Many school systems respond by attempting to reverse traditional practices, which are perceived as ineffective in serving new student populations. Thus, countries with highly centralized education systems have sought to relax central control in order to make schools more responsive to the diverse student population. Countries with the tradition of local control, on the other hand, have moved in the opposite direction and have increased central oversight—all in response to the perception the changing demographics require a shift from the status quo, whatever it was.

[922] Book: Differentiation in Practice: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum (Grades 9–12). By Carol A. Tomlinson and Cindy A. Strickland. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2005.

Page 1:

Today’s high school serve a more academically diverse student population than at any other time in history, and this diversity will only increase in the decades to come. The Education Research Service (Marx, 2010) has identified 10 trends likely to shape the educational future in the United States, four of these frame much of the teaching and learning challenges in contemporary high schools:

1) The United States is moving from a nation constituted by a majority population and a number of minority populations to a nation of minorities. Multiple cultures, races, and language groups will be the norm in our classrooms, and the range of competency or readiness levels within every subject will expand. Yet many teachers are still operating as if diverse backgrounds and readiness levels had no relation to learner success.

2. In order to teach culturally and academically diverse populations effectively, schools will have to move from standardized instruction to personalized instruction. Our best knowledge of effective teaching and learning suggest clearly the teacher responsiveness to race, gender, culture, readiness, experience, interest, and learning preferences results in increased student motivation and achievement. Yet we are prone to feel as if we are somehow being unfair—unegalitarian—when we plan differently for different students.

[923] Webpage: “Keeping America Safe.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Accessed May 26, 2021 at <www.ice.gov>

“ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] mission is to protect America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety. This mission is executed through the enforcement of more than 400 federal statutes and focuses on immigration enforcement and combating transnational crime.”

[924] Webpage: “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Updated September 1, 2022. <www.ice.gov>

ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] was created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the former U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. ICE now has more than 20,000 law enforcement and support personnel in more than 400 offices in the United States and around the world.

The agency has an annual budget of approximately $8 billion, primarily devoted to three operational directorates—Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). A fourth directorate—Management and Administration (M&A)—supports the three operational branches to advance the ICE mission.

[925] Calculated with the dataset: “Table 3.2. Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures.” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2022. <apps.bea.gov>

“[Billions of dollars] … Total expenditures … 2021 [=] 7,333.6”

CALCULATION: $8 billion ICE budget / $7,333.6 billion total federal spending = 0.11%

[926] Calculated with data from the report: “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, Convictions, Costs, and Removals.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, July 2018. <www.gao.gov>

Page 3 (of PDF):

GAO’s [U.S. Government Accountability Office] analyses also show that selected annual estimated operating costs of state prison systems to incarcerate SCAAP [State Criminal Alien Assistance Program] criminal aliens decreased from about $1.17 billion to about $1.11 billion from fiscal years 2010 through 2015. These selected costs included correctional officer salaries, medical care, food service, and utilities.

Page 10:

SCAAP is intended to provide reimbursement to states and localities for a portion of the correctional officer salary costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens who meet the definition of “undocumented criminal alien” under the SCAAP statute and the following criteria: (1) had at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law and (2) were incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period.26 Therefore, SCAAP is not intended to reimburse states and localities for all of the costs associated with incarcerating all criminal aliens.

Page 41:

We estimated that selected annual estimated operating costs—correctional officer salaries, medical care, food service, and utilities—of state prison systems to incarcerate SCAAP criminal aliens decreased 5 percent from fiscal years 2010 through 2015, from about $1.17 billion to about $1.11 billion, as shown in figure 15.60 These changes in costs correspond with a general decrease in the number of SCAAP criminal alien inmate days each year, even though the estimated selected operating costs per inmate generally increased each year.61

Pages 42–43:

We also estimated that the total amount that state prison systems expended totaled about $6.7 billion over the 6 years.62 Of this approximately $6.7 billion, state prison systems were eligible to be reimbursed for about $4.3 billion in correctional officer salaries under SCAAP—the only costs eligible for reimbursement under SCAAP. Based on available appropriations for SCAAP, the amount that the federal government reimbursed state prison systems for incarcerating SCAAP criminal aliens was about $750 million of the approximately $4.3 billion they were eligible to receive, or 17 percent from fiscal years 2010 through 2015. During the same time, we estimated that the federal government’s reimbursement, which is for a portion of correctional officer salaries, accounted for 9 percent to 14 percent of these state prison systems’ estimated selected operating costs. These selected operating costs might not represent the actual cost of incarceration because our estimates do not incorporate other expenditures beyond the four operating costs.

62 These selected estimated operating costs might not represent actual costs of incarceration. Our estimates do not incorporate other expenditures and actual data from selected state prison systems indicated that their costs tended to be higher than our estimated costs using selected operating costs.

CALCULATION: $750 million reimbursements / $6.7 billion costs = 11%

[927] Calculated with the dataset: “Table 3.3. State and Local Government Current Receipts and Expenditures [Billions of dollars].” U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2022. <apps.bea.gov>

Year

Total Expenditures (Billions)

2010

$2,446.4

2011

$2,434.4

2012

$2,450.7

2013

$2,512.6

2014

$2,597.3

2015

$2,704.8

Total

$15,146.2

NOTE: † Calculated by Just Facts

CALCULATION: $6.7 billion incarceration costs / $15,146.2 billion total state and local spending = 0.04%

[928] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 2 (of PDF):

Inconsistencies in data quality, collection, and definitions prevent a precise enumeration of total criminal aliens and key subgroups such as criminal aliens convicted of removable offenses and aggravated felonies. It is also not known what portion of these groups consists of legally present noncitizens and unauthorized aliens.

Pages 7–8:

Several obstacles challenge and limit the ability of researchers to accurately enumerate the criminal alien population or compare its criminal activity to other U.S. populations. For example, federal BOP [Bureau of Prisons] data include information on citizenship status according to a single noncitizen definition. In contrast, state and local criminal justice jurisdictions differ in how they classify noncitizen prisoners, and not all collect such information; this creates substantial inconsistencies in data quality and completeness at the state and local level. …

Data availability and reliability represent key obstacles to quantifying the national criminal alien population and its level of criminality. For example, no recent and complete publicly available data exist on two potentially useful indicators—arrests and convictions—at the state and local levels that distinguish between U.S. citizens and noncitizens.

[929] Book: Debates on U.S. Immigration. Edited by Judith Gans (University of Arizona), Elaine M. Replogle (University of Oregon), and Daniel Journal Tichenor (University of Oregon). Sage, 2012.

Chapter 13: “Crime.” By Trista L. Chaney (Federation for American Immigration Reform) and Walter A. Ewing (American Immigration Council). Pages 203–220.

Page 206:

Problems with Quantification of Research Data

The precise relationship between illegal aliens and criminality is nearly impossible to establish. Among the more significant reasons for this is the fact that the data collected uses the broader categories of “foreign-born” and “U.S.-born” criminals, and does not separately break out criminal activity by illegal aliens. …

The March 2007 FAIR [Federation for American Immigration Reform] study, Illegal Aliens and Crime Incidence, explains why data from studies regarding the criminality of aliens is often misleading. These studies often focus on “foreign-born” criminals versus U.S.-born criminals. Data for illegal aliens is not accurately represented by the category of “foreign-born.” As the FAIR study suggests, these individuals include legal immigrants and long-term nonimmigrants. These individuals have been “screened for any previous criminal activities before they can get a green card, … screened for criminal activity before they can become U.S. citizens, and … (are] required to state under oath whether they have any criminal history before they can get a visa.” Jack Martin, the author of the FAIR study, notes, “something would be very wrong with our visa screening process if research did not reveal that the foreign-born were less likely to have committed crimes in the United States than the native-born population.”

[930] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 7 (Adjustment of Status), Part A (Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures), Chapter 6 (Adjudicative Review):

To adjust status to a lawful permanent resident, an applicant must first be eligible for one of the immigrant visa categories established by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or another provision of law. …

Security Checks and National Security Concerns

USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] conducts background checks on all applicants for adjustment of status to enhance national security and protect the integrity of the immigration process by ensuring that USCIS grants lawful permanent resident status only to those applicants eligible for the requested benefit. The officer must ensure that all security checks are completed, unexpired, and resolved as necessary prior to adjudicating an adjustment application.

In general, a national security concern exists when a person or organization has been determined to have a link to past, current, or planned involvement in an activity or organization involved in terrorism, espionage, sabotage, or the illegal transfer of goods, technology, or sensitive information.2

2 See INA 212(a)(3)(A), INA 212(a)(3)(B), or INA 212(a)(3)(F). See INA 237(a)(4)(A) or INA 237(a)(4)(B).

[931] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part B (Naturalization Examination), Chapter 2 (Background and Security Checks):

A. Background Investigation

USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] conducts an investigation of the applicant upon his or her filing for naturalization. The investigation consists of certain criminal background and security checks.1 The background and security checks include collecting fingerprints and requesting a “name check” from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). In addition, USCIS conducts other inter-agency criminal background and security checks on all applicants for naturalization. The background and security checks apply to most applicants and must be conducted and completed before the applicant is scheduled for his or her naturalization interview.2

B. Fingerprints

1. Fingerprint Requirement

USCIS must collect fingerprint records as part of the background check process on applicants for naturalization regardless of their age.3 In general, applicants receive a biometric service appointment at a local Application Support Center (ASC) for collection of their biometrics (fingerprints, photographs, and signature).4

USCIS notifies applicants in writing to appear for fingerprinting after filing the naturalization application. Fingerprints are valid for 15 months from the date of processing by the FBI. An applicant abandons his or her naturalization application if the applicant fails to appear for the fingerprinting appointment without good cause and without notifying USCIS.5

Previously, USCIS had waived the fingerprint requirements for applicants 75 years old or older because it was difficult to capture readable fingerprints from this age group. As a result, applicants 75 years old or older were not required to appear at an ASC. Electronic processing of applications and improved technology now allows USCIS to capture fingerprints for applicants of all ages and enhances the ability to confirm identity and perform required background checks.6

Once an ASC collects an applicant’s biometrics, USCIS submits the records to the FBI for a full criminal background check.7 The response from the FBI that a full criminal background check has been completed includes confirmation that:

• The applicant does not have an administrative or a criminal record;

• The applicant has an administrative or a criminal record; or

• The applicant’s submitted fingerprint records have been determined unclassifiable for the purpose of conducting a criminal background check and have been rejected. …

C. FBI Name Checks

The FBI conducts “name checks” on all naturalization applicants, and disseminates the information contained in the FBI’s files to USCIS in response to the name check requests. The FBI’s National Name Check Program (NNCP) includes a search against the FBI’s Universal Index (UNI), which contains personnel, administrative, applicant, and criminal files compiled for law enforcement purposes. The FBI disseminates the information contained in the FBI’s files to USCIS in response to the name check requests.

The FBI name check must be completed and cleared before an applicant for naturalization is scheduled for his or her naturalization interview. A definitive FBI name check response of “NR” (No Record) or “PR” (Positive Response) is valid for the duration of the application for which they were conducted. Definitive responses used to support other applications are valid for 15 months from the FBI process date. A new name check is required in cases where the final adjudication and naturalization have not occurred within that timeframe or the name check was processed incorrectly.

1 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 335. See 8 CFR 335.1.

2 See 8 CFR 335.2(b).

3 See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 8 CFR 335.1, and 8 CFR 335.2. See Part I, Military Members and their Families, Chapter 6, Required Background Checks [12 USCIS-PM I.6], for guidance on the background and security check procedures for members or veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

4 See 8 CFR 103.2(a).

5 See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(13)(ii). See Chapter 4, Results of the Naturalization Examination [12 USCIS-PM B.4].

6 See ​INA 335​. See ​8 CFR 335.1​.

7 See 8 CFR 335.2(b).

[932] Report: “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, March 2011. <www.gao.gov>

Page 2: “There are no reliable population data on criminal aliens incarcerated in all state prison systems and local jails.”

[933] Book: Debates on U.S. Immigration. Edited by Judith Gans (University of Arizona), Elaine M. Replogle (University of Oregon), and Daniel Journal Tichenor (University of Oregon). Sage, 2012.

Chapter 13: “Crime.” By Trista L. Chaney (Federation for American Immigration Reform) and Walter A. Ewing (American Immigration Council). Pages 203–220.

Page 206:

Another reason for inaccurate data regarding the criminal activities of illegal aliens is that state or local government sanctuary policies, which prohibit law enforcement officers from inquiring into citizenship and immigration status, can distort data collection. The studies that have analyzed the prevalence of illegal alien crime often differ, too, in their classification of criminals. Some analyze populations of aliens who were merely detained, but never tried; others review only records of convictions; and yet others use arrests of illegal aliens as their baseline.

[934] “Annual Performance Report, Fiscal Years 2015–2017.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, February 10, 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 92:

In FY [fiscal year] 2015, many of ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] performance outcomes were negatively impacted by laws and policies in jurisdictions across the country that limit state and local law enforcement cooperation with ICE detainers, and federal court precedent that has resulted in the release of a greater number of criminal aliens on bonds and their placement on the slower, non-detained docket.

[935] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Pages 7–8:

Several obstacles challenge and limit the ability of researchers to accurately enumerate the criminal alien population or compare its criminal activity to other U.S. populations. For example, federal BOP [Bureau of Prisons] data include information on citizenship status according to a single noncitizen definition. In contrast, state and local criminal justice jurisdictions differ in how they classify noncitizen prisoners, and not all collect such information; this creates substantial inconsistencies in data quality and completeness at the state and local level. …

Data availability and reliability represent key obstacles to quantifying the national criminal alien population and its level of criminality. For example, no recent and complete publicly available data exist on two potentially useful indicators—arrests and convictions—at the state and local levels that distinguish between U.S. citizens and noncitizens.27

27 Recent public-use data on criminal aliens can be obtained from two sources: the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, which publishes the annual Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear report, and the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), which provides to the public the raw data for analysis. The aggregation of state- and local-level criminal justice data into meaningful datasets requires consistent definitions of specified populations and criminal activities, as well as consistent reporting practices. Moreover, it often relies on the voluntary participation of state criminal justice agencies. Definitional inconsistencies, reporting differences, and differing participation levels all reduce the reliability and comparability of state level data on the criminal alien population.

[936] Book: Debates on U.S. Immigration. Edited by Judith Gans (University of Arizona), Elaine M. Replogle (University of Oregon), and Daniel Journal Tichenor (University of Oregon). Sage, 2012.

Chapter 13: “Crime.” By Trista L. Chaney (Federation for American Immigration Reform) and Walter A. Ewing (American Immigration Council). Pages 203–220.

Page 206:

Finally, another possible reason for the lack of accurate data is that illegal alien crime is arguably underreported within illegal alien communities. Some analysts argue that because victims of crime in illegal alien communities fear apprehension and deportation, the crime rates of these communities remains higher than reported. Controlling for these factors creates very difficult technical problems, which is yet another reason that peer-reviewed research in this area has been so sparse.

[937] Report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Pages 2–3:

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of people living in the U.S. who were foreign born and not U.S. citizens was 21.7 million in January 2009. Of these, 12.6 million individuals were not legal permanent residents of the U.S. We refer to this group as other immigrants (other than legal permanent resident immigrants). Of this number, about 10.8 million resided in the U.S. in an unauthorized status. The remaining other immigrants resided in the U.S. in a temporary authorized status (for example students and workers with temporary visas).

… The estimated number of other immigrants working is 8.3 million in 2010. OCACT [Office of the Chief Actuary] estimates 0.6 million of the 8.3 million other immigrant workers in 2010 had temporary work authorized at some point in the past and have overstayed the term of their visas. In addition, OCACT estimates that 0.7 million unauthorized workers in 2010 obtained fraudulent birth certificates at some point in the past and these birth certificates allowed the workers to get an SSN [social security number]. Combining these two groups with the 1.3 million current visa holders with temporary authorization, we estimate 2.7 million other immigrants have SSNs in their name and thus can work, pay taxes, and have earnings credited to their record for potential benefits in the future.

OCACT estimates 1.8 million other immigrants worked and used an SSN that did not match their name in 2010. Their earnings may be credited to someone else’s record (when the SSN and name submitted to the employer match Social Security records) or may be credited to the Earnings Suspense File (when submitted with non-matching SSN and name). Finally, OCACT estimates 3.9 million other immigrants worked in the underground economy in 2010.

Eliminating the current visa holders with temporary authorization (1.3 million other immigrants with legal work authorization), and those in the underground economy (3.9 million unauthorized workers), we estimate that there are about 3.1 million unauthorized immigrants working and paying Social Security taxes in 2010.

[938] Article: “Senate Leader: ‘Half Of My Family’ Eligible For Deportation Under Trump Order.” CBS Los Angeles, February 6, 2017. <losangeles.cbslocal.com>

A Los Angeles lawmaker leading the fight to make California a so-called “sanctuary state” has suggested half of his family would be deported for using falsified Social Security cards and other fake identification.

California Senate Leader Kevin de Leon made the claims during testimony before the Senate’s Public Safety Committee for SB54, a bill introduced by De Leon that would create a statewide sanctuary for immigrants living in the country illegally.

[939] Hearing on Senate Bill 54: “Law Enforcement: Sharing Data.” California Senate, Public Safety Committee, January 31, 2017. <youtu.be>

Time marker 1:26:40:

Kevin De Leon

Immigrants who come to this country, the vast majority, irrespective of their legal status, are very hard-working, law-abiding residents who pay their taxes every year. And the reality is with the [Trump’s] executive order and the criteria that has been developed—any individual—I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under the executive order, because if they got a false social security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB [assembly bill] 60, if they got a false green card—and anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.

[940] Paper: “How Well Does the American Community Survey Count Naturalized Citizens?” By Jennifer Van Hooka and James D. Bachmeierb. Demographic Research, July 2, 2013. <www.demographic-research.org>

Page 2: “In the United States, data on naturalization and citizenship largely come from Census Bureau surveys, such as the Current Population Survey (CPS), the long form of the decennial Census (2000 and earlier), and the American Community Survey (ACS).”

Page 3:

There are good reasons to suspect that citizenship is inaccurately estimated in Census data. During the late 1990s, Passel and Clark (1997) compared the number of persons that are reported as naturalized in the 1990 Census and the 1996 Current Population Survey (CPS) with the number of naturalized citizens based on administrative data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They found the Census/CPS estimates to be much higher than the INS-based estimates for two groups. Among new arrivals (those in the U.S. fewer than five years) from all national origins, about 75% of those who were reported as naturalized were probably not. Among longer-resident Mexican and Central American immigrants, about one-third of those who were reported as naturalized were probably not.

Page 5:

To assess the current level of citizenship reporting error, we estimated the number of naturalized citizens in mid-year 2010 by age group, sex, region of origin, and duration of residence based on the number of Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) naturalization records. We then compared the OIS-based estimates with the corresponding numbers in the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) (also a mid-year estimate). The difference between the two provides an indication of over- or under-representation of naturalized citizenship in the ACS.

Page 17:

Table 2 reports the naturalization estimates by sex, region of birth, and duration of U.S. residence. For both men and women from all origin regions, the estimated number of naturalized citizens in the ACS is substantially and significantly higher than the OIS-based estimates among immigrants with fewer than five years in the U.S. For example, the number of naturalized Mexican men with fewer than five years of U.S. residence is nearly 27 times higher (2587%) in the ACS than the OIS estimates. Another way to express this is that among the 16 thousand reporting as citizens in the ACS, only about 600 (or about 4 percent) are likely to actually be naturalized citizens. Among those in the U.S. for five or more years, the OIS-ACS gap is much lower in relative terms, and concentrated among Mexican men.

Page 19:

In Table 3, OIS and ACS estimates are presented for Mexican and non-Mexican men and women by age group by varying rates of emigration. We note that the OIS estimates do not always decline as emigration increases from the “low” to the “moderate” to the “high” series because of age crossovers in various emigration estimates. Regardless of assumptions about emigration, ACS estimates are especially high relative to the OIS-based estimates among Mexican men of all age groups and Mexican women aged 40 and older. The same pattern does not hold among non-Mexicans, among whom the discrepancy remains relatively low across all age groups.

[941] Report: “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, Convictions, Costs, and Removals.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, July 2018. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 4–7:

In general, we analyzed data separately for criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons and SCAAP [Department of Justice’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program] criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails—which we refer to as our two study populations.8 The time periods we analyzed varied for our federal study population compared to our state and local study population because they reflect updates since we last reported on these issues in 2011 and because we used the most recent data available at the time of our analysis.9 … Overall, our findings are not generalizable to criminal aliens not included in our federal and state and local study populations. However, they provide valuable insights into the criminal aliens incarcerated in the United States. For example, we used SCAAP data because there are no reliable population data on all criminal aliens incarcerated in every U.S. state prison and local jail.12 SCAAP provides reliable data on certain criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails but does not include (a) criminal aliens incarcerated in states or localities that did not apply for and receive federal reimbursement for costs of incarceration and (b) aliens with lawful immigration status who were not the subject of removal proceedings at the time they were taken into custody.13 Further, to be eligible for reimbursement, the aliens must meet the definition of “undocumented criminal alien” under the SCAAP statute and the following criteria: (1) had at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law and (2) were incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period.14 Thus, our state and local criminal alien data represent only a portion of the total population of criminal aliens incarcerated at the state and local level.

To determine the number and nationalities—based on country of citizenship or country of birth data—of incarcerated criminal aliens, we analyzed BOP [Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons] data on criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2011 through 2016 and SCAAP data on SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prisons and local jails from fiscal years 2010 through 2015.15 BOP obtains country of citizenship data from presentence investigation reports, which may be based on documentation or be self-reported.16 SCAAP country of birth data are provided to DOJ [Department of Justice] by states and localities that participate in SCAAP.17

To determine the number and types of offenses for which criminal aliens were arrested and convicted, we analyzed various federal and state data. Specifically, for arrests, we matched a random sample of 500 criminal aliens from our federal study population and 500 SCAAP criminal aliens from the state and local study population to DOJ’s FBI database that maintains data from reporting law enforcement agencies across the nation.18 While the samples we selected for our analyses allowed us to estimate and provide valuable insights about the arrest history of the approximately 197,000 criminal aliens in our federal study population and the approximately 533,000 SCAAP criminal aliens in our state and local study population, our analyses are not generalizable to the arrest history of criminal aliens not in these study populations. We analyzed the arrest histories of criminal aliens in our samples to estimate the number and types of offenses for which criminal aliens in our federal and state and local study populations were arrested/transferred. We defined an arrest/transfer as one of these actions occurring on the same day by the same arresting agency. The data did not allow us to distinguish between a new arrest and a transfer from one agency to another; therefore, we refer to these collectively as “arrests/transfers.” The criminal aliens in our samples had arrests/transfers that ranged from 1964 through 2017.19 Because law enforcement entities send arrest information to the FBI on a voluntary basis, FBI data on arrest history may not include all arrests.20 An arrest does not necessarily result in prosecution or a conviction of all, or any, of the offenses for which an individual is arrested. To determine the primary offenses for which the approximately 198,000 criminal aliens in our federal study population were convicted and incarcerated, we analyzed BOP conviction data for criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2011 through 2016. In addition, to determine the types of primary offenses for which SCAAP criminal aliens were convicted, we analyzed conviction data from five state prison systems—Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas—from fiscal years 2010 through 2015. We selected these five state prison systems because they had the most SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in fiscal year 2015. Collectively, these five state prison systems accounted for 64 percent of the SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prisons during fiscal year 2015.21 They are also the same state prison systems that we analyzed in our 2011 report on criminal aliens.22

[942] Calculated with data from:

a) Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2021.” By Alexandra Thompson and Susannah N. Tapp. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. September 2022. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 2: “Table 1: Number and rate of violent victimizations, by type of crime, 2017–2021 … 2019 … Aggravated assault [=] 1,019,490”

b) Report: “2019 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Services Division, Fall 2020. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 29: Estimated Number of Arrests, United States, 2019 … Aggravated assault [=] 385,278”

CALCULATION: 1,019,490 aggravated assaults / 385,278 arrests for aggravated assaults = 2.6

[943] Webpage: “Definitions.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed July 27, 2021 at <www.bjs.gov>

Aggravated Assault

An attack or attempted attack with a weapon, regardless of whether an injury occurred, and an attack without a weapon when serious injury results.

With injury—An attack without a weapon when serious injury results or an attack with a weapon involving any injury. Serious injury includes broken bones, lost teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, and any unspecified injury requiring two or more days of hospitalization.

Threatened with a weapon—Threat or attempted attack by an offender armed with a gun, knife, or other object used as a weapon that does not result in victim injury.

[944] Report: “The Nation’s Two Crime Measures.” By Michael Planty and Lynn Langton. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2014. <www.bjs.gov>


Page 1:

The U.S. Department of Justice administers two statistical programs to measure the magnitude, nature, and impact of crime in the nation: the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and the Bureau of Justice Statistic’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Each of these programs produces valuable information about aspects of the nation’s crime problem. Because the UCR and NCVS programs have different purposes, use different methods, and focus on somewhat different aspects of crime, the complementary information they produce together provides a more comprehensive understanding of the nation’s crime problem than either could produce alone.

[945] Book: Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. By the Committee to Improve Research and Data on Firearms and the Committee on Law and Justice, National Research Council of the National Academies. Edited by Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie. National Academies Press, 2005.


Page 21: “The National Crime Victimization Survey … is widely viewed as a ‘gold standard for measuring crime victimization.’


Page 30: “Although the NCVS [National Crime Victimization Survey] data do many things right, they are, like any such system, beset with methodological problems of surveys in general as well as particular problems associated with measuring illicit, deviant, and deleterious activities….”

[946] Paper: “The Decline of Arrest Clearances For Criminal Homicide: Causes, Correlates, and Third Parties.” By Marc Riedel and John Jarvis. Criminal Justice Policy Review, January 1, 1999. Pages 279–306. <cjp.sagepub.com>

“The percent of offenders arrested for murder in the United States has declined in all reporting cities from 92% in 1960 to 66% in 1997.”

[947] Report: “2020 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2021.

“Offenses Cleared.” <s3-us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com>

Page 2 (of PDF):

In the nation in 2020, 41.7 percent of violent crimes and 14.6 percent of property crimes were cleared by arrest or exceptional means.

When considering clearances of violent crimes, 54.4 percent of murder offenses, 46.4 percent of aggravated assault offenses, 30.6 percent of rape offenses, and 28.8 percent of robbery offenses were cleared.

[948] Dataset: “Intentional Homicides (Per 100,000 People).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed November 9, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

“The intentional killing of a human being by another is the ultimate crime. Its indisputable physical consequences manifested in the form of a dead body also make it the most categorical and calculable.”

[949] See Just Facts’ research on racial issues and unsolved murders.

[950] Calculated with data from the report: “2020 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 18, 2022. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 107–115:

Table 41. Noncitizens Removed by Criminal Status and Region and Country of Nationality: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2020

Year

Total

Criminal1

Non-Criminal

2011

390,413

189,702

200,711

2012

415,587

200,039

215,548

2013

432,212

198,488

233,724

2014

405,042

172,403

232,639

2015

325,191

123,277

201,914

2016

331,570

116,354

215,216

2017

286,758

109,595

177,163

2018

327,568

148,123

179,445

2019

348,468

170,112

178,356

2020

239,151

118,357

120,794

Average †

350,196

154,645

195,551

Total †

3,501,960

1,546,450

1,955,510

1 Refers to persons who have a prior criminal conviction. In 2017, OIS [Office of Immigration Statistics] started aligning with ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ERO’s [Enforcement and Removal Operations] methodology to identify criminals within ERO administrative arrest data. Data since 2017 are no longer solely based on criminal conviction.

NOTES:

  • † Calculated by Just Facts.
  • Nearly all of these removals were non-citizens, because immigrants who have become citizens generally cannot be deported unless they are stripped of their citizenship, which is a rare occurrence.‡ §
  • ‡ “A Brief Guide to Representing Noncitizen Criminal Defendants in Connecticut.” By Jorge L. Baron (New Haven Legal Assistance Association) and Alix Walmsley (Office of the Public Defender, State of Connecticut). Revised September 1, 2005. <defgen.vermont.gov>. Page 8: “If your client is a U.S. citizen, STOP: he or she will NOT face immigration consequences because of a criminal conviction.”
  • § Press release: “Former Naturalized US Citizen Admits to Immigration Fraud; Ordered Deported for Failing to Disclose Terrorism Conviction.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, April, 25, 2017. <www.ice.gov>. “A former naturalized U.S. citizen, who was convicted in Israel for participating in a terrorist bombing, pleaded guilty Tuesday to immigration fraud charges.”
  • The next footnote contains the same data for 2008–2016 and clarifies the meaning of “convicted criminal.”

[951] “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2016.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 30, 2016. <www.ice.gov>

Page 2: “Figure 1: FY 2008–2016 ICE Removals.”

Page 5: “FY 2008–2016 ICE Removals by Criminality … Convicted Criminal”

Page 14: “Appendix B: Key Terms and Definitions … Convicted Criminal: An individual convicted in the United States for one or more criminal offenses. This does not include civil traffic offenses.”

[952] Calculated with the dataset: “Characteristics of the Group Quarters Population by Group Quarters Type, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed October 20, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

“Adult correctional facilities … Not a U.S. citizen [=] 108,008”

CALCULATION: 1,546,450 deported convicted criminals / 108,008 non-citizen correctional inmates = 14

[953] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 4: “Individuals housed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are beyond the scope of this report because they are not officially part of the U.S. criminal justice system.”

[954] Calculated with data from the report: “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 34 States in 2012: A 5-Year Follow-Up Period (2012–2017).” By Matthew R. Durose and Leonardo Antenangeli. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2021. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 3:

Table 3 Prior Criminal History of State Prisoners Released in 34 states in 2012

Prior convictionsb

Median [=] 4

Mean [=] 5.4

b Includes convictions prior to the prisoners’ date of release in 2012 and the conviction that resulted in the imprisonment.

CALCULATION: 5.4 average convictions per released prisoner – 1 conviction that resulted in the imprisonment = 4.4

[955] Calculated with data from the report: “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010.” By Matthew R. Durose, Alexia D. Cooper, and Howard N. Snyder. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 2014. <www.bjs.gov>

Page 6:

Table 5. Characteristics of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005

Number of prior convictions per released prisonerd

Mean number [=] 4.9

Median number [=] 3.1

d Includes arrest and conviction that resulted in the imprisonment

CALCULATION: 4.9 average convictions per released prisoner – 1 conviction that resulted in the imprisonment = 3.9

NOTE: Per the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “For this particular study, the prior number of convictions was based on each unique arrest that led to a conviction (as defined by the date of arrest), not the number of unique convictions. An individual can have separate convictions for different offenses and have the incarceration sentence consolidated. In addition, individuals can concurrently serve an incarceration sentence for more than one conviction.” [Email from the Bureau of Justice Statistics to Just Facts, June 26, 2018.]

[956] Report: “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 24 States in 2008: A 10-Year Follow-Up Period (2008–2018).” By Leonardo Antenangeli and Matthew R. Durose. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2021.

<bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) used prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program and criminal history data to analyze the post-release offending patterns of former prisoners both within and outside of the state where they were imprisoned. This report presents findings from BJS’s first study of prisoner recidivism over a 10-year period. The study randomly sampled about 73,600 released prisoners to represent the approximately 409,300 state prisoners released across 24 states in 2008.

Page 4: “Among state prisoners released in 2008 across 24 states, about 2 in 5 (43%) were arrested within 1 year…. This rate increased to about 8 in 10 (82%) released prisoners by the end of the 10-year follow-up period.”
 

Page 9: “The approximately 409,300 state prisoners released across 24 states in 2008 had an estimated 2,197,000 arrests during the 10-year follow-up period…. The percentage of state prisoners released across 24 states in 2008 who were arrested at least once within 10 years would be 80.5% if arrests for probation and parole violations were excluded and 81.9% if they were included.”

[957] Article: “New York Killers, and Those Killed, by Numbers.” By Jo Craven McGinty. New York Times, April 28, 2006. <www.nytimes.com>

“From 2003 through 2005, 1,662 murders were committed in New York. … More than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records; and of those who wound up killed, more than half had them.”

[958] Article: “Statistical Snapshots from Baltimore’s Deadliest Year: Suspects, Victims and Cops.” By Kevin Rector. Baltimore Sun, January 7, 2016. <www.baltimoresun.com>

While detectives have no motive or suspects in many of the year’s 344 homicides, the department’s annual homicide analysis report captures what the department does know about the people it arrested and those who were killed. … The department said it had 85 homicide suspects as of Dec. 31, when the data was compiled. … Among the suspects, 76.5 percent had prior criminal records, 62.4 percent had prior drug arrests, 52.9 percent had been arrested for violent crimes, and 41.2 percent had been arrested for gun crimes. Nearly a quarter were on parole and probation at the time of the killing for which they are now a suspect. Nearly 2.5 percent were on parole and probation specifically for a gun crime at the time of the incident. The average suspect had been arrested more than nine times before, and 15.3 percent of the suspects were suspected gang members, the report said.

[959] Report: “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, March 2011. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 2–3:

To determine the number and nationalities of criminal aliens incarcerated, we analyzed BOP [Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons] data on criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2005 through 2010 and SCAAP [Department of Justice’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program] data on criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails from fiscal years 2003 through 2009. There are no reliable population data on criminal aliens incarcerated in all state prison systems and local jails. The data we obtained represent a portion of the total population of criminal aliens who may be incarcerated at the state and local levels, since by statute SCAAP does not reimburse states and localities for certain criminal aliens, such as aliens with lawful immigration status, and not all jurisdictions may apply for reimbursement. …

To determine the types of offenses for which criminal aliens were arrested, we obtained the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrest histories of about 203,000 criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008, and 48,000 criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons as of December 27, 2008, for a total of 251,000 criminal aliens. Due to the large volume of arrests and offenses, we selected a random sample of 1,000 criminal aliens and analyzed their arrest records to estimate the number and types of offenses in our study population of approximately 249,000.6 There were nearly 1.7 million arrest records relating to nearly 3 million offenses for these 249,000 criminal aliens. To determine the type of offenses for which criminal aliens were convicted, we analyzed data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission on federal convictions of criminal aliens from fiscal years 2003 through 2009 and conviction data from five states—Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas—from fiscal years 2005 through 2008. We selected these five states based on the number of SCAAP criminal aliens. Collectively, these states accounted for about 70 percent of the SCAAP criminal alien population in fiscal year 2008.

6 We found that five of the criminal aliens from our random sample of 1,000 were out of scope because their records did not reflect actual arrests but rather administrative actions (such as being booked into a prison or transferred from one correctional facility to another). As such, our analysis is of 995 criminal aliens and our estimated study population is about 249,000. See appendix I for details on the margin of error for sample estimates presented in this report.

Page 21:

Table 2: Estimated Number and Percent of Criminal Alien Arrest Offenses by Type of Offense

Arrest Offense

Number

Percent

Immigrationa

529,859

18

Drugs

504,043

17

Traffic violations

404,788

14

Obstruction of justice

252,899

9

Assault

213,047

7

Larceny/theft

125,322

4

Fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting

120,810

4

Burglary

115,045

4

Weapons violations

94,492

3

Motor vehicle theft

81,710

3

Sex offenses

69,929

2

Disorderly conduct

52,384

2

Stolen property

49,126

2

Property damage

42,609

1

Robbery

42,609

1

Homicide

25,064

1

Kidnapping

14,788

1

Arson

2,005

<1

Other

151,138

5

Total

2,891,668

100b

Source: GAO [Government Accountability Office] analysis of FBI IAFIS [Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System] data.

Note: For information on the margin of error, see app. I.

a Offenses included in our immigration category included both criminal offenses (63,914) and civil immigration violations—those that lead to removal proceedings (305,784). For 160,161 immigration offenses, we were unable to distinguish whether the offense was criminal or civil. See app. I for information on the margin of error.

b Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Page 49:

To determine the number and nationalities of criminal aliens incarcerated in federal and state prison systems and local jails, we analyzed DOJ’s [U.S. Department of Justice] Bureau of Prisons (BOP) federal incarceration data on criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2005 through 2010 and DOJ’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) incarceration data on criminal aliens incarcerated in state prison systems and local jails from fiscal years 2003 through 2009.2 BOP incarceration data are based on an average of the 12 monthly population snapshots for each type of BOP institution, such as minimum security, within the fiscal year. These data do not include inmates for whom citizenship is unknown. There are no reliable population data on criminal aliens incarcerated in all state prison systems and local jails. …

2 The period of time covered by these data vary because they reflect updates since we last reported on these issues in 2005 (see GAO-05-337R and GAO-05-646R). Moreover, they reflect the most recent data available at the time of our analysis.

Pages 50–53:

To determine the types of offenses criminal aliens incarcerated in federal and state prison systems and local jails were arrested for, we selected a random sample of aliens. Specifically, we obtained data from BOP on the population of aliens incarcerated in federal prisons as of December 27, 2008 (approximately 49,000 inmates). We added to this the population of convicted criminal aliens incarcerated in state prison systems and local jails from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008, for whom state and local governments sought reimbursement under SCAAP (approximately 460,000 inmates) for a total of about 509,000. These two populations were chosen because they were the most recent population data available when we began our analysis. In order to obtain an alien’s arrest history, we needed to first determine which criminal aliens had a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identification number. The FBI identification number is a unique identifier the FBI assigns to a set of fingerprints that allows the linking of relevant arrest records and any subsequent activity within the criminal justice system. The arrest histories are stored in the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). About 251,000 (about 48,000 BOP inmates and 203,000 SCAAP inmates) of the 509,000 criminal aliens had a valid FBI identification number in the data records we obtained.5 We provided the FBI number and other identifying information to the FBI and requested the arrest history for these 251,000 criminal aliens. The arrest history record for each criminal alien with a unique FBI identification number contained the dates of arrest, the arresting agency, location of the arrest, and a description of each offense that resulted in the arrest, such as drug possession, burglary, and robbery. We used data available in IAFIS as of May 2010 to determine the arrest history for each alien.

The arrest history records for the 251,000 contained several hundred thousand different descriptions of arrest offenses. From these 251,000 criminal aliens, we selected a simple random sample of 1,000 criminal aliens to analyze. We found that 5 of the criminal aliens from our sample were out of scope because their records did not reflect actual arrests but rather administrative actions (such as being booked into a prison or transferred between facilities). As such, our analysis is of 995 criminal aliens, and our estimated study population is about 249,000. Based on this analysis, we determined the estimated numbers of criminal alien arrests and offenses in our study population. We categorized the arrest history records for this sample into 1 of 19 major offense categories, such as immigration, using FBI’s Reference Guide to Aid in Understanding Arrest Abbreviations on how to categorize different types of crimes (see table 7 below). Because the time period for the federal population of aliens is a single point in time, whereas the time periods for the state prison and local jail population are over four SCAAP years, our combined population understates the federal population of aliens since it does not account for federal prisoners that flowed in and out of BOP facilities. Given this difference in time period for these populations, we are not reporting comparisons between federal and state and local prisons, except in cases where we note that the subpopulations may differ as a result of the time difference rather than as a result of a difference between the two subpopulations. For the study population, the analysis includes criminal aliens with arrests submitted to the FBI dating from August 1955 to April 2010.

Because our estimates regarding criminal alien arrests and offenses are based on a probability sample, each estimate we report has a measurable margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error surrounding an estimate is expressed as (1) a number of percentage points higher or lower than the percentage estimate, (2) a percent higher or lower than the estimated number, or (3) the entire range the margin of error covers, which is referred to as a confidence interval. Margins of error are calculated based on a certain confidence level, which for estimates in this report are 95 percent. For the estimated number of criminal aliens in our study population, total arrests, total offenses, and the average number of arrests and offenses per criminal alien, the margin of error is no more than ±6 percent. For estimates of the number of arrests and offenses per criminal alien (see figure 8 of this report), the margin of error for percentage estimates is no more than ±3 percentage points and the margin of error for the estimated numbers of criminal aliens is no more than ±30 percent of the estimate unless otherwise noted.6 For estimated percentages of criminal aliens with at least 1 arrest per offense category (see figure 9 of this report), the margin of error is no more than ±3 percentage points. For estimated offenses by arrest offense categories (see table 2 of this report), the margin of error for percentage estimates is no more than ±2 percentage points, and the margin of error for the estimated numbers of arrest offenses is no more than ±20 percent of the estimated number unless otherwise noted.7 For estimates related to arrest locations (see figure 10 of this report), the margin of error for the percentage estimates is no more than ±1 percentage point.

To determine offenses for which criminal aliens were convicted, we analyzed federal data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission on federal court convictions from fiscal years 2003 through 2009; and data from five states—Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas—on state convictions from fiscal years 2005 through 2008.8 We selected these five states because they are the states with the largest number of SCAAP criminal aliens. Collectively, these states accounted for about 70 percent of the SCAAP criminal alien population in fiscal year 2008. Criminal aliens may be convicted of multiple offenses. For federal court convictions, we analyzed data on the primary offense per offender—the offense with the longest maximum sentence when an individual is convicted of multiple offenses. Table 6 describes the multiple offense categories for federal court convictions. …

Our analysis of state conviction data was based on convictions related to SCAAP illegal alien incarcerations from fiscal years 2005 through 2008 (incarcerations from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008), which were the most recent SCAAP data available at the time of our analysis. The data provided by Arizona and Florida did not distinguish primary convictions, thus we presented our analysis of all offenses provided per inmate. For California, New York, and Texas, we analyzed the primary conviction

5 States and localities applying for SCAAP reimbursement are not required to submit an individual’s FBI identification number to verify the individual’s immigration status.

6 For our 21 to 25 arrest category in fig. 8 of this report, the confidence interval is from 2,642 through 6,882 criminal aliens. For our 26 or greater arrest category in fig. 8 of this report, the confidence interval is from 1,499 through 5,018 criminal aliens.

7 For our kidnapping category in table 2 of this report, the confidence interval is from 11,112 through 18,464 offenses. For our arson category in table 2 of this report, the confidence interval is from 648 through 3,362.

8 We analyzed federal data from fiscal years 2003 through 2009 to determine trends in federal convictions, if any, since our past work. We analyzed state data from fiscal years 2005 through 2008 to determine trends in selected state convictions, if any, using the 4 most recent fiscal years at the time of our analysis.

[960] Report: “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, Convictions, Costs, and Removals.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, July 2018. <www.gao.gov>

“We [U.S. Government Accountability Office] most recently reported information on criminal alien statistics in 2011.7 You [Senator Charles Grassley, Representatives Steve King and Pete Sessions] asked that we update and expand upon the information in that report.”

[961] Calculated with data from the report: “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, Convictions, Costs, and Removals.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, July 2018. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 4–7:

In general, we analyzed data separately for criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons and SCAAP [Department of Justice’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program] criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails—which we refer to as our two study populations.8 The time periods we analyzed varied for our federal study population compared to our state and local study population because they reflect updates since we last reported on these issues in 2011 and because we used the most recent data available at the time of our analysis.9 … Overall, our findings are not generalizable to criminal aliens not included in our federal and state and local study populations. However, they provide valuable insights into the criminal aliens incarcerated in the United States. For example, we used SCAAP data because there are no reliable population data on all criminal aliens incarcerated in every U.S. state prison and local jail.12 SCAAP provides reliable data on certain criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails but does not include (a) criminal aliens incarcerated in states or localities that did not apply for and receive federal reimbursement for costs of incarceration and (b) aliens with lawful immigration status who were not the subject of removal proceedings at the time they were taken into custody.13 Further, to be eligible for reimbursement, the aliens must meet the definition of “undocumented criminal alien” under the SCAAP statute and the following criteria: (1) had at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law and (2) were incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period.14 Thus, our state and local criminal alien data represent only a portion of the total population of criminal aliens incarcerated at the state and local level.

To determine the number and nationalities—based on country of citizenship or country of birth data—of incarcerated criminal aliens, we analyzed BOP [Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons] data on criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2011 through 2016 and SCAAP data on SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prisons and local jails from fiscal years 2010 through 2015.15 BOP obtains country of citizenship data from presentence investigation reports, which may be based on documentation or be self-reported.16 SCAAP country of birth data are provided to DOJ [Department of Justice] by states and localities that participate in SCAAP.17

To determine the number and types of offenses for which criminal aliens were arrested and convicted, we analyzed various federal and state data. Specifically, for arrests, we matched a random sample of 500 criminal aliens from our federal study population and 500 SCAAP criminal aliens from the state and local study population to DOJ’s FBI database that maintains data from reporting law enforcement agencies across the nation.18 While the samples we selected for our analyses allowed us to estimate and provide valuable insights about the arrest history of the approximately 197,000 criminal aliens in our federal study population and the approximately 533,000 SCAAP criminal aliens in our state and local study population, our analyses are not generalizable to the arrest history of criminal aliens not in these study populations. We analyzed the arrest histories of criminal aliens in our samples to estimate the number and types of offenses for which criminal aliens in our federal and state and local study populations were arrested/transferred. We defined an arrest/transfer as one of these actions occurring on the same day by the same arresting agency. The data did not allow us to distinguish between a new arrest and a transfer from one agency to another; therefore, we refer to these collectively as “arrests/transfers.” The criminal aliens in our samples had arrests/transfers that ranged from 1964 through 2017.19 Because law enforcement entities send arrest information to the FBI on a voluntary basis, FBI data on arrest history may not include all arrests.20 An arrest does not necessarily result in prosecution or a conviction of all, or any, of the offenses for which an individual is arrested. To determine the primary offenses for which the approximately 198,000 criminal aliens in our federal study population were convicted and incarcerated, we analyzed BOP conviction data for criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2011 through 2016. In addition, to determine the types of primary offenses for which SCAAP criminal aliens were convicted, we analyzed conviction data from five state prison systems—Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas—from fiscal years 2010 through 2015. We selected these five state prison systems because they had the most SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in fiscal year 2015. Collectively, these five state prison systems accounted for 64 percent of the SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prisons during fiscal year 2015.21 They are also the same state prison systems that we analyzed in our 2011 report on criminal aliens.22

Pages 25–26:

Table 2: Estimated Number and Percent of Attempted or Committed Offenses for Which Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal Prisons from Fiscal Years 2011 through 2016 who had an FBI Number Were Arrested/Transferred from 1974 through 2017

Arrest Offense

Estimated Number

Estimated Percent

Immigrationa

874,400

42.4

Drugs

336,600

16.3

Traffic violations

204,400

9.9

Obstruction of justice

141,300

6.8

Assault

108,400

5.3

Miscellaneous

74,200

3.6

Larceny/theft

70,300

3.4

Fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting

62,300

3

Burglary

44,900

2.2

Weapons violations

44,500

2.2

Motor vehicle theft

19,500

0.9

Sex offenses

13,500

0.7

Disorderly conduct

12,300

0.6

Stolen property

14,300

0.7

Property damage

17,500

0.8

Robbery

13,500

0.7

Homicide

6,000

0.3

Kidnapping

5,600

0.3

Arson

400

< 0.1

Terrorism

400

< 0.1

Totalb

2,064,100

100

Source: GAO [U.S. Government Accountability Office] analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data. | GAO-18-433

Note: These include offenses associated with arrests or transfers by federal arresting agencies and state and local arresting agencies. Offenses may include an attempt or conspiracy to commit the respective offense. While our analyses allowed us to estimate and provide valuable insights about the arrest history of our study population, which consisted of about 197,000 criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2011 through 2016 with an FBI number, our analyses are not intended to infer conclusions about the arrest history of criminal aliens not in this study population. Law enforcement entities send arrest information to the FBI on a voluntary basis; as a result, FBI data on arrest history may not include all arrests. The numbers in the table above represent the number of offenses we estimated that criminal aliens were arrested or transferred for; they do not represent the number of times that criminal aliens were arrested or transferred for each offense. All estimates in this table have a margin of error of ± 3 percentage points or fewer.

a Offenses included in our immigration category include both criminal immigration offenses (about 369,200) and civil immigration violations—administrative grounds of removability (about 494,600). For the remaining immigration offenses, the data did not allow us to distinguish whether the offense was criminal or civil.

b Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Pages 31–32:

Table 3: Estimated Number and Percent of Attempted or Committed Offenses for Which State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in State Prisons and Local Jails from Fiscal Years 2010 through 2015 who had an FBI Number were Arrested/Transferred from 1964 through 2017

Arrest Offense

Estimated Number

Estimated Percent

Traffic violations

1,226,000

22.4

Immigrationa

852,000

15.6

Drugs

761,200

13.9

Obstruction of justice

665,000

12.2

Assault

397,000

7.3

Larceny/theft

276,700

5.1

Miscellaneous

257,000

4.7

Fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting

200,100

3.7

Burglary

175,000

3.2

Weapons violations

124,700

2.3

Sex offenses

120,300

2.2

Disorderly conduct

90,800

1.7

Motor vehicle theft

90,800

1.7

Stolen property

75,500

1.4

Robbery

54,700

1.0

Property damage

50,300

0.9

Homicide

27,300

0.5

Kidnapping

18,600

0.3

Arson

3,300

0.1

Terrorism

1,100

<0.1

Totalb

5,467,200

100

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data. | GAO-18-433

Note: These include offenses associated with arrests or transfers by federal arresting agencies and state and local arresting agencies. Offenses may include an attempt or conspiracy to commit the respective offense. While our analyses allowed us to estimate and provide valuable insights about the arrest history of our study population, which consisted of about 533,000 SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails from fiscal years 2010 through 2015 with an FBI number, our analyses are not intended to infer conclusions about the arrest history of criminal aliens not in this study population. Law enforcement entities send arrest information to the FBI on a voluntary basis; as a result, FBI data on arrest history may not include all arrests. The numbers in the table above represent the number of offenses we estimated that SCAAP criminal aliens were arrested or transferred for; they do not represent the number of times that SCAAP criminal aliens were arrested or transferred for each offense. All estimates in this table have a margin of error of ± 3 percentage points or fewer.

a Offenses included in our immigration category included both criminal immigration offenses (about 229,700) and civil immigration violations—administrative grounds of removability (about 616,800). For the remaining immigration offenses, the data did not allow us to distinguish whether the offense was criminal or civil.

b Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

CALCULATIONS:

  • Drug offenses: 336,600 federal + 761,200 state & local = 1,097,800
  • Assaults: 108,400 federal + 397,000 state & local = 505,400
  • Burglaries: 44,900 federal + 175,000 state & local = 219,900
  • Weapons violations: 44,500 federal + 124,700 state & local = 169,200
  • Sex offenses: 13,500 federal + 120,300 state & local = 133,800
  • Homicides: 6,000 federal + 27,300 state & local = 33,300
  • Kidnappings: 5,600 federal + 18,600 state & local = 24,200
  • Acts of terrorism: 400 federal + 1,100 state & local = 1,500

[962] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 2 (of PDF):

Noncitizens incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails—a subset of all criminal aliens—totaled 142,463 in 2013 (the most recent year for which complete data are available), with state prisons and local jails each accounting for more incarcerations than federal prisons. Until recently, the proportion of noncitizens incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails corresponded closely to that of noncitizens in the U.S. population, but unreported incarceration data since 2013 has hindered such comparisons.

Page 5:

Noncitizen inmates comprised 23.5% of the total federal prison population, 3.5% of the total state prison population, and 6.0% of the total local jail population in 2013. The large noncitizen proportion in federal prisons occurs for two reasons. First, immigration offenses, which are prosecuted at the federal level, represent a disproportionate share of federal offenses for which convicted individuals can be incarcerated in federal prisons.21 Second, data on noncitizens incarcerated in federal prisons are tabulated more accurately and completely than data on those incarcerated in state prisons and local jails, because federal data are collected consistently by one administrative unit using a single definition of noncitizen. Conversely, data collected on noncitizen status at the state level varies by state and in some cases is not reported at all, resulting in widespread underreporting of noncitizens. At the local level, such shortcomings are magnified over an even larger number of jail facilities and information collection policies.22

Between 2002 and 2012, the noncitizen percentage of the incarcerated population (ranging from 6.7% to 7.4% over this period) mapped closely to the noncitizen percentage of the U.S. population overall (ranging from 6.3% to 7.6% over the same period). However, in 2013 several states, including California, did not report their noncitizen incarcerated populations, causing the total state-level noncitizen incarcerated population to be understated for that year, and making it difficult to compare with that of previous years.23 As a basis for comparison, noncitizens comprised 7.0% of the total U.S. population in 2013.24

21 In 2013, for example, of the 188,164 persons arrested for violation of federal laws, 91,551 (or 51%) were arrested for immigration-related offenses. Source: BJS [Bureau of Justice Statistics], Federal Criminal Case Processing Statistics, accessed by CRS [Congressional Research Service] at <www.bjs.gov> on July 25, 2016.

22 In addition to inconsistencies in data collection and noncitizen status definition at the local level, many of the surveyed jails in the Annual Survey of Jails did not collect data on noncitizen status. For example, in 2013, of the 859 jails sampled, 160 (19%) did not report noncitizen data.

23 California’s noncitizen state prisoner population averaged 16,871 prisoners between 2008 and 2012. If this average figure is added to the 2013 state noncitizen prisoner total of 47,861, the resulting state-level total of 64,732 would represent 4.8% of that population instead of the 3.5% shown in Table 1. Similarly if the same total were added to the 2013 total noncitizen prisoner population in federal, state, and local institutions of 142,463, the resulting total of 159,334 would represent 6.9% of that population instead of 6.2%.

24 CRS analysis of the 2013 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates, accessed by CRS on the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Factfinder website on July 25, 2016. The foreign-born population in the United States grew from 32.5 million to 41.3 million between 2002 and 2013, and represented 13.1% of the total U.S. population in 2013. That percentage excludes over 10 million native-born children born to at least one foreign-born parent. See CRS Report R41592, “The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics,” pp. 14–16.

Page 6:

Table 1. Total and Noncitizen Incarcerated Population, Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails, 2002–2013 …

… Because total counts of noncitizens in local jails are not available for many local jurisdictions, CRS imputed the noncitizen local jail figures by multiplying the total local jail population by the noncitizen percentage in local jails obtained from the sources noted above. … The 2013 state noncitizen figure excludes noncitizen state prisoners in AR, CA, and NV, which did not report in that year. Noncitizen prisoners in AR and NV amounted to 35 in 2011, the last year both states reported. The number of noncitizen prisoners in CA averaged 16,871 persons between 2008 and 2012.

Page 8:

BJS’s state and local incarceration data are based on the voluntary participation of each state’s department of corrections and local jails. While all states contribute data to BJS on their prison population, states’ definitions vary, posing challenges to estimating the size and character of the criminal alien population. For instance, while some states report noncitizen incarcerations, others report all foreign-born prisoners, including naturalized U.S. citizens, potentially inflating counts of the criminal alien population.28

Local jail reporting practices are likely to be even more inconsistent than state practices given the far greater number of jurisdictions. And not all local jurisdictions report on their foreign-born criminal populations. For these reasons, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded in 2005 that “there [are] no reliable population … data on criminal aliens incarcerated in all state prisons and local jails.”29

28 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Prison Inmates at Midyear 2012—Statistical Tables,” U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, June 2013. As of April 13, 2016, an updated version of this report was not publically available.

29 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails,” GAO-05-337R, April 7, 2005, p.2. For a more recent GAO analysis of criminal alien-related data, see U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs,” GAO-11-187, March 24, 2011.

[963] Press release: “64% of All Federal Arrests in 2018 Were of Non-U.S. Citizens.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 22, 2019. <www.ojp.gov>

While non-U.S. citizens make up 7% of the U.S. population (per the U.S. Census Bureau for 2017), they accounted for 15% of all federal arrests and 15% of prosecutions in U.S. district court for non-immigration crimes in 2018. Non-U.S. citizens accounted for 24% of all federal drug arrests and 25% of all federal property arrests, including 28% of all federal fraud arrests. …

Of suspects prosecuted in U.S. district court in 2018, 57% were U.S. citizens and 43% were non-U.S. citizens. Almost all (99.7%) of the non-citizens prosecuted in U.S. district court were prosecuted for something other than first-time illegal entry.

The five crime types for which non-U.S. citizens were most likely to be prosecuted in U.S. district court were illegal reentry (72% of prosecutions), drugs (13%), fraud (4.5%), alien smuggling (4%), and misuse of visas (2%). The five crime types for which U.S. citizens were most likely to be prosecuted in U.S. district court were drugs (38% of prosecutions), weapons (21%), fraud (12%), public order (12%), and alien smuggling (6%).

[964] Report: “Immigration, Citizenship, and the Federal Justice System, 1998–2018.” By Mark Motivans. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2019. Revised 1/27/21. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1 (of PDF): “Non-U.S. citizens, who make up 7% of the U.S. population (per the U.S. Census Bureau for 2017), accounted for 15% of all federal arrests and 15% of prosecutions in U.S. district court for non-immigration crimes in 2018….”

Page 10:

Table 7a: Federal Arrests by Citizenship and Federal Judicial Districts, by Offense Type (Row Percentages), FY 2018 … Non-U.S. Citizen …

Non-immigration … Number [=] 11,944 … Percent [=] 15.0% …

Violent … Number [=] 332 … Percent [=] 8.8% …

Drug … Number [=] 5,246 … Percent [=] 23.5%

[965] Calculated with the dataset: “Characteristics of the Group Quarters Population, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed October 20, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[966] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 4: “Individuals housed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are beyond the scope of this report because they are not officially part of the U.S. criminal justice system.”

[967] Calculated with the dataset: “Characteristics of the Group Quarters Population, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed October 20, 2022 at <data.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[968] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 4: “Individuals housed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are beyond the scope of this report because they are not officially part of the U.S. criminal justice system.”

[969] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part V, Section 1229: “Initiation of Removal Proceedings.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

d) Prompt initiation of removal

(1) In the case of an alien who is convicted of an offense which makes the alien deportable, the Attorney General shall begin any removal proceeding as expeditiously as possible after the date of the conviction.

[970] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 1:

Noncitizens include lawful permanent residents (LPRs) (also referred to as “immigrants” or “green card holders”) who are admitted to the United States or who adjust status from within the United States to reside permanently and lawfully in the United States; legal nonimmigrants who are admitted on temporary visas for a specific purpose and a limited period of time; and unauthorized aliens who are foreign nationals who enter the United States unlawfully without inspection (or with inspection but with false documents) or who enter the United States lawfully but overstay the terms of their temporary visa.

In this report, the terms “alien” and “foreign national” are used interchangeably.

Pages 2–3:

U.S. immigration law identifies certain crimes that make an alien ineligible for admission to the United States and/or subject to removal. Such crimes include crimes of “moral turpitude”; crimes involving controlled substances; certain firearm offenses; and crimes related to espionage, sabotage, and related offenses.6 Yet the term “criminal alien” is not specifically defined in immigration law or regulation, and people use it to refer to several different types of noncitizen offenders. At the broadest level, a “criminal alien” is any noncitizen who has ever been convicted of a crime in the United States. This report adopts this broad definition unless otherwise noted. (See Appendix A for a glossary of additional related terms.)

Criminal aliens can be further distinguished by legal status,7 which in turn affects removability. Unauthorized aliens have made up roughly half of all U.S. noncitizens in recent years.8 The unauthorized alien population includes not only persons who entered without inspection or overstayed the terms of their temporary visas but also persons who have what some refer to as a “quasi-legal” status (such as temporary protected status, parole, deferred action) that affords them relief from immediate removal. Hence, not all unauthorized aliens living in the United States are subject to removal. Most unauthorized aliens, however, are removable; but few have been convicted of a crime and are classified as criminal aliens (unlawful presence in the United States itself is a civil violation, not a criminal offense).9

Three groups of criminal aliens can be distinguished.

• All criminal aliens include both unauthorized aliens, most of whom are potentially removable, and legal aliens10 who may or may not be removable depending on specific crimes committed. This population contains the set of criminal aliens who are removable on the basis of specific crimes committed.

• Criminal aliens who have been convicted of removable criminal offenses are subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) even if they are otherwise legally present.11 For example, a legal permanent resident (LPR) convicted of cocaine possession is subject to removal,12 but an LPR convicted of public intoxication is not. This population also includes aggravated felons.

• Criminal aliens who have been convicted of aggravated felonies13 are ineligible for most forms of relief from removal14 and are ineligible to be readmitted to the United States.15

As noted above, all three of these subpopulations—criminal aliens, removable criminal aliens, and aggravated felons—comprise an unknown mix of legally present noncitizens and unauthorized aliens. …

9 Unlawful presence is only a criminal offense when an alien is found in the United States after having been formally removed or after departing the country while a removal order was outstanding. See CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R43892, Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends, by Alison Siskin. …

13 Aggravated felonies refer to a class of serious criminal alien offenses created per INA §101(a)(43) and include murder, drug trafficking, or illegal trafficking in firearms or destructive devices. Subsequent measures passed by Congress expanded the definition of aggravated felonies and created additional criminal grounds for removal.

[971] “Annual Performance Report, Fiscal Years 2011–2013.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, February 13, 2012. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1092 (of PDF):

ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] estimates that approximately 900,0003 arrests of aliens for crimes occur every year and that approximately 550,000 criminal aliens convicted of crimes exit law enforcement custody every year. ICE has never had the capability to identify, arrest and remove all of these criminal aliens. ICE estimates that 1.94 million removable criminal aliens are in the United States today. This population of criminal aliens poses a major threat to public safety. A more comprehensive approach to address this threat is a priority of the Secretary of Homeland Security and of Congress.

3 Secure Communities Criminal Alien Population Projection Analysis (CAPPA), Version 1.2 as delivered October 27, 2010. This version of the model has been validated by the CAPPA Working Group, but has not been made public. CAPPA includes analysis from the following sources: FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2007; Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2008; Bureau of Justice Statistics Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2006; Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, 2008.

4 Estimate calculation based on data pulled from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008, [Link], adjusted for ACS [American Community Survey] undercount of the non-citizen population using the DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] OIS [Office of Immigration Statistics] methodology and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prevalence of Imprisonment in US Population, 1974–2001, 8/2003, [<www.ojp.usdoj.gov>]

[972] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part V, Section 1229: “Initiation of Removal Proceedings.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

d) Prompt Initiation of Removal

(1) In the case of an alien who is convicted of an offense which makes the alien deportable, the Attorney General shall begin any removal proceeding as expeditiously as possible after the date of the conviction.

[973] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part V, Section 1227: “Immigration, Deportable Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(2) Criminal Offenses

(A) General Crimes

(i) Crimes of Moral Turpitude Any alien who—

(I) is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status under section 1255(j) of this title) after the date of admission, and

(II) is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed,

is deportable.

(ii) Multiple Criminal Convictions Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, regardless of whether confined therefor and regardless of whether the convictions were in a single trial, is deportable.

(iii) Aggravated Felony Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.

(iv) High Speed Flight Any alien who is convicted of a violation of section 758 of title 18 (relating to high speed flight from an immigration checkpoint) is deportable.

(v) Failure to Register as a Sex Offender Any alien who is convicted under section 2250 of title 18 is deportable.

(vi) Waiver Authorized Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) shall not apply in the case of an alien with respect to a criminal conviction if the alien subsequent to the criminal conviction has been granted a full and unconditional pardon by the President of the United States or by the Governor of any of the several States.

(B) Controlled Substances

(i) Conviction Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable.

(ii) Drug Abusers and Addicts Any alien who is, or at any time after admission has been, a drug abuser or addict is deportable.

(C) Certain Firearm Offenses Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted under any law of purchasing, selling, offering for sale, exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying, or of attempting or conspiring to purchase, sell, offer for sale, exchange, use, own, possess, or carry, any weapon, part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device (as defined in section 921(a) of title 18) in violation of any law is deportable.

(D) Miscellaneous Crimes Any alien who at any time has been convicted (the judgment on such conviction becoming final) of, or has been so convicted of a conspiracy or attempt to violate—

(i) any offense under chapter 37 (relating to espionage), chapter 105 (relating to sabotage), or chapter 115 (relating to treason and sedition) of title 18 for which a term of imprisonment of five or more years may be imposed;

(ii) any offense under section 871 or 960 of title 18;

(iii) a violation of any provision of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.) [now 50 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.] or the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.) [now 50 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.]; or

(iv) a violation of section 1185 or 1328 of this title,

is deportable.

(E) Crimes of Domestic Violence, Stalking, or Violation of Protection Order, Crimes Against Children and

(i) Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Child Abuse Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of a crime of domestic violence, a crime of stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment is deportable. For purposes of this clause, the term “crime of domestic violence” means any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18) against a person committed by a current or former spouse of the person, by an individual with whom the person shares a child in common, by an individual who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the person as a spouse, by an individual similarly situated to a spouse of the person under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction where the offense occurs, or by any other individual against a person who is protected from that individual’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the United States or any State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local government.

(ii) Violators of Protection Orders Any alien who at any time after admission is enjoined under a protection order issued by a court and whom the court determines has engaged in conduct that violates the portion of a protection order that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to the person or persons for whom the protection order was issued is deportable. For purposes of this clause, the term “protection order” means any injunction issued for the purpose of preventing violent or threatening acts of domestic violence, including temporary or final orders issued by civil or criminal courts (other than support or child custody orders or provisions) whether obtained by filing an independent action or as a pendente lite order in another proceeding.

(F) Trafficking Any alien described in section 1182(a)(2)(H) of this title is deportable.

(3) Failure to Register and Falsification of Documents

(A) Change of Address An alien who has failed to comply with the provisions of section 1305 of this title is deportable, unless the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.

(B) Failure to Register or Falsification of Documents

Any Alien Who at Any Time Has Been Convicted—

(i) under section 1306(c) of this title or under section 36(c) of the Alien Registration Act, 1940,

(ii) of a violation of, or an attempt or a conspiracy to violate, any provision of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), or

(iii) of a violation of, or an attempt or a conspiracy to violate, section 1546 of title 18 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other entry documents),

is deportable.

(C) Document Fraud

(i) In general An alien who is the subject of a final order for violation of section 1324c of this title is deportable.

(ii) Waiver authorized The Attorney General may waive clause (i) in the case of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if no previous civil money penalty was imposed against the alien under section 1324c of this title and the offense was incurred solely to assist, aid, or support the alien’s spouse or child (and no other individual). No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Attorney General to grant or deny a waiver under this clause.

(D) Falsely Claiming Citizenship

(i) In General Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any Federal or State law is deportable.

(ii) Exception In the case of an alien making a representation described in clause (i), if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of making such representation that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be deportable under any provision of this subsection based on such representation.

(4) Security and Related Grounds

(A) In General Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in—

(i) any activity to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,

is deportable.

(B) Terrorist Activities Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.

(C) Foreign policy

(i) In General An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.

(ii) Exceptions The exceptions described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 1182(a)(3)(C) of this title shall apply to deportability under clause (i) in the same manner as they apply to inadmissibility under section 1182(a)(3)(C)(i) of this title.

(D) Participated in Nazi Persecution, Genocide, or the Commission of Any Act of Torture or Extrajudicial Killing Any alien described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 1182(a)(3)(E) of this title is deportable.

(E) Participated in the Commission of Severe Violations of Religious Freedom Any alien described in section 1182(a)(2)(G) of this title is deportable.

(F) Recruitment or Use of Child Soldiers Any alien who has engaged in the recruitment or use of child soldiers in violation of section 2442 of title 18 is deportable.

(5) Public Charge Any alien who, within five years after the date of entry, has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable.

(6) Unlawful Voters

(A) In General Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is deportable.

(B) Exception In the case of an alien who voted in a Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum) in violation of a lawful restriction of voting to citizens, if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of such violation that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be deportable under any provision of this subsection based on such violation. …

[974] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The mission of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

The DOJ is made up of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Attorney General is the head of the DOJ and chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters, advises the President and the heads of the executive departments of the government, and occasionally appears in person before the Supreme Court.

[975] Article: “Gary Johnson Makes Libertarian Case For President, Says Trump ‘Clearly Racist.’ ” By Ian Schwartz. RealClear Politics, July 3, 2016. <www.realclearpolitics.com>

“Well, when it comes to Mexican immigration and that he [Trump] would call immigrants from Mexico murderers and rapists—look, that’s just not true. They are more law-abiding than U.S. citizens and that is a statistic.”

NOTE: Trump’s words about Mexican immigration were as follows:

Our country is in serious trouble. We don’t have victories anymore. We used to have victories, but we don’t have them. …

When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. (Applause)

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.

It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably—probably—from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast. [Transcript: “Donald Trump Announces a Presidential Bid.” Washington Post, June 16, 2015. <www.washingtonpost.com>]

[976] Webpage: “About PolitiFact.” Accessed November 4, 2016 at <www.politifact.com>

PolitiFact is a project of the Tampa Bay Times and its partners to help you find the truth in politics.

Every day, reporters and researchers from PolitiFact and its partner news organization examine statements by members of Congress, state legislators, governors, mayors, the president, cabinet secretaries, lobbyists, people who testify before Congress and anyone else who speaks up in American politics. We research their statements and then rate the accuracy on our Truth-O-Meter – True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False and False. The most ridiculous falsehoods get our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.

[977] Article: “Libertarian Candidate Says Mexican Immigrants More Law-Abiding Than U.S. Citizens.” By Miriam Valverde. PolitiFact, July 14, 2016. <www.politifact.com>

Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson challenged Donald Trump’s label of Mexican immigrants as murderers and rapists, saying they actually follow the law more than U.S. citizens. …

Numerous studies by scholars and partisan groups show that the foreign-born population is less likely to commit crimes than the native-born, and experts say this includes Mexican immigrants.

Researchers agree more data is needed to get a better understanding of immigration and crime, but the information available does not disprove Johnson’s point. We rate Johnson’s statement Mostly True.

[978] Article: “Libertarian Candidate Says Mexican Immigrants More Law-Abiding Than U.S. Citizens.” By Miriam Valverde. PolitiFact, July 14, 2016. <www.politifact.com>

And even as the immigrant population increases, crime has gone down, the [American Immigration Council] report said.

Between 1990 and 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population increased from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent, and the number of unauthorized immigrants went up from 3.5 million to 11.2 million. At the same time, violent crime rate (murder, rape and aggravated assault) decreased 48 percent and property crime rate fell 41 percent, the report said, citing FBI data.

Bianca E. Bersani, an assistant professor and director of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Program at the University of Massachusetts Boston, says her research also shows that crime involvement among foreign-born residents is lower than that of U.S.-born citizens.

[979] Report: “The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States.” By Walter A. Ewing (Ph.D.), Daniel E. Martínez (Ph.D.), and Rubén G. Rumbaut (Ph.D.). American Immigration Council, July 2015. <www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org>

Page 1:

Between 1990 and 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population grew from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent and the number of unauthorized immigrants more than tripled from 3.5 million to 11.2 million.

During the same period, FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48 percent—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41 percent, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.

[980] Book: Introductory Econometrics: Using Monte Carlo Simulation with Microsoft Excel. By Humberto Barreto and Frank M. Howland. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Page 43:

Association Is Not Causation

A second problem with the correlation coefficient involves its interpretation. A high correlation coefficient means that two variables are highly associated, but association is not the same as causation.

This issue is a persistent problem in empirical analysis in the social sciences. Often the investigator will plot two variables and use the tight relationship obtained to draw absolutely ridiculous or completely erroneous conclusions. Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.

[981] Article: “Statistical Malpractice.” By Bruce G. Charlton. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, March 1996. Pages 112–114. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>

Page 112: “Science is concerned with causes but statistics is concerned with correlations.”

Page 113: “The root of most instances of statistical malpractice is the breaking of mathematical neutrality and the introduction of causal assumptions into analysis without justifying them on scientific grounds.”

[982] Book: Regression With Social Data: Modeling Continuous and Limited Response Variables. By Alfred DeMaris. John Wiley & Sons, 2004.

Page 9:

Regression modeling of nonexperimental data for the purpose of making causal inferences is ubiquitous in the social sciences. Sample regression coefficients are typically thought of as estimates of the causal impacts of explanatory variables on the outcome. Even though researchers may not acknowledge this explicitly, their use of such language as impact or effect to describe a coefficient value often suggest a causal interpretation. This practice is fraught with controversy….

Page 12:

Friedman … is especially critical of drawing causal inferences from observational data, since all that can be “discovered,” regardless of the statistical candlepower used, is association. Causation has to be assumed into the structure from the beginning. Or, as Friedman … says: “If you want to pull a causal rabbit out of the hat, you have to put the rabbit into the hat.” In my view, this point is well taken; but it does not preclude using regression for causal inference. What it means, instead, is that prior knowledge of the causal status of one’s regressors is a prerequisite for endowing regression coefficients with a causal interpretation, as acknowledged by Pearl 1998.

Page 13: “In sum, causal modeling via regression, using nonexperimental data, can be a useful enterprise provided we bear in mind that several strong assumptions are required to sustain it. First, regardless of the sophistication of our methods, statistical techniques only allow us to examine associations among variables.”

[983] Book: Business and Competitive Analysis: Effective Application of New and Classic Methods (2nd edition). By Craig S. Fleisher and Babette E. Bensoussan. Pearson Education, 2015.

Pages 338–339: “One of the biggest potential problems with statistical analysis is the quality of the interpretation of the results. Many people see cause-and-effect relationships ‘evidenced’ by statistics, which are in actuality simply describing data associations or correlation having little or nothing to do with causal factors.”

[984] Textbook: Macroeconomics: A Contemporary Introduction (10th edition). By William A. McEachern. South-Western Cengage Learning, 2014.

Page 13:

Economic analysis, like other forms of scientific inquiry, is subject to common mistakes in reasoning that can lead to faulty conclusions. Here are three sources of confusion.

The Fallacy That Association Is Causation

In the past two decades, the number of physicians specializing in cancer treatment increased sharply. At the same time, the incidence of some cancers increased. Can we conclude that physicians cause cancer? No. To assume that event A caused event B simply because the two are associated in time is to commit the association-is-causation fallacy, a common error. The fact that one event precedes another or that the two events occur simultaneously does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. Remember: Association is not necessarily causation.

[985] Constructed with data from:

a) Dataset: “Uniform Crime Reporting Program, United States, 1960–2008.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Data supplied to Just Facts on June 15, 2010.

b) Dataset: “Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2001–2020.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Fall 2021. <crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov>

c) Working paper: “The Size, Place of Birth, and Geographic Distribution of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 1960 to 2010.” By Elizabeth M. Grieco and others. U.S. Census Bureau, October 2012. <www.census.gov>

d) Dataset: “2003–2018 Population by Nativity; Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed December 20, 2019 at <www.census.gov>

e) Dataset: “Table S0501: Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations 2010–2021.” American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau. 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021

NOTES:

  • An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.
  • The U.S. Census Bureau did not release estimates for 2020. Hence, Just Facts interpolated this data.

[986] Book: Taming the Big Data Tidal Wave: Finding Opportunities in Huge Data Streams with Advanced Analytics. By Bill Franks. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

Page 189:

One of the worst abuses of analytics is to cherry pick results. Cherry pickers tout analysis findings when the results serve the purpose at hand. But, they ignore the findings when the results conflict with the original plan. An organization claiming it uses analytics to make decisions when cherry picking is standard practice is dishonest. Nothing will change or improve in such an environment. There will be just a lot of extra time and money spent on analysis efforts that change nothing.

[987] Article: “Libertarian Candidate Says Mexican Immigrants More Law-Abiding Than U.S. Citizens.” By Miriam Valverde. PolitiFact, July 14, 2016. <www.politifact.com>

“The council [American Immigration Council] analyzed data from the Census’ 2010 American Community Survey and found that about 1.6 percent of all immigrant males (Census does not specify legal status) between 18 and 39 years old were incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born population.”

[988] Report: “The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States.” By Walter A. Ewing, Daniel E. Martínez, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. American Immigration Council, July 2015. <www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org>

Pages 6–7, 22:

According to an original analysis of data from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the authors of this report, roughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18–39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born.21

In 2010, less-educated native-born men age 18–39 had an incarceration rate of 10.7 percent—more than triple the 2.8 percent rate among foreign-born Mexican men, and five times greater than the 1.7 percent rate among foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men.23

21 Means are weighted to reflect sampling. …

23 2010 American Community Survey.

[989] Dataset: “Characteristics of the Group Quarters Population by Group Quarters Type, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed March 2, 2017 at <census.gov>

“Adult correctional facilities … Naturalized U.S. citizen [=] 28,994 … Not a U.S. citizen [=] 151,324”

[990] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page ii: “Naturalized citizen: A foreign-born individual who has become a U.S. citizen by fulfilling requirements set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act, including, in most cases, having resided in the United States for at least five years.”

[991] Calculated with the dataset: “Characteristics of the Group Quarters Population by Group Quarters Type, 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed March 2, 2017 at <census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[992] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 4: “Individuals housed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are beyond the scope of this report because they are not officially part of the U.S. criminal justice system.”

[993] Report: “The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States.” By Walter A. Ewing, Daniel E. Martínez, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. American Immigration Council, July 2015. <www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org>

Pages 6–7, 22:

According to an original analysis of data from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the authors of this report, roughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18–39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born.21

In 2010, less-educated native-born men age 18–39 had an incarceration rate of 10.7 percent—more than triple the 2.8 percent rate among foreign-born Mexican men, and five times greater than the 1.7 percent rate among foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men.23

21 Means are weighted to reflect sampling. …

23 2010 American Community Survey.

[994] a) Email from Just Facts to the American Immigration Council on January 21, 2017:

Would you kindly send me the full datasets that substantiate the following two statements in the American Immigration Council’s report “The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States”:

• “According to an original analysis of data from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the authors of this report, roughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18–39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born.2121 Means are weighted to reflect sampling.”

• “In 2010, less-educated native-born men age 18–39 had an incarceration rate of 10.7 percent—more than triple the 2.8 percent rate among foreign-born Mexican men, and five times greater than the 1.7 percent rate among foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men.2323 2010 American Community Survey.”

b) Email from Just Facts to the American Immigration Council on January 24, 2017:

“I am writing to follow up on the e-mail below [shown above].”

c) Email from the American Immigration Council to Just Facts on February 1, 2017:

“Hello. The data set in question is the Census Bureau’s 2010 American Community Survey, which I accessed on-line via American Fact Finder. This is a massive data set to which I don’t have direct access.”

d) Email from Just Facts to the American Immigration Council on February 1, 2017:

“Thank you for your reply. The 2010 American Community Survey contains hundreds of datasets. Can you provide the titles of the particular datasets you used for this analysis?”

e) Email from the American Immigration Council to Just Facts on February 1, 2017:

“Sorry. I read too quickly and misunderstood what you were asking. I’ve referred your question to one of my co-authors … who worked with the data used for those particular estimates.”

f) Email from the American Immigration Council to Just Facts on February 2, 2017:

According to my co-writer, the ACS is a single data set, not a collection of many data sets. It is an annual survey based on a 1% sample of all U.S. households, plus a sample of the population in group quarters (which include jails and state and federal prisons). The relevant data for our report were drawn from the ACS Group Quarters data for institutionalized young men 18–39—these provide a very good proxy of the incarcerated population (since young men are not in nursing homes, for instance). Depending on how fine a breakdown you seek (such as less than high-school diploma, specific nationality such as Mexican, Salvadoran, Guatemalan), you may need to merge multiple annual ACS surveys to increase sample size for analysis (such as merge 2010–2015), to get more reliable estimates.

g) Email from Just Facts to the American Immigration Council on February 1, 2017:

Forgive me if I’m missing something. My understanding is that although ACS is a single ongoing survey, the Census Bureau publishes the results in hundreds of different datasets, each with a unique identifier and title. For example, dataset “DP02“ is “Selected Social Characteristics in the United States.”

If AIC [American Immigration Council] used several of these datasets for this study, can you tell me the unique identifier and title for each? If AIC constructed custom datasets from the raw ACS data, can you send me the resultant datasets?

e) No reply to the email above as of October 31, 2022.

[995] Book: Quantifying Research Integrity. By Michael Seadle. Morgan & Claypool, 2017.

Page 43: “[D]ata falsification comes from an excess of creativity—creating data to produce particular results. … [A]n important goal in the social sciences is that results, and therefore the data, be reproducible. There may be legal questions about whether the process that produces a particular result has been patented and thus protected, but data in and of themselves have no legal protection in the U.S.”

Page 44: “When data are not available, researchers must either trust past published results, or they must recreate the data as best they can based on descriptions in the published works, which often turn out to be too cryptic. … Descriptions are no substitute for the data itself.”

[996] Handbook of Data Analysis. Edited by Melissa Hardy and Alan Bryman. Sage Publications, 2004. Introduction: “Common Threads Among Techniques of Data Analysis.” By Melissa Hardy and Alan Bryman. Pages 1–14.

Page 7:

Both Argue the Importance of Transparency

Regardless of the type of research being conducted, the methodology should not eclipse the data, but should put the data to optimal use. The techniques of analysis should be sufficiently transparent that other researchers familiar with the area can recognize how the data are being collected and tested, and can replicate the outcomes of the analysis procedure. (Journals are now requesting that authors provide copies of their data files when a paper is published so that other researchers can easily reproduce the analysis and then build on or dispute the conclusions of the paper.)

[997] Book: Quantifying Research Integrity. By Michael Seadle. Morgan & Claypool, 2017.

Page 43: “[D]ata falsification comes from an excess of creativity—creating data to produce particular results. … [A]n important goal in the social sciences is that results, and therefore the data, be reproducible. There may be legal questions about whether the process that produces a particular result has been patented and thus protected, but data in and of themselves have no legal protection in the U.S.”

Page 44: “When data are not available, researchers must either trust past published results, or they must recreate the data as best they can based on descriptions in the published works, which often turn out to be too cryptic. … Descriptions are no substitute for the data itself.”

[998] The Handbook of Social Research Ethics. Edited by Donna M. Mertens and Pauline E. Ginsberg. Sage, 2009.

Chapter 24: “Use and Misuse of Quantitative Methods: Data Collection, Calculation, and Presentation.” By Bruce L. Brown and Dawson Hedges. Pages 373–386.

Page 384:

Science is only as good as the collection, presentation, and interpretation of its data. The philosopher of science Karl Popper argues that scientific theories must be testable and precise enough to be capable of falsification (Popper, 1959). To be so, science, including social science, must be essentially a public endeavor, in which all findings should be published and exposed to scrutiny by the entire scientific community. Consistent with this view, any errors, scientific or otherwise, in the collection, analysis, and presentation of data potentially hinder the self-correcting nature of science, reducing science to a biased game of ideological and corporate hide-and-seek.

… Any hindrance to the collection, analysis, or publication of data, such as inaccessible findings from refusal to share data or not publishing a study, should also be corrected for science to fully function.

[999] Editorial: “No Raw Data, No Science: Another Possible Source of the Reproducibility Crisis.” Molecular Brain, February 21, 2020. <molecularbrain.biomedcentral.com>

Page 1:

A reproducibility crisis is a situation where many scientific studies cannot be reproduced. Inappropriate practices of science, such as HARKing [hypothesizing after the results are known], p-hacking, and selective reporting of positive results, have been suggested as causes of irreproducibility. In this editorial, I propose that a lack of raw data or data fabrication is another possible cause of irreproducibility.

As an Editor-in-Chief of Molecular Brain, I have handled 180 manuscripts since early 2017 and have made 41 editorial decisions categorized as “Revise before review,” requesting that the authors provide raw data. Surprisingly, among those 41 manuscripts, 21 were withdrawn without providing raw data, indicating that requiring raw data drove away more than half of the manuscripts. I rejected 19 out of the remaining 20 manuscripts because of insufficient raw data. Thus, more than 97% of the 41 manuscripts did not present the raw data supporting their results when requested by an editor, suggesting a possibility that the raw data did not exist from the beginning, at least in some portions of these cases.

Considering that any scientific study should be based on raw data, and that data storage space should no longer be a challenge, journals, in principle, should try to have their authors publicize raw data in a public database or journal site upon the publication of the paper to increase reproducibility of the published results and to increase public trust in science.

Page 5:

There are practical issues that need to be solved to share raw data. … For these technical issues, institutions, funding agencies, and publishers should cooperate and try to support such a move by establishing data storage infrastructure to enable the securing and sharing of raw data, based on the understanding that “no raw data, no science.”

[1000] Article: “Libertarian Candidate Says Mexican Immigrants More Law-Abiding Than U.S. Citizens.” By Miriam Valverde. PolitiFact, July 14, 2016. <www.politifact.com>

The council [American Immigration Council] analyzed data from the Census’ 2010 American Community Survey and found that about 1.6 percent of all immigrant males (Census does not specify legal status) between 18 and 39 years old were incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born population.

The council also reported 2010 Census data that shows incarceration rates of young, less educated Mexican, Salvadoran and Guatemalan men—which comprise the bulk of the unauthorized population—are “significantly lower” than incarceration rates of native-born young men without a high-school diploma.

Specifically for Mexican men ages 18 to 39, the incarceration rate in 2010 was 2.8 percent, compared to 10.7 percent for native-born men in the same age group, the council’s report said. …

Our Ruling

Johnson said Mexican immigrants are not “murderers and rapists” but are actually “more law-abiding than U.S. citizens and that is a statistic.”

Numerous studies by scholars and partisan groups show that the foreign-born population is less likely to commit crimes than the native-born, and experts say this includes Mexican immigrants.

[1001] Report: “The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States.” By Walter A. Ewing, Daniel E. Martínez, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. American Immigration Council, July 2015. <www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org>

Pages 1–2:

The 2010 Census data reveals that incarceration rates among the young, less-educated Mexican, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan men who make up the bulk of the unauthorized population are significantly lower than the incarceration rate among native-born young men without a high-school diploma. In 2010, less-educated native-born men age 18–39 had an incarceration rate of 10.7 percent—more than triple the 2.8 percent rate among foreign-born Mexican men, and five times greater than the 1.7 percent rate among foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men.

[1002] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population—2013 Update.” Congressional Budget Office, May 8, 2013. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 13 (of PDF): “Exhibit 11. Educational Attainment of People Ages 25 to 64, by Birthplace, 2012 (Percent) … Less Than High School Diploma or GED … Native-Born [=] 7% … Mexico and Central America [=] 54%”

[1003] Working paper: “Educational Characteristics of Prisoners: Data from the ACS.” By Stephanie Ewert and Tara Wildhagen. U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, March 31, 2011. <www.census.gov>

Abstract:

This study brings new and current data to bear on the educational characteristics of prisoners using the 2009 American Community Survey (ACS) by examining the attainment and enrollment of adult prisoners and comparing them to the general household population and an economically disadvantaged segment of the household population that may be at risk of incarceration. We find that prisoners have lower levels of educational attainment than the general household population as well as the economically disadvantaged household population.

Page 14:

Table 4 shows that male prisoners had lower levels of educational attainment than the general population. While 56 percent of men in the general (household) population had completed some college or higher, only 23 percent of male prisoners had some postsecondary education. Fifteen percent of men in the general population did not complete high school compared with 40 percent of prisoners. Furthermore, GED certificates were more common among the adult correctional population than the general population. Twenty percent of prisoners completed a GED as their highest level of education compared to 4 percent of the general population.

CALCULATIONS:

  • Prisoners: 40% did not complete high school + 20% with a GED = 60%
  • General population: 15% did not complete high school + 4% with a GED = 19%

[1004] Report: “2015 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Pages 107–115:

Table 41. Aliens Removed by Criminal Status and Region and Country of Nationality: Fiscal Years 2006 to 2015

Year

Total

Criminal *

Non-Criminal

2006

280,974

98,490

182,484

2007

319,382

102,394

216,988

2008

359,795

105,266

254,529

2009

391,341

131,837

259,504

2010

381,738

169,656

212,082

2011

386,020

188,964

197,056

2012

416,324

200,143

216,181

2013

434,015

198,981

235,034

2014

407,075

169,253

237,822

2015

333,341

139,950

193,391

Average †

371,001

150,493

220,507

Total †

3,710,005

1,504,934

2,205,071

* Refers to persons removed who have a prior criminal conviction

Beginning in 2008, excludes criminals removed by Customs and Border Protection (CBP); CBP ENFORCE does not identify if aliens removed were criminals

NOTES:

  • † Calculated by Just Facts
  • Nearly all of these removals were non-citizens, because immigrants who have become citizens generally cannot be deported unless they are stripped of their citizenship, which is a rare occurrence.‡ §
  • ‡ “A Brief Guide to Representing Noncitizen Criminal Defendants in Connecticut.” By Jorge L. Baron (New Haven Legal Assistance Association) and Alix Walmsley (Office of the Public Defender, State of Connecticut). Revised September 1, 2005. <defgen.vermont.gov>. Page 8; “If your client is a U.S. citizen, STOP: he or she will NOT face immigration consequences because of a criminal conviction.”
  • § Press release: “Former Naturalized US Citizen Admits to Immigration Fraud; Ordered Deported for Failing to Disclose Terrorism Conviction.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, April, 25, 2017. <www.ice.gov>. “A former naturalized U.S. citizen, who was convicted in Israel for participating in a terrorist bombing, pleaded guilty Tuesday to immigration fraud charges.
  • The next footnote contains the same data for 2008–2016 and clarifies the meaning of “convicted criminal.”

[1005] “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2016.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 30, 2016. <www.ice.gov>

Page 2: “Figure 1: FY 2008–2016 ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Removals.”

Page 5: “FY 2008–2016 ICE Removals by Criminality … Convicted Criminal”

Page 14: “Appendix B: Key Terms and Definitions … Convicted Criminal: An individual convicted in the United States for one or more criminal offenses. This does not include civil traffic offenses.”

[1006] Dataset: “Characteristics of the Group Quarters Population by Group Quarters Type, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed March 2, 2017 at <census.gov>

“Adult correctional facilities … Not a U.S. citizen [=] 151,324”

[1007] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 4: “Individuals housed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are beyond the scope of this report because they are not officially part of the U.S. criminal justice system.”

[1008] Report: “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 24 States in 2008: A 10-Year Follow-Up Period (2008–2018).” By Leonardo Antenangeli and Matthew R. Durose. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2021.

<bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) used prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program and criminal history data to analyze the post-release offending patterns of former prisoners both within and outside of the state where they were imprisoned. This report presents findings from BJS’s first study of prisoner recidivism over a 10-year period. The study randomly sampled about 73,600 released prisoners to represent the approximately 409,300 state prisoners released across 24 states in 2008.

Page 4: “Among state prisoners released in 2008 across 24 states, about 2 in 5 (43%) were arrested within 1 year…. This rate increased to about 8 in 10 (82%) released prisoners by the end of the 10-year follow-up period.”
 

Page 9: “The approximately 409,300 state prisoners released across 24 states in 2008 had an estimated 2,197,000 arrests during the 10-year follow-up period…. The percentage of state prisoners released across 24 states in 2008 who were arrested at least once within 10 years would be 80.5% if arrests for probation and parole violations were excluded and 81.9% if they were included.”

[1009] Article: “New York Killers, and Those Killed, by Numbers.” By Jo Craven McGinty. New York Times, April 28, 2006. <www.nytimes.com>

“From 2003 through 2005, 1,662 murders were committed in New York. … More than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records; and of those who wound up killed, more than half had them.”

[1010] Article: “Statistical Snapshots from Baltimore’s Deadliest Year: Suspects, Victims and Cops.” By Kevin Rector. Baltimore Sun, January 7, 2016. <www.baltimoresun.com>

While detectives have no motive or suspects in many of the year’s 344 homicides, the department’s annual homicide analysis report captures what the department does know about the people it arrested and those who were killed. … The department said it had 85 homicide suspects as of Dec. 31, when the data was compiled. … Among the suspects, 76.5 percent had prior criminal records, 62.4 percent had prior drug arrests, 52.9 percent had been arrested for violent crimes, and 41.2 percent had been arrested for gun crimes. Nearly a quarter were on parole and probation at the time of the killing for which they are now a suspect. Nearly 2.5 percent were on parole and probation specifically for a gun crime at the time of the incident. The average suspect had been arrested more than nine times before, and 15.3 percent of the suspects were suspected gang members, the report said.

[1011] Dataset: “2016 Population Aged 0–16, 17–34, and 35+.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed March 1, 2017 at <www.census.gov>

“17 to 34 [=] 24.4%”

[1012] Calculated with the dataset: “2016 Crime in the United States, Expanded Homicide Data Table 2: Murder Offenders by Age, Sex, Race, and Ethnicity, 2016.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Fall 2017. <ucr.fbi.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[1013] Dataset: “2016 Population by Detailed Nativity.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed March 1, 2017 at <www.census.gov>

“Not a Citizen [=] 7.2%”

[1014] Dataset: “2016 Population Aged 16–34 by Detailed Nativity.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed March 1, 2017 at <www.census.gov>

“Not a Citizen [=] 10.2%”

[1015] Article: “Libertarian Candidate Says Mexican Immigrants More Law-Abiding Than U.S. Citizens.” By Miriam Valverde. PolitiFact, July 14, 2016. <www.politifact.com>

Bianca E. Bersani, an assistant professor and director of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Program at the University of Massachusetts Boston, says her research also shows that crime involvement among foreign-born residents is lower than that of U.S.-born citizens.

It holds true for Mexican immigrants, she said.

“When ethnicity can be distinguished and Mexican immigrants isolated from the group of first-generation immigrants, research continues to find that Mexican immigrants have lower rates of involvement in crime compared to their U.S-born peers,” Bersani said.

Recent studies tracking changes over time also found that areas of the country with an increased foreign-born population do not experience corresponding increases in crime, said Bersani.

“The rhetoric of the ‘criminal immigrant’ does not align with the bulk of empirical research,” Bersani said.

According to Bersani’s research [<www.tandfonline.com>], while first-generation immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born population, the second generation (individuals born in the United States to at least one foreign-born parent) more closely resemble patterns of their native-born peers (three or more U.S.-born generations).

[1016] Paper: “An Examination of First and Second Generation Immigrant Offending Trajectories.” By Bianca E. Bersani. Justice Quarterly, 2014. Pages 315–343. <www.tandfonline.com>

Page 315:

[T]his research asks whether immigrants are differentially involved in crime by examining immigrant offending histories (prevalence, frequency, seriousness, persistence, and desistance) from early adolescence to young adulthood. … [T]rajectory analyses reveal that immigrants are no more crime-prone than the native-born. Foreign-born individuals exhibit remarkably low levels of involvement in crime across their life course.

Page 336: “First, in no instance did immigrant nationality group act as a risk factor for offending. Even among first and second generation immigrants of Mexican heritage who face perhaps the greatest barriers to success, a crime-prone group did not emerge.”

[1017] Paper: “An Examination of First and Second Generation Immigrant Offending Trajectories.” By Bianca E. Bersani. Justice Quarterly, 2014. Pages 315–343. <www.tandfonline.com>

Page 317: “First, I use nine waves of data from a large national dataset (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 [NLSY97]) that captures information annually on self-reported criminal offending and country of birth information for youth and parents.”

Page 323:

The NLSY97 is the newest assessment in the series of National Longitudinal Surveys and is representative of people living in the USA in 1997 who were born during the years 1980–1984 and were 12–16 years of age during the initial survey round in 1997….

The initial NLSY97 sample includes 8,984 youth. The largest portion of these respondents (n  = 6748) comprise the general sample which was designed to be representative of the general US population born between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1984. The remaining portion of the sample (n =  2236) is an over-sample of Hispanic and African-American youth living in the USA during the initial survey who were born during the same period as the cross-sectional sample….

Page 324:

Of the 8,984 youth surveyed in the first wave, immigrant status could be calculated for 7,918 youth (88% of the full sample)4 of which there were 6,418 native-born youth (n = 1,946 native-born blacks), 532 first generation immigrants, and 988 second generation immigrants.5 Table 1 presents the number of individuals observed at each age for the final sample and subsamples.

Page 326:

Beginning with the 2004 survey, the self-reported delinquency and crime items were only asked of a random subsample of respondents and those who had ever reported being arrested in a previous wave. This change in survey structure significantly reduces the sample size for these items in the final two waves of data (or older respondent ages).

[1018] Paper: “An Examination of First and Second Generation Immigrant Offending Trajectories.” By Bianca E. Bersani. Justice Quarterly, 2014. Pages 315–343. <www.tandfonline.com>

Page 323:

The initial NLSY97 [National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997] sample includes 8,984 youth. The largest portion of these respondents (n  = 6748) comprise the general sample which was designed to be representative of the general US population born between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1984. The remaining portion of the sample (n =  2236) is an over-sample of Hispanic and African-American youth living in the USA during the initial survey who were born during the same period as the cross-sectional sample….

Page 324:

Of the 8,984 youth surveyed in the first wave, immigrant status could be calculated for 7,918 youth (88% of the full sample)4 of which there were 6,418 native-born youth (n = 1,946 native-born blacks), 532 first generation immigrants, and 988 second generation immigrants.5 Table 1 presents the number of individuals observed at each age for the final sample and subsamples.

Page 326:

Beginning with the 2004 survey, the self-reported delinquency and crime items were only asked of a random subsample of respondents and those who had ever reported being arrested in a previous wave. This change in survey structure significantly reduces the sample size for these items in the final two waves of data (or older respondent ages).

[1019] Email from Bianca Bersani to Just Facts, March 6, 2017.

“I can clarify that the information in figures 1a and 1b drew from the full data set including the oversample. I did conduct a series of robustness checks for this research testing for nativity, race, and crime type differences.”

[1020] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “2014 Crime in the United States, Expanded Homicide Data Table 1: Murder Victims by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex, 2014.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Fall 2015. <ucr.fbi.gov>

b) Dataset: “2014 Crime in the United States, Expanded Homicide Data Table 3: Murder Offenders by Age, Sex, Race, and Ethnicity, 2014.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Fall 2015. <ucr.fbi.gov>

c) Webpage: “2014 Crime in the United States, Murder.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Accessed September 06, 2016 at <ucr.fbi.gov>

“In 2014, the estimated number of murders in the nation was 14,249.”

d) Dataset: “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race Alone or in Combination, and Hispanic Origin for the United States, States, and Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014: 2014 Population Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau, June 2015. <www.census.gov>

e) Dataset: “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States, States, and Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014: 2014 Population Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau, June 2015. <www.census.gov>

NOTES:

  • In the homicide data above, law enforcement identified the race of 83% of the victims and the Hispanicity of 61% of them. Estimating one offender per murder, law enforcement identified the race of 69% of the offenders and the Hispanicity of 35% of them.
  • As documented in Just Facts’ research on racial issues and unsolved murders, murders committed by racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to be solved than other murders.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[1021] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “2013 Population by Race and Ethnicity.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 8, 2016 at <www.census.gov>

b) Dataset: “Percent of Single-Offender Violent Victimizations, By Type of Crime, Race/Hispanic Origin of Victim, and Perceived Race/Hispanic Origin of Offender, 2012–2014, National Crime Victimization Survey.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2016.

NOTES:

  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.
  • See the next footnote, which shows that the portion of violent crimes committed by low-income minorities is likely underestimated by the National Crime Victimization Survey.

[1022] Paper: “The Lethality of Criminal Assault 1960–1999.” By Anthony R. Harris and others. Homicide Studies, May 1, 2002. Pages 128–166. <www.universitychurchchicago.org>

Page 139:

One, despite its many uses in measuring crimes unknown to the police, NCS/NCVS [National Crime Survey/National Crime Victimization Survey] has been widely recognized as having continuously undersampled high-risk-for-crime groups, ranging from the Black underclass, to families that recompose and/or move frequently, to prisoners, to the homeless, and to other hard-to- reach populations. For example, in a study of 26 U.S. cities, O’Brien (1983) found that whereas urban percentage African American is positively correlated at .47 with UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] assault rates and .43 for UCR rape rates, it is negatively correlated at –.45 with NCVS assault rates and –.26 with NCVS rape rates. Slightly weaker but parallel findings occur when percentage poor was used by O’Brien instead of percentage African American (see also Reiss and Roth’s extensive 1993 critical review for the National Research Council).

[1023] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2014.” By Jennifer L. Truman and Lynn Langton. U.S. Department of Justice. Revised September 29, 2015. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1: “Violent crime [is] defined as rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.…”

Page 2: “Violent crime … excludes homicide because the NCVS [National Crime Victimization Survey] is based on interviews with victims and therefore cannot measure murder….”

[1024] Report: “The Nation’s Two Crime Measures.” By Michael Planty and Lynn Langton. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September, 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

The U.S. Department of Justice administers two statistical programs to measure the magnitude, nature, and impact of crime in the nation: the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and the Bureau of Justice Statistic’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Each of these programs produces valuable information about aspects of the nation’s crime problem. Because the UCR and NCVS programs have different purposes, use different methods, and focus on somewhat different aspects of crime, the complementary information they produce together provides a more comprehensive understanding of the nation’s crime problem than either could produce alone.

[1025] Book: Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. By the Committee to Improve Research and Data on Firearms and the Committee on Law and Justice, National Research Council of the National Academies. Edited by Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie. National Academies Press, 2005.

Page 21: “The National Crime Victimization Survey … is widely viewed as a ‘gold standard for measuring crime victimization.’

Page 30: “Although the NCVS [National Crime Victimization Survey] data do many things right, they are, like any such system, beset with methodological problems of surveys in general as well as particular problems associated with measuring illicit, deviant, and deleterious activities….”

[1026] Email from Just Facts to Bianca Bersani, March 6, 2017.

Can you provide the following data underlying Figures 1a and 1b for each year disaggregating the NLSY97 general and total samples:

• Sample sizes of the native-born, immigrants, and Mexican immigrants.

• Numbers of native-born, immigrants, and Mexican immigrants who reported that they committed a crime. The same data for violent crimes.

• Numbers of crimes reported by native-born, immigrants and Mexican immigrants. The same data for violent crimes.

[1027] Email from Bianca Bersani to Just Facts, March 6, 2017.

“The table does not break down the subsamples by nativity; however, immigrants of Mexican nativity are the modal group in these data comprising roughly 40% of the immigrant sample.”

[1028] Paper: “An Examination of First and Second Generation Immigrant Offending Trajectories.” By Bianca E. Bersani. Justice Quarterly, 2014. Pages 315–343. <www.tandfonline.com>

Page 326:

Analytic Strategy

I use group-based trajectory modeling … to examine patterns of continuity and change in offending over time. … Conceptually, the group-based trajectory approach identifies clusters of individuals who display similar behavioral trajectories over a period of time…. Because the outcome of interest is the frequency of involvement in crime in each year, the models are estimated using a zero-inflated Poisson form of a group-based trajectory model….

Page 334:

The trajectory models were reanalyzed with the dependent variable disaggregated by crime type (i.e. property, violent, and drug). … Violent crime is virtually non-existent among first generation immigrants.

The results of the drug crime analysis demonstrate that involvement in drug crime was (1) virtually non-existent among first generation immigrants as 95% of the sample was characterized by a non-offender trajectory and (2) similar for second generation immigrants and native-born youth.

[1029] Report: “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, March 2011. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 2–3:

To determine the number and nationalities of criminal aliens incarcerated, we analyzed BOP [Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons] data on criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2005 through 2010 and SCAAP [Department of Justice’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program] data on criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails from fiscal years 2003 through 2009. There are no reliable population data on criminal aliens incarcerated in all state prison systems and local jails. The data we obtained represent a portion of the total population of criminal aliens who may be incarcerated at the state and local levels, since by statute SCAAP does not reimburse states and localities for certain criminal aliens, such as aliens with lawful immigration status, and not all jurisdictions may apply for reimbursement. …

To determine the types of offenses for which criminal aliens were arrested, we obtained the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrest histories of about 203,000 criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008, and 48,000 criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons as of December 27, 2008, for a total of 251,000 criminal aliens. Due to the large volume of arrests and offenses, we selected a random sample of 1,000 criminal aliens and analyzed their arrest records to estimate the number and types of offenses in our study population of approximately 249,000.6 There were nearly 1.7 million arrest records relating to nearly 3 million offenses for these 249,000 criminal aliens. To determine the type of offenses for which criminal aliens were convicted, we analyzed data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission on federal convictions of criminal aliens from fiscal years 2003 through 2009 and conviction data from five states—Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas—from fiscal years 2005 through 2008. We selected these five states based on the number of SCAAP criminal aliens. Collectively, these states accounted for about 70 percent of the SCAAP criminal alien population in fiscal year 2008.

6 We found that five of the criminal aliens from our random sample of 1,000 were out of scope because their records did not reflect actual arrests but rather administrative actions (such as being booked into a prison or transferred from one correctional facility to another). As such, our analysis is of 995 criminal aliens and our estimated study population is about 249,000. See appendix I for details on the margin of error for sample estimates presented in this report.

Page 21:

Table 2: Estimated Number and Percent of Criminal Alien Arrest Offenses by Type of Offense

Arrest offense

Number

Percent

Immigrationa

529,859

18

Drugs

504,043

17

Traffic violations

404,788

14

Obstruction of justice

252,899

9

Assault

213,047

7

Larceny/theft

125,322

4

Fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting

120,810

4

Burglary

115,045

4

Weapons violations

94,492

3

Motor vehicle theft

81,710

3

Sex offenses

69,929

2

Disorderly conduct

52,384

2

Stolen property

49,126

2

Property damage

42,609

1

Robbery

42,609

1

Homicide

25,064

1

Kidnapping

14,788

1

Arson

2,005

<1

Other

151,138

5

Total

2,891,668

100b

Source: Source: GAO [Government Accountability Office] analysis of FBI IAFIS [Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System] data.

Note: For information on the margin of error, see app. I.

a Offenses included in our immigration category included both criminal offenses (63,914) and civil immigration violations—those that lead to removal proceedings (305,784). For 160,161 immigration offenses, we were unable to distinguish whether the offense was criminal or civil. See app. I for information on the margin of error.

b Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Page 49:

To determine the number and nationalities of criminal aliens incarcerated in federal and state prison systems and local jails, we analyzed DOJ’s [Department of Justice] Bureau of Prisons (BOP) federal incarceration data on criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2005 through 2010 and DOJ’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) incarceration data on criminal aliens incarcerated in state prison systems and local jails from fiscal years 2003 through 2009.2 BOP incarceration data are based on an average of the 12 monthly population snapshots for each type of BOP institution, such as minimum security, within the fiscal year. These data do not include inmates for whom citizenship is unknown. There are no reliable population data on criminal aliens incarcerated in all state prison systems and local jails. …

2 The period of time covered by these data vary because they reflect updates since we last reported on these issues in 2005 (see GAO-05-337R and GAO-05-646R). Moreover, they reflect the most recent data available at the time of our analysis.

Pages 50–53:

To determine the types of offenses criminal aliens incarcerated in federal and state prison systems and local jails were arrested for, we selected a random sample of aliens. Specifically, we obtained data from BOP on the population of aliens incarcerated in federal prisons as of December 27, 2008 (approximately 49,000 inmates). We added to this the population of convicted criminal aliens incarcerated in state prison systems and local jails from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008, for whom state and local governments sought reimbursement under SCAAP (approximately 460,000 inmates) for a total of about 509,000. These two populations were chosen because they were the most recent population data available when we began our analysis. In order to obtain an alien’s arrest history, we needed to first determine which criminal aliens had a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identification number. The FBI identification number is a unique identifier the FBI assigns to a set of fingerprints that allows the linking of relevant arrest records and any subsequent activity within the criminal justice system. The arrest histories are stored in the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). About 251,000 (about 48,000 BOP inmates and 203,000 SCAAP inmates) of the 509,000 criminal aliens had a valid FBI identification number in the data records we obtained.5 We provided the FBI number and other identifying information to the FBI and requested the arrest history for these 251,000 criminal aliens. The arrest history record for each criminal alien with a unique FBI identification number contained the dates of arrest, the arresting agency, location of the arrest, and a description of each offense that resulted in the arrest, such as drug possession, burglary, and robbery. We used data available in IAFIS as of May 2010 to determine the arrest history for each alien.

The arrest history records for the 251,000 contained several hundred thousand different descriptions of arrest offenses. From these 251,000 criminal aliens, we selected a simple random sample of 1,000 criminal aliens to analyze. We found that 5 of the criminal aliens from our sample were out of scope because their records did not reflect actual arrests but rather administrative actions (such as being booked into a prison or transferred between facilities). As such, our analysis is of 995 criminal aliens, and our estimated study population is about 249,000. Based on this analysis, we determined the estimated numbers of criminal alien arrests and offenses in our study population. We categorized the arrest history records for this sample into 1 of 19 major offense categories, such as immigration, using FBI’s Reference Guide to Aid in Understanding Arrest Abbreviations on how to categorize different types of crimes (see table 7 below). Because the time period for the federal population of aliens is a single point in time, whereas the time periods for the state prison and local jail population are over four SCAAP years, our combined population understates the federal population of aliens since it does not account for federal prisoners that flowed in and out of BOP facilities. Given this difference in time period for these populations, we are not reporting comparisons between federal and state and local prisons, except in cases where we note that the subpopulations may differ as a result of the time difference rather than as a result of a difference between the two subpopulations. For the study population, the analysis includes criminal aliens with arrests submitted to the FBI dating from August 1955 to April 2010.

Because our estimates regarding criminal alien arrests and offenses are based on a probability sample, each estimate we report has a measurable margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error surrounding an estimate is expressed as (1) a number of percentage points higher or lower than the percentage estimate, (2) a percent higher or lower than the estimated number, or (3) the entire range the margin of error covers, which is referred to as a confidence interval. Margins of error are calculated based on a certain confidence level, which for estimates in this report are 95 percent. For the estimated number of criminal aliens in our study population, total arrests, total offenses, and the average number of arrests and offenses per criminal alien, the margin of error is no more than ±6 percent. For estimates of the number of arrests and offenses per criminal alien (see figure 8 of this report), the margin of error for percentage estimates is no more than ±3 percentage points and the margin of error for the estimated numbers of criminal aliens is no more than ±30 percent of the estimate unless otherwise noted.6 For estimated percentages of criminal aliens with at least 1 arrest per offense category (see figure 9 of this report), the margin of error is no more than ±3 percentage points. For estimated offenses by arrest offense categories (see table 2 of this report), the margin of error for percentage estimates is no more than ±2 percentage points, and the margin of error for the estimated numbers of arrest offenses is no more than ±20 percent of the estimated number unless otherwise noted.7 For estimates related to arrest locations (see figure 10 of this report), the margin of error for the percentage estimates is no more than ±1 percentage point.

To determine offenses for which criminal aliens were convicted, we analyzed federal data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission on federal court convictions from fiscal years 2003 through 2009; and data from five states—Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas—on state convictions from fiscal years 2005 through 2008.8 We selected these five states because they are the states with the largest number of SCAAP criminal aliens. Collectively, these states accounted for about 70 percent of the SCAAP criminal alien population in fiscal year 2008. Criminal aliens may be convicted of multiple offenses. For federal court convictions, we analyzed data on the primary offense per offender—the offense with the longest maximum sentence when an individual is convicted of multiple offenses. Table 6 describes the multiple offense categories for federal court convictions. …

Our analysis of state conviction data was based on convictions related to SCAAP illegal alien incarcerations from fiscal years 2005 through 2008 (incarcerations from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008), which were the most recent SCAAP data available at the time of our analysis. The data provided by Arizona and Florida did not distinguish primary convictions, thus we presented our analysis of all offenses provided per inmate. For California, New York, and Texas, we analyzed the primary conviction

5 States and localities applying for SCAAP reimbursement are not required to submit an individual’s FBI identification number to verify the individual’s immigration status.

6 For our 21 to 25 arrest category in fig. 8 of this report, the confidence interval is from 2,642 through 6,882 criminal aliens. For our 26 or greater arrest category in fig. 8 of this report, the confidence interval is from 1,499 through 5,018 criminal aliens.

7 For our kidnapping category in table 2 of this report, the confidence interval is from 11,112 through 18,464 offenses. For our arson category in table 2 of this report, the confidence interval is from 648 through 3,362.

8 We analyzed federal data from fiscal years 2003 through 2009 to determine trends in federal convictions, if any, since our past work. We analyzed state data from fiscal years 2005 through 2008 to determine trends in selected state convictions, if any, using the 4 most recent fiscal years at the time of our analysis.

[1030] Report: “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, Convictions, Costs, and Removals.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, July 2018. <www.gao.gov>

“We [U.S. Government Accountability Office] most recently reported information on criminal alien statistics in 2011.7 You [Senator Charles Grassley, Representatives Steve King and Pete Sessions] asked that we update and expand upon the information in that report.”

[1031] Calculated with data from the report: “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, Convictions, Costs, and Removals.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, July 2018. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 4–7:

In general, we analyzed data separately for criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons and SCAAP [Department of Justice’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program] criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails—which we refer to as our two study populations.8 The time periods we analyzed varied for our federal study population compared to our state and local study population because they reflect updates since we last reported on these issues in 2011 and because we used the most recent data available at the time of our analysis.9 … Overall, our findings are not generalizable to criminal aliens not included in our federal and state and local study populations. However, they provide valuable insights into the criminal aliens incarcerated in the United States. For example, we used SCAAP data because there are no reliable population data on all criminal aliens incarcerated in every U.S. state prison and local jail.12 SCAAP provides reliable data on certain criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails but does not include (a) criminal aliens incarcerated in states or localities that did not apply for and receive federal reimbursement for costs of incarceration and (b) aliens with lawful immigration status who were not the subject of removal proceedings at the time they were taken into custody.13 Further, to be eligible for reimbursement, the aliens must meet the definition of “undocumented criminal alien” under the SCAAP statute and the following criteria: (1) had at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law and (2) were incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period.14 Thus, our state and local criminal alien data represent only a portion of the total population of criminal aliens incarcerated at the state and local level.

To determine the number and nationalities—based on country of citizenship or country of birth data—of incarcerated criminal aliens, we analyzed BOP [Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons] data on criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2011 through 2016 and SCAAP data on SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prisons and local jails from fiscal years 2010 through 2015.15 BOP obtains country of citizenship data from presentence investigation reports, which may be based on documentation or be self-reported.16 SCAAP country of birth data are provided to DOJ [Department of Justice] by states and localities that participate in SCAAP.17

To determine the number and types of offenses for which criminal aliens were arrested and convicted, we analyzed various federal and state data. Specifically, for arrests, we matched a random sample of 500 criminal aliens from our federal study population and 500 SCAAP criminal aliens from the state and local study population to DOJ’s [Department of Justice] FBI database that maintains data from reporting law enforcement agencies across the nation.18 While the samples we selected for our analyses allowed us to estimate and provide valuable insights about the arrest history of the approximately 197,000 criminal aliens in our federal study population and the approximately 533,000 SCAAP criminal aliens in our state and local study population, our analyses are not generalizable to the arrest history of criminal aliens not in these study populations. We analyzed the arrest histories of criminal aliens in our samples to estimate the number and types of offenses for which criminal aliens in our federal and state and local study populations were arrested/transferred. We defined an arrest/transfer as one of these actions occurring on the same day by the same arresting agency. The data did not allow us to distinguish between a new arrest and a transfer from one agency to another; therefore, we refer to these collectively as “arrests/transfers.” The criminal aliens in our samples had arrests/transfers that ranged from 1964 through 2017.19 Because law enforcement entities send arrest information to the FBI on a voluntary basis, FBI data on arrest history may not include all arrests.20 An arrest does not necessarily result in prosecution or a conviction of all, or any, of the offenses for which an individual is arrested. To determine the primary offenses for which the approximately 198,000 criminal aliens in our federal study population were convicted and incarcerated, we analyzed BOP conviction data for criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2011 through 2016. In addition, to determine the types of primary offenses for which SCAAP criminal aliens were convicted, we analyzed conviction data from five state prison systems—Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas—from fiscal years 2010 through 2015. We selected these five state prison systems because they had the most SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in fiscal year 2015. Collectively, these five state prison systems accounted for 64 percent of the SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prisons during fiscal year 2015.21 They are also the same state prison systems that we analyzed in our 2011 report on criminal aliens.22

Pages 25–26:

Table 2: Estimated Number and Percent of Attempted or Committed Offenses for Which Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal Prisons from Fiscal Years 2011 through 2016 who had an FBI Number Were Arrested/Transferred from 1974 through 2017

Arrest Offense

Estimated Number

Estimated Percent

Immigrationa

874,400

42.4

Drugs

336,600

16.3

Traffic violations

204,400

9.9

Obstruction of justice

141,300

6.8

Assault

108,400

5.3

Miscellaneous

74,200

3.6

Larceny/theft

70,300

3.4

Fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting

62,300

3

Burglary

44,900

2.2

Weapons violations

44,500

2.2

Motor vehicle theft

19,500

0.9

Sex offenses

13,500

0.7

Disorderly conduct

12,300

0.6

Stolen property

14,300

0.7

Property damage

17,500

0.8

Robbery

13,500

0.7

Homicide

6,000

0.3

Kidnapping

5,600

0.3

Arson

400

< 0.1

Terrorism

400

< 0.1

Totalb

2,064,100

100

Source: GAO [U.S. Government Accountability Office] analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data. | GAO-18-433

Note: These include offenses associated with arrests or transfers by federal arresting agencies and state and local arresting agencies. Offenses may include an attempt or conspiracy to commit the respective offense. While our analyses allowed us to estimate and provide valuable insights about the arrest history of our study population, which consisted of about 197,000 criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2011 through 2016 with an FBI number, our analyses are not intended to infer conclusions about the arrest history of criminal aliens not in this study population. Law enforcement entities send arrest information to the FBI on a voluntary basis; as a result, FBI data on arrest history may not include all arrests. The numbers in the table above represent the number of offenses we estimated that criminal aliens were arrested or transferred for; they do not represent the number of times that criminal aliens were arrested or transferred for each offense. All estimates in this table have a margin of error of ± 3 percentage points or fewer.

a Offenses included in our immigration category include both criminal immigration offenses (about 369,200) and civil immigration violations—administrative grounds of removability (about 494,600). For the remaining immigration offenses, the data did not allow us to distinguish whether the offense was criminal or civil.

b Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Pages 31–32:

Table 3: Estimated Number and Percent of Attempted or Committed Offenses for Which State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in State Prisons and Local Jails from Fiscal Years 2010 through 2015 who had an FBI Number were Arrested/Transferred from 1964 through 2017

Arrest Offense

Estimated Number

Estimated Percent

Traffic violations

1,226,000

22.4

Immigrationa

852,000

15.6

Drugs

761,200

13.9

Obstruction of justice

665,000

12.2

Assault

397,000

7.3

Larceny/theft

276,700

5.1

Miscellaneous

257,000

4.7

Fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting

200,100

3.7

Burglary

175,000

3.2

Weapons violations

124,700

2.3

Sex offenses

120,300

2.2

Disorderly conduct

90,800

1.7

Motor vehicle theft

90,800

1.7

Stolen property

75,500

1.4

Robbery

54,700

1.0

Property damage

50,300

0.9

Homicide

27,300

0.5

Kidnapping

18,600

0.3

Arson

3,300

0.1

Terrorism

1,100

<0.1

Totalb

5,467,200

100

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data. | GAO-18-433

Note: These include offenses associated with arrests or transfers by federal arresting agencies and state and local arresting agencies. Offenses may include an attempt or conspiracy to commit the respective offense. While our analyses allowed us to estimate and provide valuable insights about the arrest history of our study population, which consisted of about 533,000 SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails from fiscal years 2010 through 2015 with an FBI number, our analyses are not intended to infer conclusions about the arrest history of criminal aliens not in this study population. Law enforcement entities send arrest information to the FBI on a voluntary basis; as a result, FBI data on arrest history may not include all arrests. The numbers in the table above represent the number of offenses we estimated that SCAAP criminal aliens were arrested or transferred for; they do not represent the number of times that SCAAP criminal aliens were arrested or transferred for each offense. All estimates in this table have a margin of error of ±3 percentage points or fewer.

a Offenses included in our immigration category included both criminal immigration offenses (about 229,700) and civil immigration violations—administrative grounds of removability (about 616,800). For the remaining immigration offenses, the data did not allow us to distinguish whether the offense was criminal or civil.

b Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

CALCULATIONS:

  • Drug offenses: 336,600 federal + 761,200 state & local = 1,097,800
  • Assaults: 108,400 federal + 397,000 state & local = 505,400
  • Burglaries: 44,900 federal + 175,000 state & local = 219,900
  • Weapons violations: 44,500 federal + 124,700 state & local = 169,200
  • Sex offenses: 13,500 federal + 120,300 state & local = 133,800
  • Homicides: 6,000 federal + 27,300 state & local = 33,300
  • Kidnappings: 5,600 federal + 18,600 state & local = 24,200
  • Acts of terrorism: 400 federal + 1,100 state & local = 1,500

[1032] Paper: “An Examination of First and Second Generation Immigrant Offending Trajectories.” By Bianca E. Bersani. Justice Quarterly, 2014. Pages 315–343. <www.tandfonline.com>

Pages 332–333:

Responding to the recognition that nativity may influence the findings, I tested to see if the results were confounded by the ethnic composition of the data by assessing the extent to which being a member of a specific immigrant nationality group distinguished membership in trajectory groups. … Yet, in no case was Mexican immigrant ethnicity found to be a risk factor for trajectory group membership. Mexican, Central American, Caribbean, and Asian immigrants were no more likely to be in a high-rate offender group than the low rate or non-offender groups.

[1033] Calculated with the dataset: “Characteristics of the Group Quarters Population by Group Quarters Type, 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed March 2, 2017 at <census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[1034] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 4: “Individuals housed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are beyond the scope of this report because they are not officially part of the U.S. criminal justice system.”

[1035] Book: Business and Competitive Analysis: Effective Application of New and Classic Methods (2nd edition). By Craig S. Fleisher and Babette E. Bensoussan. Pearson Education, 2015.

Page 338: “Statistical analysis is very easy to misuse and misinterpret. Any method of analysis used, whenever applied to data, will provide a result, and all statistical results look authoritative.”

[1036] Book: Health Promotion & Education Research Methods: Using the Five Chapter Thesis/Dissertation Model (2nd edition). By Randall R. Cottrell and James F. McKenzie. Jones and Bartlett, 2011.

Chapter 6: “Research Ethics.” Article: “Data Analyses.” Pages 112–113.

Page 112:

Torabi (1994)† has identified several specific ethical issues related to analyses of data. They include using data in an ignorant or careless way, direct manipulation of data, selective use or elimination of data, and overanalysis of data. … Manipulation of data involves subjecting data to multiple statistical techniques until one achieves the desired outcome.

NOTE: † Article: “Reliability Methods and Numbers of Items in Development of Health Instruments.” By M. R. Torabi. Health Values: The Journal of Health Behavior, Education & Promotion, November–December 1994. Pages 56–59. <psycnet.apa.org>

[1037] Book: Health Promotion & Education Research Methods: Using the Five Chapter Thesis/Dissertation Model (2nd edition). By Randall R. Cottrell and James F. McKenzie. Jones and Bartlett, 2011.

Chapter 6: “Research Ethics.” Article: “Data Analyses.” Pages 112–113.

Page 112:

Torabi (1994)† has identified several specific ethical issues related to analyses of data. …

The final ethical issue noted by Torabi (1994) dealing with data analyses is overanalysis of data. There are times in the analyses of data that advanced statistical techniques need to be used to deal with complicated studies that include many variables. These advanced techniques should not be used just to impress others. “A general principle of data analysis recommends using the most appropriate, yet simplest, statistical techniques in research so findings can be better understood, interpreted, and communicated” (p. 11). A simple way to avoid overanalysis is to remember the old saying “Don’t use Cadillac statistics with Volkswagen data.”

NOTE: † Article: “Reliability Methods and Numbers of Items in Development of Health Instruments.” By M. R. Torabi. Health Values: The Journal of Health Behavior, Education & Promotion, November–December 1994. Pages 56–59. <psycnet.apa.org>

[1038] Book: Social Work Research: Methods for the Helping Professions (Revised edition). Edited by Norman A. Polansky. University of Chicago Press, 1975.

Chapter 10: “Applications of Computer Technology.” By William J. Reid. Pages 229–253.

Page 238:

Misuse of Computers.

The computer has made an incalculable contribution to data analysis. At the same time it has created, or aggravated, some problems. If computers are to be used to best advantage, researchers must be alert to ways in which they can be misused.

While computers have made the use of complex methods of analysis possible, they have, by the same token, made it easy for researchers to use statistical methods they do not fully understand. As a result, researchers may use methods inappropriately or may produce “findings” that they cannot properly interpret. In the precomputer era, investigators either did their own computations or had them done under their supervision; consequently they had a better grasp of what they were doing and tended to limit themselves to methods they knew reasonably well.

Ignorance of what goes into a method of analysis is no longer a barrier to its use. An investigator need know only that a method is generally relevant to his purposes. He can then call for its instant application. Thus he may whip his data through one or several factor analyses with only a hazy idea of the limitations of the technique or what the resulting printout really means.

[1039] Article: “Statistical Malpractice.” By Bruce G. Charlton. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, March 1996. Pages 112–114. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>

Page 112:

Statistical malpractice is an insidious, and indeed prestige-laden and grant-rewarded, activity. Brilliantly clever, but fundamentally wrong-headed, number-crunchers are encouraged to devise inappropriate applications of mathematical methods to health problems. …

Epidemiology and cognate disciplines such as health economics are the main source of culprits, because statistical malpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. The mystique of mathematics blended with the bewildering intricacies of big numbers makes a potent cocktail. …

The relationship between science and statistical analysis in medicine is quite simple: statistics is a tool of science which may or may not be useful for a given task. Indeed, as a general rule, the better the science, the less the need for complex analysis, and big databases are a sign not of rigor but of poor control. Basic scientists often quip that if statistics are needed, you should go back and do a better experiment.

[1040] Article: “Research Doesn’t Back a Link Between Migrants and Crime in U.S.” By Rick Gladstone. New York Times, January 13, 2016. <www.nytimes.com>

In America, as in Europe, anti-immigrant backlashes have often followed episodes in which foreigners are blamed for crimes and other problems. But statistical studies show that in the United States, at least, immigrants are far more law-abiding than natives, regardless of race, class or education. …

Mr. Ewing collaborated with Rubén G. Rumbaut, a sociology professor at the University of California, Irvine, and Daniel E. Martinez, an assistant sociology professor at George Washington University, on a study released this past July that used census data, F.B.I. data and other statistical data to rebut stereotypes about immigrants. It showed, for example, that between 1990 and 2013, as the foreign-born share of the United States population nearly doubled and the number of unauthorized immigrants more than tripled, violent crime declined 48 percent and property crime fell 41 percent.

[1041] Article: “The Mythical Connection Between Immigrants and Crime.” By Jason L. Riley. Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2015. <www.wsj.com>

They might start by pointing out that numerous studies going back more than a century have shown that immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated. A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013 to more than 11.2 million, “FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48%—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41%, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.”

A separate IPC [Immigration Policy Center] paper from 2007 explains that this is not a function of well-behaved high-skilled immigrants from India and China offsetting misdeeds of Latin American newcomers. The data show that “for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants,” according to the report. “This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.”

[1042] Article: “Donald Trump’s False Comments Connecting Mexican Immigrants and Crime.” Michelle Ye Hee Lee. Washington Post, July 8, 2015. <www.washingtonpost.com>

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

– Real estate mogul Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech, June 16, 2015 …

An analysis of 2010 Census data in a report from the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigration group, shows that 1.6 percent of immigrant males 18 to 39 years old were incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of native-born males. That disparity in incarceration rates has been consistent in the decennial Census since 1980, the report says.

The trend holds when comparing less educated Mexican, Salvadoran and Guatemalan men—who make up the bulk of the undocumented immigrant population—to their native-born counterparts, as shown below….

Trump’s repeated statements about immigrants and crime underscore a common public perception that crime is correlated with immigration, especially illegal immigration. But that is a misperception; no solid data support it, and the data that do exist negate it. Trump can defend himself all he wants, but the facts just are not there.

Four Pinocchios

[1043] Constitution of the United States. Signed September 17, 1787. <www.justfacts.com>

Article I, Section 7:

[Clause 2] Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

[1044] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part A (Citizenship and Naturalization Policies and Procedures), Chapter 3 (USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] Authority to Naturalize):

It has long been established that Congress has the exclusive authority under its constitutional power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and to enact legislation under which citizenship may be conferred upon persons.1 Before 1991, naturalization within the United States was a judicial function exercised since 1790 by various courts designated in statutes enacted by Congress under its constitutional power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

As of October 1, 1991, Congress transferred the naturalization authority to the Attorney General (now the Secretary of DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security]).2 USCIS is authorized to perform such acts as are necessary to properly implement the Secretary’s authority.3 In certain cases, an applicant for naturalization may choose to have the Oath of Allegiance4 administered by USCIS or by an eligible court with jurisdiction. Eligible courts may choose to have exclusive authority to administer the Oath of Allegiance.

1 See Chirac v. Chirac, 15 U.S. 259 (1817).

2 See INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] 310(a).

3 See INA 310.

4 See INA 337(a).

[1045] Constitution of the United States. Signed September 17, 1787. Enacted June 21, 1788. <www.justfacts.com>

Article 2, Section 3: “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

[1046] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

“Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government.”

[1047] Webpage: “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.ice.gov>

ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] was created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the former U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. ICE now has more than 20,000 law enforcement and support personnel in more than 400 offices in the United States and around the world.

The agency has an annual budget of approximately $8 billion, primarily devoted to three operational directorates—Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). A fourth directorate—Management and Administration (M&A)—supports the three operational branches to advance the ICE mission.

[1048] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protects the American people from a wide range of foreign and domestic threats. DHS has a broad and diverse mission set, including to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect critical infrastructure and civilian computer networks, facilitate lawful trade and travel, respond to and recover from natural disasters, protect our borders, and regulate the migration of individuals to and from our country.

The third largest Cabinet department, DHS employs more than 250,000 people and deploys an $58 billion annual budget across more than 20 components, including the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U. S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Department in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and brought together 22 executive branch agencies.

[1049] Executive order: “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, March 6, 2017. <www.govinfo.gov>

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the Nation from terrorist activities by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals. The screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) play a crucial role in detecting foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism and in preventing those individuals from entering the United States. It is therefore the policy of the United States to improve the screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the USRAP. …

In light of the conditions in these six countries, until the assessment of current screening and vetting procedures required by section 2 of this order is completed, the risk of erroneously permitting entry of a national of one of these countries who intends to commit terrorist acts or otherwise harm the national security of the United States is unacceptably high. Accordingly, while that assessment is ongoing, I am imposing a temporary pause on the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers, as described in section 3 of this order. …

Recent history shows that some of those who have entered the United States through our immigration system have proved to be threats to our national security. Since 2001, hundreds of persons born abroad have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States. They have included not just persons who came here legally on visas but also individuals who first entered the country as refugees. …

Sec. 5. Implementing Uniform Screening and Vetting Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence shall implement a program, as part of the process for adjudications, to identify individuals who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry. This program shall include the development of a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that applicants are who they claim to be; a mechanism to assess whether applicants may commit, aid, or support any kind of violent, criminal, or terrorist acts after entering the United States; and any other appropriate means for ensuring the proper collection of all information necessary for a rigorous evaluation of all grounds of inadmissibility or grounds for the denial of other immigration benefits. …

Sec. 6. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend travel of refugees into the United States under the USRAP, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall suspend decisions on applications for refugee status, for 120 days after the effective date of this order, subject to waivers pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication processes to determine what additional procedures should be used to ensure that individuals seeking admission as refugees do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. The suspension described in this subsection shall not apply to refugee applicants who, before the effective date of this order, have been formally scheduled for transit by the Department of State. The Secretary of State shall resume travel of refugees into the United States under the USRAP 120 days after the effective date of this order, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall resume making decisions on applications for refugee status only for stateless persons and nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that the additional procedures implemented pursuant to this subsection are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States. …

Sec. 11. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people and to implement more effectively policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available the following information:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism related activity, affiliation with or provision of material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national-security-related reasons;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and who have engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States;

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called ‘‘honor killings,’’ in the United States by foreign nationals; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

[1050] Proclamation: “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, September 24, 2017. <www.govinfo.gov>

In Executive Order 13780 of March 6, 2017 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States), on the recommendations of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, I ordered a worldwide review of whether, and if so what, additional information would be needed from each foreign country to assess adequately whether their nationals seeking to enter the United States pose a security or safety threat. This was the first such review of its kind in United States history. As part of the review, the Secretary of Homeland Security established global requirements for information sharing in support of immigration screening and vetting. The Secretary of Homeland Security developed a comprehensive set of criteria and applied it to the information-sharing practices, policies, and capabilities of foreign governments. …

Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks and other public-safety threats. Screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with visa adjudications and other immigration processes play a critical role in implementing that policy. They enhance our ability to detect foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism, or otherwise pose a safety threat, and they aid our efforts to prevent such individuals from entering the United States.

(b) Information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices of foreign governments are important for the effectiveness of the screening and vetting protocols and procedures of the United States. Governments manage the identity and travel documents of their nationals and residents. They also control the circumstances under which they provide information about their nationals to other governments, including information about known or suspected terrorists and criminal-history information. It is, therefore, the policy of the United States to take all necessary and appropriate steps to encourage foreign governments to improve their information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices and to regularly share identity and threat information with our immigration screening and vetting systems.

(c) Section 2(a) of Executive Order 13780 directed a ‘‘worldwide review to identify whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public safety threat.’’ That review culminated in a report submitted to the President by the Secretary of Homeland Security on July 9, 2017. In that review, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, developed a baseline for the kinds of information required from foreign governments to support the United States Government’s ability to confirm the identity of individuals seeking entry into the United States as immigrants and nonimmigrants, as well as individuals applying for any other benefit under the immigration laws, and to assess whether they are a security or public-safety threat. That baseline incorporates three categories of criteria:

(i) Identity-management information. The United States expects foreign governments to provide the information needed to determine whether individuals seeking benefits under the immigration laws are who they claim to be. The identity-management information category focuses on the integrity of documents required for travel to the United States. The criteria assessed in this category include whether the country issues electronic passports embedded with data to enable confirmation of identity, reports lost and stolen passports to appropriate entities, and makes available upon request identity-related information not included in its passports.

(ii) National security and public-safety information. The United States expects foreign governments to provide information about whether persons who seek entry to this country pose national security or public-safety risks. The criteria assessed in this category include whether the country makes available, directly or indirectly, known or suspected terrorist and criminal-history information upon request, whether the country provides passport and national-identity document exemplars, and whether the country impedes the United States Government’s receipt of information about passengers and crew traveling to the United States.

(iii) National security and public-safety risk assessment. The national security and public-safety risk assessment category focuses on national security risk indicators. The criteria assessed in this category include whether the country is a known or potential terrorist safe haven, whether it is a participant in the Visa Waiver Program established under section 217 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187, that meets all of its requirements, and whether it regularly fails to receive its nationals subject to final orders of removal from the United States.

(d) The Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Department of State, collected data on the performance of all foreign governments and assessed each country against the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section. The assessment focused, in particular, on identity management, security and public-safety threats, and national security risks. Through this assessment, the agencies measured each country’s performance with respect to issuing reliable travel documents and implementing adequate identity-management and information-sharing protocols and procedures, and evaluated terrorism-related and public-safety risks associated with foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States from each country.

(e) The Department of Homeland Security evaluated each country against the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security identified 16 countries as being ‘‘inadequate’’ based on an analysis of their identity-management protocols, information-sharing practices, and risk factors. Thirty-one additional countries were classified ‘‘at risk’’ of becoming ‘‘inadequate’’ based on those criteria.

(f) As required by section 2(d) of Executive Order 13780, the Department of State conducted a 50-day engagement period to encourage all foreign governments, not just the 47 identified as either ‘‘inadequate’’ or ‘‘at risk,’’ to improve their performance with respect to the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section. Those engagements yielded significant improvements in many countries. Twenty-nine countries, for example, provided travel document exemplars for use by Department of Homeland Security officials to combat fraud. Eleven countries agreed to share information on known or suspected terrorists.

(g) The Secretary of Homeland Security assesses that the following countries continue to have ‘‘inadequate’’ identity-management protocols, information-sharing practices, and risk factors, with respect to the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section, such that entry restrictions and limitations are recommended: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The Secretary of Homeland Security also assesses that Iraq did not meet the baseline, but that entry restrictions and limitations under a Presidential proclamation are not warranted. The Secretary of Homeland Security recommends, however, that nationals of Iraq who seek to enter the United States be subject to additional scrutiny to determine if they pose risks to the national security or public safety of the United States. In reaching these conclusions, the Secretary of Homeland Security considered the close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected government of Iraq, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of United States forces in Iraq, and Iraq’s commitment to combating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(h) Section 2(e) of Executive Order 13780 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to ‘‘submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of appropriate categories of foreign nationals of countries that have not provided the information requested until they do so or until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the country has an adequate plan to do so, or has adequately shared information through other means.’’ On September 15, 2017, the Secretary of Homeland Security submitted a report to me recommending entry restrictions and limitations on certain nationals of 7 countries determined to be ‘‘inadequate’’ in providing such information and in light of other factors discussed in the report. According to the report, the recommended restrictions would help address the threats that the countries’ identity-management protocols, information-sharing inadequacies, and other risk factors pose to the security and welfare of the United States. The restrictions also encourage the countries to work with the United States to address those inadequacies and risks so that the restrictions and limitations imposed by this proclamation may be relaxed or removed as soon as possible. …

Sec. 2. Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern. The entry into the United States of nationals of the following countries is hereby suspended and limited, as follows, subject to categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers, as described in sections 3 and 6 of this proclamation:

(a) Chad. …

(b) Iran. …

(c) Libya. …

(d) North Korea. …

(e) Syria. …

(f) Venezuela. …

(g) Yemen. …

(h) Somalia.…

[1051] Proclamation: “Maintaining Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, April 10, 2018. <www.govinfo.gov>

Now, Therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, find that the entry into the United States of the nationals of Chad, as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on business (B–1), tourist (B–2), and business/tourist (B–1/B–2) visas, no longer would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and therefore hereby proclaim the following:

Section 1. Removal of Restrictions and Limitations on Chad. Section 2 of Proclamation 9645 is amended by striking subsection (a).

Sec. 2. Effective Date. This proclamation is effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on April 13, 2018.

[1052] Proclamation: “Improving Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, January 31, 2020. <www.govinfo.gov>

Now, Therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the immigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim the following:

Section 1. Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern. The entry into the United States of nationals of the following countries is hereby suspended and limited, as follows, subject to section 2 of this proclamation.

(a) The entry suspensions and limitations enacted by section 2 of Proclamation 9645 are not altered by this proclamation, and they remain in force by their terms, except as modified by Proclamation 9723.

(b) Burma (Myanmar) …

(c) Eritrea …

(d) Kyrgyzstan …

(d) Kyrgyzstan …

(e) Nigeria …

(f) Sudan …

(g) Tanzania …

[1053] Proclamation: “Ending Discriminatory Bans on Entry to the United States.” By Joseph R. Biden. White House, January 20, 2021. <www.govinfo.gov>

Now, Therefore, I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., President of the United States, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), hereby find that it is in the interests of the United States to revoke Executive Order 13780 of March 6, 2017 (Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States), Proclamation 9645 of September 24, 2017 (Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats), Proclamation 9723 of April 10, 2018 (Maintaining Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats), and Proclamation 9983 of January 31, 2020 (Improving Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats). Our national security will be enhanced by revoking the Executive Order and Proclamations.

Accordingly, I hereby proclaim:

Section 1. Revocations. Executive Order 13780, and Proclamations 9645, 9723, and 9983 are hereby revoked.

Sec. 2. Resumption of Visa Processing and Clearing the Backlog of Cases in Waiver Processing. (a) The Secretary of State shall direct all Embassies and Consulates, consistent with applicable law and visa processing procedures, including any related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to resume visa processing in a manner consistent with the revocation of the Executive Order and Proclamations specified in section 1 of this proclamation.

(b) Within 45 days of the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of State shall provide to the President a report that includes the following elements:

(i) The number of visa applicants who were being considered for a waiver of restrictions under Proclamation 9645 or 9983 on the date of this proclamation and a plan for expeditiously adjudicating their pending visa applications.

(ii) A proposal to ensure that individuals whose immigrant visa applications were denied on the basis of the suspension and restriction on entry imposed by Proclamation 9645 or 9983 may have their applications reconsidered. This proposal shall consider whether to reopen immigrant visa applications that were denied due to the suspension and restriction on entry imposed by Proclamation 9645 or 9983, whether it is necessary to charge an additional fee to process those visa applications, and development of a plan for the Department of State to expedite consideration of those visa applications.

(iii) A plan to ensure that visa applicants are not prejudiced as a result of a previous visa denial due to the suspension and restriction on entry imposed by Proclamation 9645 or 9983 if they choose to re-apply for a visa.

[1054] “2020 Democratic Party Platform.” Democratic National Committee, August 17, 2020. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

We will ensure that enforcement mechanisms are humane and consistent with our values and international humanitarian obligations. That’s why we will end workplace and community raids. We will protect sensitive locations like our schools, houses of worship, health care facilities, benefits offices, and DMVs [Department of Motor Vehicles] from immigration enforcement actions, and prohibit raids in which children and members of vulnerable populations are left behind without their caregivers. We will prohibit enforcement actions that deter access to justice at courthouses and repress freedom of speech and assembly, end programs that force state and local law enforcement to also be responsible for immigration enforcement, and stop targeting men and women who served in uniform and their families. We will reaffirm enforcement officials’ ability to engage in the pre-Trump practice of prosecutorial discretion for deserving cases, including when needed to address humanitarian issues or other injustices. We will also prevent enforcement officials from retaliating against individuals for their political speech or activity, or because of their efforts to advocate for individuals’ rights.

We believe detention should be a last resort, not the default. Democrats will prioritize investments in more effective and cost-efficient community-based alternatives to detention. …

Democrats will implement robust mechanisms for oversight, accountability, and transparency to ensure immigration agencies abide by our values, the U.S. Constitution, and international law.

Democrats believe immigration judges should be able to operate free of inappropriate political influence, and will support steps to make immigration courts more independent. We will demand that leaders of our immigration agencies be Senate-confirmed professionals, and that Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection personnel abide by our values and professional, evidence-based standards and are held accountable for any inappropriate, unlawful, or inhumane treatment.

[1055] “2016 Democratic Party Platform.” Democratic Platform Committee, July 21, 2016. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

We believe immigration enforcement must be humane and consistent with our values. We should prioritize those who pose a threat to the safety of our communities, not hardworking families who are contributing to their communities. We will end raids and roundups of children and families, which unnecessarily sow fear in immigrant communities. We disfavor deportations of immigrants who served in our armed forces, and we want to create a faster path for such veterans to citizenship.

[1056] “Resolution Regarding the Republican Party Platform.” Republican National Committee, August 22, 2020. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

WHEREAS, All platforms are snapshots of the historical contexts in which they are born, and parties abide by their policy priorities, rather than their political rhetoric …

RESOLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention.

[1057] “2016 Republican Party Platform.” Republican National Committee, July, 2016. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

With all our fellow citizens, we have watched, in anger and disgust, the mocking of our immigration laws by a president who made himself superior to the will of the nation. We stand with the victims of his policies, especially the families of murdered innocents. Illegal immigration endangers everyone, exploits the taxpayers, and insults all who aspire to enter America legally. …

In a time of terrorism, drug cartels, human trafficking, and criminal gangs, the presence of millions of unidentified individuals in this country poses grave risks to the safety and sovereignty of the United States. Our highest priority, therefore, must be to secure our borders and all ports of entry and to enforce our immigration laws. …

… The Department of Homeland Security must use its authority to keep dangerous aliens off our streets and to expedite expulsion of criminal aliens. Gang membership should be a deportable offense. …

… To ensure our national security, refugees who cannot be carefully vetted cannot be admitted to the country, especially those whose homelands have been the breeding grounds for terrorism.

[1058] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part V, Section 1229: “Initiation of Removal Proceedings.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

d) Prompt initiation of removal

(1) In the case of an alien who is convicted of an offense which makes the alien deportable, the Attorney General shall begin any removal proceeding as expeditiously as possible after the date of the conviction.

[1059] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The mission of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

The DOJ is made up of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Attorney General is the head of the DOJ and chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters, advises the President and the heads of the executive departments of the government, and occasionally appears in person before the Supreme Court.

[1060] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Pages 2–3:

U.S. immigration law identifies certain crimes that make an alien ineligible for admission to the United States and/or subject to removal. Such crimes include crimes of “moral turpitude”; crimes involving controlled substances; certain firearm offenses; and crimes related to espionage, sabotage, and related offenses.6 Yet the term “criminal alien” is not specifically defined in immigration law or regulation, and people use it to refer to several different types of noncitizen offenders. At the broadest level, a “criminal alien” is any noncitizen who has ever been convicted of a crime in the United States. …

• All criminal aliens include both unauthorized aliens, most of whom are potentially removable, and legal aliens10 who may or may not be removable depending on specific crimes committed. This population contains the set of criminal aliens who are removable on the basis of specific crimes committed.

• Criminal aliens who have been convicted of removable criminal offenses are subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) even if they are otherwise legally present.11 For example, a legal permanent resident (LPR) convicted of cocaine possession is subject to removal,12 but an LPR convicted of public intoxication is not. This population also includes aggravated felons.

6 Whether a crime involves moral turpitude has been determined by judicial and administrative case law rather than a statutory definition. In general, if a crime manifests an element of baseness or depravity under current mores, it involves moral turpitude. For a fuller discussion, see (archived) CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RL32480, “Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity.” …

9 Unlawful presence is only a criminal offense when an alien is found in the United States after having been formally removed or after departing the country while a removal order was outstanding. See CRS Report R43892, Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends, by Alison Siskin.

10 Legal aliens include aliens admitted as lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and aliens admitted on temporary visas, including tourists, temporary workers, and foreign students.

11 Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act … enumerates a list of criminal offenses that make aliens subject to removal. Criminal offenses in the context of immigration law cover violations of federal, state, or, in some cases, foreign criminal law. …

13 Aggravated felonies refer to a class of serious criminal alien offenses created per INA §101(a)(43) and include murder, drug trafficking, or illegal trafficking in firearms or destructive devices. Subsequent measures passed by Congress expanded the definition of aggravated felonies and created additional criminal grounds for removal. …

[1061] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part V, Section 1227: “Immigration, Deportable Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(2) Criminal Offenses

(A) General Crimes

(i) Crimes of Moral Turpitude Any alien who—

(I) is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status under section 1255(j) of this title) after the date of admission, and

(II) is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed,

is deportable.

(ii) Multiple Criminal Convictions Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, regardless of whether confined therefor and regardless of whether the convictions were in a single trial, is deportable.

(iii) Aggravated Felony Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.

(iv) High Speed Flight Any alien who is convicted of a violation of section 758 of title 18 (relating to high speed flight from an immigration checkpoint) is deportable.

(v) Failure to Register as a Sex Offender Any alien who is convicted under section 2250 of title 18 is deportable.

(vi) Waiver Authorized Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) shall not apply in the case of an alien with respect to a criminal conviction if the alien subsequent to the criminal conviction has been granted a full and unconditional pardon by the President of the United States or by the Governor of any of the several States.

(B) Controlled Substances

(i) Conviction Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable.

(ii) Drug Abusers and Addicts Any alien who is, or at any time after admission has been, a drug abuser or addict is deportable.

(C) Certain Firearm Offenses Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted under any law of purchasing, selling, offering for sale, exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying, or of attempting or conspiring to purchase, sell, offer for sale, exchange, use, own, possess, or carry, any weapon, part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device (as defined in section 921(a) of title 18) in violation of any law is deportable.

(D) Miscellaneous Crimes Any alien who at any time has been convicted (the judgment on such conviction becoming final) of, or has been so convicted of a conspiracy or attempt to violate—

(i) any offense under chapter 37 (relating to espionage), chapter 105 (relating to sabotage), or chapter 115 (relating to treason and sedition) of title 18 for which a term of imprisonment of five or more years may be imposed;

(ii) any offense under section 871 or 960 of title 18;

(iii) a violation of any provision of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.) [now 50 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.] or the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.) [now 50 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.]; or

(iv) a violation of section 1185 or 1328 of this title,

is deportable.

(E) Crimes of Domestic Violence, Stalking, or Violation of Protection Order, Crimes Against Children and

(i) Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Child Abuse Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of a crime of domestic violence, a crime of stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment is deportable. For purposes of this clause, the term “crime of domestic violence” means any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18) against a person committed by a current or former spouse of the person, by an individual with whom the person shares a child in common, by an individual who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the person as a spouse, by an individual similarly situated to a spouse of the person under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction where the offense occurs, or by any other individual against a person who is protected from that individual’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the United States or any State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local government.

(ii) Violators of Protection Orders Any alien who at any time after admission is enjoined under a protection order issued by a court and whom the court determines has engaged in conduct that violates the portion of a protection order that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to the person or persons for whom the protection order was issued is deportable. For purposes of this clause, the term “protection order” means any injunction issued for the purpose of preventing violent or threatening acts of domestic violence, including temporary or final orders issued by civil or criminal courts (other than support or child custody orders or provisions) whether obtained by filing an independent action or as a pendente lite order in another proceeding.

(F) Trafficking Any alien described in section 1182(a)(2)(H) of this title is deportable.

(3) Failure to Register and Falsification of Documents

(A) Change of Address An alien who has failed to comply with the provisions of section 1305 of this title is deportable, unless the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.

(B) Failure to Register or Falsification of Documents

Any Alien Who at Any Time Has Been Convicted—

(i) under section 1306(c) of this title or under section 36(c) of the Alien Registration Act, 1940,

(ii) of a violation of, or an attempt or a conspiracy to violate, any provision of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), or

(iii) of a violation of, or an attempt or a conspiracy to violate, section 1546 of title 18 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other entry documents),

is deportable.

(C) Document Fraud

(i) In general An alien who is the subject of a final order for violation of section 1324c of this title is deportable.

(ii) Waiver authorized The Attorney General may waive clause (i) in the case of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if no previous civil money penalty was imposed against the alien under section 1324c of this title and the offense was incurred solely to assist, aid, or support the alien’s spouse or child (and no other individual). No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Attorney General to grant or deny a waiver under this clause.

(D) Falsely Claiming Citizenship

(i) In General Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any Federal or State law is deportable.

(ii) Exception In the case of an alien making a representation described in clause (i), if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of making such representation that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be deportable under any provision of this subsection based on such representation.

(4) Security and Related Grounds

(A) In General

Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in—

(i) any activity to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,

is deportable.

(B) Terrorist Activities Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.

(C) Foreign policy

(i) In General An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.

(ii) Exceptions The exceptions described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 1182(a)(3)(C) of this title shall apply to deportability under clause (i) in the same manner as they apply to inadmissibility under section 1182(a)(3)(C)(i) of this title.

(D) Participated in Nazi Persecution, Genocide, or the Commission of Any Act of Torture or Extrajudicial Killing Any alien described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 1182(a)(3)(E) of this title is deportable.

(E) Participated in the Commission of Severe Violations of Religious Freedom Any alien described in section 1182(a)(2)(G) of this title is deportable.

(F) Recruitment or Use of Child Soldiers Any alien who has engaged in the recruitment or use of child soldiers in violation of section 2442 of title 18 is deportable.

(5) Public Charge Any alien who, within five years after the date of entry, has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable.

(6) Unlawful Voters

(A) In General Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is deportable.

(B) Exception In the case of an alien who voted in a Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum) in violation of a lawful restriction of voting to citizens, if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of such violation that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be deportable under any provision of this subsection based on such violation. …

[1062] Ruling: Zadvydas V. Davis. U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2001. Decided 5–4. Majority: Breyer, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens. Dissenting: Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist. <www.law.cornell.edu>

Majority:

When an alien has been found to be unlawfully present in the United States and a final order of removal has been entered, the Government ordinarily secures the alien’s removal during a subsequent 90-day statutory “removal period,” during which time the alien normally is held in custody.

A special statute authorizes further detention if the Government fails to remove the alien during those 90 days. It says:

“An alien ordered removed [1] who is inadmissible … [2] [or] removable [as a result of violations of status requirements or entry conditions, violations of criminal law, or reasons of security or foreign policy] or [3] who has been determined by the Attorney General to be a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with the order of removal, may be detained beyond the removal period and, if released, shall be subject to [certain] terms of supervision … .” …

In these cases, we must decide whether this post-removal-period statute authorizes the Attorney General to detain a removable alien indefinitely beyond the removal period or only for a period reasonably necessary to secure the alien’s removal. We deal here with aliens who were admitted to the United States but subsequently ordered removed. Aliens who have not yet gained initial admission to this country would present a very different question. See infra, at 12–14. Based on our conclusion that indefinite detention of aliens in the former category would raise serious constitutional concerns, we construe the statute to contain an implicit “reasonable time” limitation, the application of which is subject to federal court review. …

We have found nothing in the history of these statutes that clearly demonstrates a congressional intent to authorize indefinite, perhaps permanent, detention. Consequently, interpreting the statute to avoid a serious constitutional threat, we conclude that, once removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute. …

We consider two separate instances of detention. The first concerns Kestutis Zadvydas, a resident alien who was born, apparently of Lithuanian parents, in a displaced persons camp in Germany in 1948. When he was eight years old, Zadvydas immigrated to the United States with his parents and other family members, and he has lived here ever since.

Zadvydas has a long criminal record, involving drug crimes, attempted robbery, attempted burglary, and theft. He has a history of flight, from both criminal and deportation proceedings. Most recently, he was convicted of possessing, with intent to distribute, cocaine; sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment; released on parole after two years; taken into INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] custody; and, in 1994, ordered deported to Germany. …

In 1994, Germany told the INS that it would not accept Zadvydas because he was not a German citizen. Shortly thereafter, Lithuania refused to accept Zadvydas because he was neither a Lithuanian citizen nor a permanent resident. In 1996, the INS asked the Dominican Republic (Zadvydas’ wife’s country) to accept him, but this effort proved unsuccessful. …

The second case is that of Kim Ho Ma. Ma was born in Cambodia in 1977. When he was two, his family fled, taking him to refugee camps in Thailand and the Philippines and eventually to the United States, where he has lived as a resident alien since the age of seven. In 1995, at age 17, Ma was involved in a gang-related shooting, convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment. He served two years, after which he was released into INS custody.

In light of his conviction of an “aggravated felony,” Ma was ordered removed…. The 90-day removal period expired in early 1999, but the INS continued to keep Ma in custody, because, in light of his former gang membership, the nature of his crime, and his planned participation in a prison hunger strike, it was “unable to conclude that Mr. Ma would remain nonviolent and not violate the conditions of release.” …

… The District Court then held an evidentiary hearing, decided that there was no “realistic chance” that Cambodia (which has no repatriation treaty with the United States) would accept Ma, and ordered Ma released.

Dissent (Kennedy):

By this statute, Congress confers upon the Attorney General discretion to detain an alien ordered removed. It gives express authorization to detain “beyond the removal period.” Ibid. The class of removed aliens detainable under the section includes aliens who were inadmissible and aliens subject to final orders of removal, provided they are a risk to the community or likely to flee. The issue to be determined is whether the authorization to detain beyond the removal period is subject to the implied, nontextual limitation that the detention be no longer than reasonably necessary to effect removal to another country. The majority invokes the canon of constitutional doubt to read that implied term into the statute. One can accept the premise that a substantial constitutional question is presented by the prospect of lengthy, even unending, detention in some instances; but the statutory construction the Court adopts should be rejected in any event. The interpretation has no basis in the language or structure of the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] and in fact contradicts and defeats the purpose set forth in the express terms of the statutory text.

Dissent (Scalia):

A criminal alien under final order of removal who allegedly will not be accepted by any other country in the reasonably foreseeable future claims a constitutional right of supervised release into the United States. This claim can be repackaged as freedom from “physical restraint” or freedom from “indefinite detention,” ante, at 9, but it is at bottom a claimed right of release into this country by an individual who concededly has no legal right to be here. There is no such constitutional right.

[1063] Webpage: “Justices 1789 to Present.” U.S. Supreme Court. Accessed September 26, 2016 at <www.supremecourt.gov>

Name

Appointed by President

Judicial Oath Taken

Date Service Terminated

Rehnquist, William H.

Reagan

9/26/86

9/3/05

Stevens, John Paul

Ford

12/19/75

6/29/10

O’Connor, Sandra Day

Reagan

9/25/81

1/31/06

Scalia, Antonin

Reagan

9/26/86

2/13/16

Kennedy, Anthony M.

Reagan

2/18/88

Souter, David H.

Bush, G. H. W.

10/9/90

6/29/09

Thomas, Clarence

Bush, G. H. W.

10/23/91

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader

Clinton

8/10/93

Breyer, Stephen G.

Clinton

8/3/94

[1064] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part V, Section 1253: “Immigration, Penalties Related to Removal.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(d) Discontinuing Granting Visas to Nationals of Country Denying or Delaying Accepting Alien

On being notified by the Attorney General that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after the Attorney General asks whether the government will accept the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country until the Attorney General notifies the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien.

[1065] Questioning of Michele Thoren Bond (Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs) by Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R–UT), July 14, 2016. <www.youtube.com>

We have 52 Liberians, convicted criminals, that are here illegally. The statute says “you shall.” … If it was up to me, you’d say “no more visas, no more people coming to the United States; and that $125 million in foreign aid, that check is going to sit here until you take these 52 people back. … This is the law, and I don’t see you doing it all in any country

Bond: I agree with you, sir, that the fact that we have that provision of the law and that there is the real possibility for any recalcitrant country to be facing visa sanctions or other sanctions is a very, very powerful tool.

Questioning of Michele Thoren Bond (Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs) and Daniel Ragsdale (Deputy Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement) by Congressman Jim Jordan (R–OH), July 14, 2016. <www.youtube.com>

Jordan: In the past seven and a half years during the Obama administration, how many times have you used denying visas as one of those “beliefs that it can be an effective tool?” How many times have you used it?

Bond: We have not sanctioned. In other words.

Jordan: The answer is zero?

Bond: What we have done is to say to foreign governments, “This is the pattern that we’re seeing. We’re not seeing responsiveness from you. We’re not seeing a legitimate effort.”

Jordan: By my question was, How many times have you used what you said you believed to be an effective tool, how many times have you used this “effective tool” in the last seven and a half years?

Bond: We have not used it.

Jordan: Never?

Bond: [Nods head.] …

Jordan: Mr. Ragsdale, do we have deportable aliens who’ve been released back onto U.S. streets because their home country refuses to repatriate them? Do we have that phenomenon going on in the United States today?

Ragsdale: Yes, we do.

Jordan: And how many people are in that category? We’ll stick with same timeframe. During the Obama presidency in the last seven and a half years, how many people fall into that category?

Ragsdale: It’s tens of thousands of people.

Jordan: Tens of thousands? Tens of thousands [while] the State Department says it’s an effective tool to deny visas … and yet they have not used it once, and the statute says “you shall” do it. I’m missing something, Ambassador. What’s going on here?

Bond: The statute says that when the Secretary of Homeland Security informs the Secretary of State that he wants to trigger this sanction, we shall do so, and we shall.

Jordan: But you haven’t.

Bond: We haven’t received such a notification from the Secretary of Homeland Security. …

Jordan [to Ragsdale]: So why aren’t you giving notice to the State Department to do what the statute says?

Ragsdale: So, as the chairman noted, our director has worked with Assistant Secretary Bond on ratcheting up on at least four countries with the potential for 234d sanctions, and we will work on that.

[1066] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protects the American people from a wide range of foreign and domestic threats. DHS has a broad and diverse mission set, including to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect critical infrastructure and civilian computer networks, facilitate lawful trade and travel, respond to and recover from natural disasters, protect our borders, and regulate the migration of individuals to and from our country.

The third largest Cabinet department, DHS employs more than 250,000 people and deploys an $58 billion annual budget across more than 20 components, including the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U. S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Department in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and brought together 22 executive branch agencies.

[1067] Letter from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, February 11, 2016. <www.judiciary.senate.gov>

Pages 27–29:

10. In FY 2014, ICE released from its custody 30,558 criminal aliens with a total of 79,059 convictions instead of deporting them.

ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] exercises its detention and release authorities in accordance with applicable law, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, ICE has very limited authority to detain an individual who is subject to a final order of removal for more than 180 days in the absence of a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. In some cases, ICE has discretion to determine which individuals will be held in custody or released from ICE custody while in removal proceedings or while awaiting removal, often on conditions of release such as electronic monitoring or regular reporting requirements.

a. How many of these criminal aliens have been charged with a crime following their release in FY 2014?

As of July 25, 2015, a total of 1,895 were charged with a crime following their release.

b. How many of these criminal aliens have been convicted of a crime following their release in FY 2014?

As of July 25, 2015, a total of 1,607 were convicted of a crime following their release.

c. How many crimes have these 30,558 criminal aliens been convicted of following their release in FY 2014? Please identify each specific offense by NCIC [National Crime Information Center] code and the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred.

As of July 25, 2015, a total of 1,607 aliens convicted of a crime had a total of 2,560 convictions following their release. The following table lists the crimes of which the aliens were convicted. Please note that custody and release determinations are made as a matter of controlling law, regulation, and precedential decisions. …

d. How many of these criminal aliens have been removed from the United States subsequent to their release in FY 2014?

As of July 25, 2015, a total of 974 were removed from the United States following their release.

e. How many of these 30,558 criminal aliens remain in the United States today?

A total of 28,017 have an active case12 with ICE, as of July 25, 2015.

Of the 30,558 criminal aliens, there are 1,567 individuals who do not have an active case with ICE, nor were removed following their release. These individuals may have been subject to the termination of their removal proceedings or granted relief by an immigration judge. …

12 Aliens with an active case with ICE include those who are in immigration proceedings, as well as those who have been ordered removed but whom ICE is still supervising on the non-detained docket, coordinating removal, and/or has been unable to confirm departure. Not included in active cases are cases that are closed, and cases in which the alien was removed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or not turned over to ICE.

[1068] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protects the American people from a wide range of foreign and domestic threats. DHS has a broad and diverse mission set, including to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect critical infrastructure and civilian computer networks, facilitate lawful trade and travel, respond to and recover from natural disasters, protect our borders, and regulate the migration of individuals to and from our country.

The third largest Cabinet department, DHS employs more than 250,000 people and deploys an $58 billion annual budget across more than 20 components, including the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U. S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Department in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and brought together 22 executive branch agencies.

[1069] Letter from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, February 11, 2016. <www.judiciary.senate.gov>

Page 1:

Enclosed, please find the answers to your specific questions regarding the release of undocumented aliens from the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from Fiscal Years 2010[†] through 2015. …

The release of aliens on bond is clearly provided for by statute. It would not be permissible for DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] to categorically prohibit the release of certain aliens who are not subject to detention under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] § 236(c), and who do not pose a risk to public safety or a flight risk.

3. As of the date of this letter, and beginning in FY 2010, how many criminal aliens who have been released from ICE custody have been charged with homicide? Please provide a breakdown by each fiscal year beginning with FY 2010 through FY 2015.

Between FY 2010 and FY 2015 year-to-date (YTD) through July 21, 2015, 124 criminal aliens who had been released from ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] custody were subsequently charged with homicide-related crimes. Please note that custody and release determinations are made as a matter of controlling law, regulation, and precedential decisions. The breakdown by FY is as follows:

Fiscal Year

Number of Criminal Aliens

2010

32

2011

26

2012

31

2013

23

2014

9

2015 YTD

3

TOTAL

124

[1070] United States Code Title 31, Subtitle II, Chapter 11, Section 1102: “Fiscal Year.” Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

“The fiscal year of the Treasury begins on October 1 of each year and ends on September 30 of the following year.”

[1071] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protects the American people from a wide range of foreign and domestic threats. DHS has a broad and diverse mission set, including to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect critical infrastructure and civilian computer networks, facilitate lawful trade and travel, respond to and recover from natural disasters, protect our borders, and regulate the migration of individuals to and from our country.

The third largest Cabinet department, DHS employs more than 250,000 people and deploys an $58 billion annual budget across more than 20 components, including the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U. S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Department in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and brought together 22 executive branch agencies.

[1072] Article: “ICE’s Sex Offender Policies Under Scrutiny.” By Maria Sacchetti. Boston Globe, June 14, 2015. <www.bostonglobe.com>

[H]undreds of immigrants convicted of sex crimes who should have been deported but instead were released in the United States because their homelands refused to take them back. …

These released criminals are immigrants who were convicted of sex-related crimes and ordered deported, sometimes after serving a state or federal prison term. But if their home country will not take them back, ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] says they must release them after six months because the Supreme Court in 2001 barred the agency from holding immigrants indefinitely. …

The immigration agency does not disclose the names of the immigrants in its custody, to protect their privacy. But the Globe obtained the names of Hernandez Carrera and thousands of other released criminals through a federal lawsuit against ICE, arguing that the privacy policy endangered Americans and immigrants alike. …

Using the 2008 to 2012 list with names of more than 6,800 criminals, the Globe identified 424 released immigrants who had previously been convicted of sex-related crimes, including 209 who had appeared in the national public sex offender registry. …

At least 34 of the 424 released sex offenders—including some who did register with local police—were back in jail as of last month, state records show, some for heinous crimes committed after ICE released them.

[1073] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protects the American people from a wide range of foreign and domestic threats. DHS has a broad and diverse mission set, including to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect critical infrastructure and civilian computer networks, facilitate lawful trade and travel, respond to and recover from natural disasters, protect our borders, and regulate the migration of individuals to and from our country.

The third largest Cabinet department, DHS employs more than 250,000 people and deploys an $58 billion annual budget across more than 20 components, including the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U. S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Department in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and brought together 22 executive branch agencies.

[1074] “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2015.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 22, 2015. <www.ice.gov>

Page 1: “The Department’s clearer and more refined civil immigration enforcement priorities, which ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] began implementing in FY 2015, placed increased emphasis and focus on the removal of convicted felons and other public safety threats over non-criminals.”

[1075] Memorandum: “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.” By Jeh Johnson. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, November 20, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

This memorandum reflects new policies for the apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens in this country. This memorandum should be considered Department-wide guidance, applicable to the activities of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This memorandum should inform enforcement and removal activity, detention decisions, budget requests and execution, and strategic planning.

In general, our enforcement and removal policies should continue to prioritize threats to national security, public safety, and border security. The intent of this new policy is to provide clearer and more effective guidance in the pursuit of those priorities.

Page 2:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its immigration components-CBP, ICE, and USCIS-are responsible for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. Due to limited resources, DHS and its Components cannot respond to all immigration violations or remove all persons illegally in the United States. As is true of virtually every other law enforcement agency, DHS must exercise prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of the law. And, in the exercise of that discretion, DHS can and should develop smart enforcement priorities, and ensure that use of its limited resources is devoted to the pursuit of those priorities. DHS’s enforcement priorities are, have been, and will continue to be national security, border security, and public safety. DHS personnel are directed to prioritize the use of enforcement personnel , detention space, and removal assets accordingly.

In the immigration context, prosecutorial discretion should apply not only to the decision to issue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear, but also to a broad range of other discretionary enforcement decisions, including deciding: whom to stop, question, and arrest; whom to detain or release; whether to settle, dismiss, appeal, or join in a motion on a case; and whether to grant deferred action, parole, or a stay of removal instead of pursuing removal in a case. While DHS may exercise prosecutorial discretion at any stage of an enforcement proceeding, it is generally preferable to exercise such discretion as early in the case or proceeding as possible in order to preserve government resources that would otherwise be expended in pursuing enforcement and removal of higher priority cases. Thus, DHS personnel are expected to exercise discretion and pursue these priorities at all stages of the enforcement process-from the earliest investigative stage to enforcing final orders of removal-subject to their chains of command and to the particular responsibilities and authorities applicable to their specific position.

Page 3:

The following shall constitute the Department’s civil immigration enforcement priorities:

Priority 1 (threats to national security, border security, and public safety)

Aliens described in this priority represent the highest priority to which enforcement resources should be directed:

(a) aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security;

(b) aliens apprehended at the border or ports of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States;

(c) aliens convicted of an offense for which an element was active

participation in a criminal street gang … or aliens not younger than 16 years of age who intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang to further the illegal activity of the gang;

(d) aliens convicted of an offense classified as a felony in the convicting jurisdiction, other than a state or local offense for which an essential element was the alien’s immigration status; and

(e) aliens convicted of an “aggravated felony,” as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act at the time of the conviction.

The removal of these aliens must be prioritized unless they qualify for asylum or another form of relief under our laws, or unless, in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, CBP Sector Chief or CBP Director of Field Operations, there are compelling and exceptional factors that clearly indicate the alien is not a threat to national security, border security, or public safety and should not therefore be an enforcement priority.

Priority 2 (misdemeanants and new immigration violators)

Priority 3 (other immigration violations)

Page 5:

Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Other Aliens Unlawfully in the United States

Nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit or discourage the apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens unlawfully in the United States who are not identified as priorities herein. However, resources should be dedicated, to the greatest degree possible, to the removal of aliens described in the priorities set forth above, commensurate with the level of prioritization identified. Immigration officers and attorneys may pursue removal of an alien not identified as a priority herein, provided, in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, removing such an alien would serve an important federal interest.

Page 6:

In making such judgment s, DHS personnel should consider factors such as: extenuating circumstances involving the offense of conviction; extended length of time since the offense of conviction; length of time in the United States; military service; family or community ties in the United States; status as a victim, witness or plaintiff in civil or criminal proceedings; or compelling humanitarian factors such as poor health, age, pregnancy, a young child, or a seriously ill relative. These factors are not intended to be dispositive nor is this list intended to be exhaustive. Decisions should be based on the totality of the circumstances.

[1076] “Annual Performance Report, Fiscal Years 2015–2017.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, February 10, 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 91:

Overview: ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is committed to identifying, arresting, detaining, prosecuting, and removing aliens who present a danger to national security or are a risk to public safety, as well as those who otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration laws and our border control efforts. These include, but are not limited to aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, violent criminals, felons and repeat offenders, and organized criminal gang members. Also critical to ICE enforcement priorities are recent illegal border crossers. …

ICE uses prosecutorial discretion which improves efficiencies by identifying and eliminating low priority cases clogging the immigration system. The use of prosecutorial discretion also allows ICE to prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal assets to ensure that the aliens it removes represent, as much as reasonably possible, the agency’s enforcement priorities, namely the promotion of national security, border security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system.

[1077] Memorandum: “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.” By Jeh Johnson. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, November 20, 2014. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 6:

The revised guidance shall be effective on January 5, 2015. Implementing training and guidance will be provided to the workforce prior to the effective date. The revised guidance in this memorandum applies only to aliens encountered or apprehended on or after the effective date, and aliens detained, in removal proceedings, or subject to removal orders who have not been removed from the United States as of the effective date.

[1078] United States Code Title 31, Subtitle II, Chapter 11, Section 1102: “Fiscal Year.” Accessed September 14, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

“The fiscal year of the Treasury begins on October 1 of each year and ends on September 30 of the following year.”

[1079] Calculated with data from:

a) “ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2016.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 30, 2016. <www.ice.gov>

Page 2: “Figure 1: FY 2008–2016 ICE Removals.”

Page 5: “FY 2008–2016 ICE Removals by Criminality”

b) “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2017.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 13, 2017. <www.ice.gov>

Page 12: “Figure 14. FY2015 – FY2017 ICE Removals”

Page 13: “Figure 15. FY2015 – FY2017 Interior vs. Border Program Removals by Criminality”

c) “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2018.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 13, 2018. <www.ice.gov>

Page 10: “Figure 9. FY2016 – FY2018 ICE Removals”

Page 11: “Figure 11. FY2016 – FY2018 ICE Removals by Criminality”

d) “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Fiscal Year 2019 Enforcement and Removal Operations Report.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 10, 2019. <www.ice.gov>

Page 19: “Figure 13: FY 2017–FY 2019 ICE Removals”

Page 22: “Figure 16: FY 2017–FY 2019 ICE Removals by Criminality”

e) “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Fiscal Year 2020 Enforcement and Removal Operations Report.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 23, 2020. <www.ice.gov>

Page 19: “Figure 13: FY 2018–FY 2020 ICE Removals”

Page 23: “Figure 16: FY 2018–FY 2020 ICE Removals by Criminality”

f) “ICE Annual Report Fiscal Year 2021.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, March 11, 2022. <www.ice.gov>

Page 9: “In FY 2021, ICE removed 59,011 noncitizens…. The percentage of convicted criminal removals increased from 56 percent of ICE removals in FY 2020 to 66 percent of ICE removals in FY 2021.”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[1080] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 10:

An “immigration detainer” is a document advising law enforcement agencies of ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] interest in individuals whom these agencies are detaining, and to request such agencies take actions (such as holding the alien temporarily) to facilitate their removal. Typically, the request involves holding the individual for up to 48 hours. See CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention, by Alison Siskin. Despite the new PEP [Priority Enforcement Program] policy of issuing requests for notification, ICE continues to issue large numbers of immigration detainers, even for criminal aliens held within “sanctuary” jurisdictions that may not honor them. ICE briefing to CRS on the Criminal Alien Program, April 7, 2016.

Page 18:

Proponents of cooperation between ICE and state and local law enforcement agencies have embraced interoperability and the §287(g) program as powerful tools to combat illegal immigration and associated criminal activity. … They cite the efficiency of interoperability and §287(g), which used biographic and biometric records created when individuals are arrested and in law enforcement custody to check for possible immigration violations.79

79 According to ICE, electronic checks against DHS databases occur within minutes of fingerprint data being submitted to the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC). The LESC usually reviews any electronic matches and notifies an ICE agent or ICE field office within four hours from when a potentially removable alien has been identified.

[1081] “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2016.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 30, 2016. <www.ice.gov>

Page 9:

Declined detainers result in convicted criminals being released back into U.S. communities with the potential to re-offend, notwithstanding ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] requests for transfer of those individuals. Moreover, these releases constrain ICE’s civil immigration enforcement efforts because they required ICE to expend additional resources to locate and arrest convicted criminals who were at-large rather than transferred directly from jails into ICE custody, drawing resources away from other ICE enforcement efforts.

Page 14: “Appendix B: Key Terms and Definitions … Convicted Criminal: An individual convicted in the United States for one or more criminal offenses. This does not include civil traffic offenses.”

[1082] Dataset: “Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detainers.” Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. Accessed May 31, 2021 at <trac.syr.edu>

[1083] Report: “The Role of ICE Detainers Under Bush and Obama.” Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, February 1, 2017. <trac.syr.edu>

Just because a person was taken into ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] custody also didn’t automatically mean the individual was ordered deported and removed from the country. Newly available government records suggest that a surprisingly small proportion of those taken into custody ultimately were deported. Figure 1 compares detainer-connected removals to the volume of detainers issued.3 Note that actual removals are relatively few as compared with the number of ICE detainers. …

------------

Figure 1. Comparing ICE Detainers to Detainer-Connected Removals

[1084] Webpage: “Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.” Accessed July 27, 2021 at <trac.syr.edu>

The purpose of TRAC [Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse] is to provide the American people—and institutions of oversight such as Congress, news organizations, public interest groups, businesses, scholars and lawyers—with comprehensive information about staffing, spending, and enforcement activities of the federal government. On a day-to-day basis, what are the agencies and prosecutors actually doing? Who are their employees and what are they paid? What do agency actions indicate about the priorities and practices of government? How do the activities of an agency or prosecutor in one community compare with those in a neighboring one or the nation as a whole? How have these activities changed over time? How does the record of one administration compare with the next? When the head of an agency or a district administrator changed, were there observable differences in actual enforcement priorities? When a new law was enacted or amended, what impact did it have on agency activities?

An essential step in the process of providing this information to the public is TRAC’s systematic and informed use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

[1085] Report: “The Role of ICE Detainers Under Bush and Obama.” Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, February 1, 2017. <trac.syr.edu>

A recent and dramatic change in ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] policies occurred in the waning months of the Obama Administration. These changes in FOIA policies appear to be designed to drastically restrict the already limited flow of data the agency releases to the public.

Fields of information that ICE had routinely provided to TRAC [Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse] in response to its regular monthly FOIA requests recently started getting left off the files TRAC received without explanation. More and more fields disappeared as new ICE responses arrived. For example, TRAC received 15 separate shipments from ICE one week in January and each of these shipments in response to individual FOIA requests were largely unusable because ICE had stopped providing so many key fields of information.

Omitted, for example, from the files were the year of birth of individuals, details on criminal convictions, whether the agency actually took custody of individuals it had asked state and local law enforcement officials to detain, or what actions ICE took to deport individuals once they were in ICE custody, along with many other data fields. All of this information the agency had previously been releasing to TRAC in response to its monthly FOIA requests, and are essential to the public’s understanding of what the agency is actually doing to enforce immigration laws.

Thus far, administrative appeals within the agency have been unavailing. In response to one of TRAC’s appeals, the ICE appellate office notified us that many fields the agency previously provided would no longer be provided. ICE claimed that these past releases were discretionary. However, the agency does not claim that this information is any way exempt from disclosure, only that it requires them to carry out “analyses” they are not required to undertake. TRAC, however, does not ask the agency to compile any statistics, it only requests the release of actual copies of their case-by-case records that obviously do exist and contain the information we are seeking. This is a very troubling development. Litigation appears to be needed to challenge these new unlawful practices.

[1086] Executive order: “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, January 25, 2017. <www.govinfo.gov>

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), and in order to ensure the public safety of the American people in communities across the United States as well as to ensure that our Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed, I hereby declare the policy of the executive branch to be, and order, as follows:

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:

(a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code;

(b) Make use of all available systems and resources to ensure the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States;

(c) Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law;

(d) Ensure that aliens ordered removed from the United States are promptly removed; and

(e) Support victims, and the families of victims, of crimes committed by removable aliens. …

Sec. 5. Enforcement Priorities. In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who:

(a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;

(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;

(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;

(d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;

(e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;

(f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or

(g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

[1087] Ruling: State of New York vs. U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, February 26, 2020. Decided 3–0. Majority: Winter, Cabranes, Raggi. <cases.justia.com>

Pages 4–5:

The principal legal question presented in this appeal is whether the federal government may deny grants of money to State and local governments that would be eligible for such awards but for their refusal to comply with three immigration‐related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States. Those conditions require grant applicants to certify that they will (1) comply with federal law prohibiting any restrictions on the communication of citizenship and alien status information with federal immigration authorities…. (2) provide federal authorities, upon request, with the release dates of incarcerated illegal aliens; and (3) afford federal immigration officers access to incarcerated illegal aliens.

The case implicates several of the most divisive issues confronting our country and, consequently, filling daily news headlines: national immigration policy, the enforcement of immigration laws, the status of illegal aliens in this country, and the ability of States and localities to adopt policies on such matters contrary to, or at odds with, those of the federal government.

Intertwined with these issues is a foundational legal question: how, if at all, should federal, State, and local governments coordinate in carrying out the nation’s immigration policy? There is also a corollary question: to what extent may States and localities seeking federal grant money to facilitate the enforcement of their own laws adopt policies to extricate themselves from, hinder, or even frustrate the enforcement of federal immigration laws?

… For reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions. …

… [W]e cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue. These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations. But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.

[1088] Article: “What Are Sanctuary Cities?” The Economist, November 22, 2016. <www.economist.com>

There is no specific legal definition for what constitutes a sanctuary jurisdiction but the term is widely used to refer to American cities, counties or states that protect undocumented immigrants from deportation by limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Some decline to use city or state tax dollars to enforce federal immigration laws. Many prohibit local officials from asking people about their immigration status. Sanctuary policies can be mandated expressly by law or practiced unofficially.

[1089] Article: “What Is a ‘Sanctuary City’?” By Suzanne Ciechalski. Associated Press, February 8, 2017. Updated 2/11/17. <www.nbcchicago.com>

There’s no specific legal definition for a sanctuary city, but broadly, the term refers to municipalities that don’t let local law enforcement agents cooperate with federal immigration enforcement in an effort to shield its community of undocumented immigrants from deportation.

That can mean rules stopping police officers from asking about a person’s immigration status or keeping jailors from giving immigration agents advance notice of an inmate’s release from jail.

[1090] Webpage: “Secure Communities.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Last updated February 9, 2021. <www.ice.gov>

What is Secure Communities?

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prioritizes its enforcement efforts on the arrest and removal of public safety and national security threats, those who have violated our nation’s immigration laws, including those who have failed to comply with a final order of removal, and those who have engaged in fraud/willful misrepresentation in connection with official government matters. Secure Communities is a simple and common sense tool that helps ICE effectuate these priorities. Utilizing a federal information-sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Secure Communities helps to identify removable aliens who have been arrested and booked for violations of criminal law.

Under Secure Communities, the FBI, as mandated by statute, automatically sends these fingerprints to DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual may be unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable due to a criminal conviction, ICE determines what, if any, enforcement action to take—prioritizing the removal of those individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and other factors, as well as those who have violated immigration laws. The federal government, not the state or local law enforcement agency, determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate.

How Does Secure Communities Work?

When state and local law enforcement officers arrest and book someone into custody for a violation of a criminal offense, they generally fingerprint the person. After fingerprints are taken, the state and local authorities submit the fingerprints to the FBI. The FBI runs these fingerprints through its database of criminal records and sends the state and local authorities a record of the person’s criminal history. …

Can a state or local law enforcement agency choose not to have fingerprints it submits to the FBI checked against DHS’ system?

This question has been asked in many contexts, and it is important to clarify that the information-sharing partnership between DHS and the FBI that is the cornerstone of Secure Communities is mandated by federal law, which means that state and local jurisdictions cannot prohibit information-sharing between agencies in this respect. The fingerprints state and local law enforcement submit to the FBI to be checked against the DOJ’s biometric identification system for criminal history records are automatically sent to DHS’s biometric system to check against its immigration and law enforcement records. The United States government has determined that a jurisdiction cannot choose to have the fingerprints it submits to the federal government processed only for criminal history checks. Further, jurisdictions cannot ask that the identifications that result from DHS’s processing of the fingerprints not be shared with local ICE field offices in that jurisdiction. It is ICE, and not the state or local law enforcement agency, that determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate.

[1091] Report: “Immigration Detainers: Legal Issues.” By Kate M. Manuel (Legislative Attorney), Congressional Research Service, May 7, 2015. <fas.org>

Page 2:

PEP [Priority Enforcement Program] is like Secure Communities in that it “will continue to rely on fingerprint-based biometric data submitted during bookings by state and local law enforcement agencies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for criminal background checks.13” …

13 Specifically, the fingerprints of persons arrested by state and local officers are sent to the FBI’s Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), which then sends them to ICE’s Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). This system automatically notifies ICE personnel whenever the fingerprints of persons arrested by state and local officers match those of a person previously encountered and fingerprinted by immigration officials.

[1092] Report: “Immigration Detainers: Background and Recent Legal Developments.” By Hillel R. Smith, Congressional Research Service. Updated October 9, 2020. <crsreports.congress.gov>

Page 2:

ICE’s [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detainer practice has changed several times in recent years. In 2008, the Bush Administration implemented the Secure Communities program. Under the program, which used various federal databases to identify aliens in state or local LEO [law enforcement office] custody for possible removal, ICE would often issue detainers to state or local authorities, requesting that they notify ICE about an identified alien’s scheduled release date and potentially hold the alien beyond that date so that ICE could obtain custody. But the Obama Administration replaced Secure Communities with the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) in 2014. While similarly relying on federal databases to identify aliens in state or local LEO custody for removal, PEP differed from Secure Communities in authorizing detainers only for aliens convicted of (not just arrested for) specifically enumerated crimes. These detainers also generally only requested notification about an alien’s release from state or local custody. State and local LEOs were asked to hold an alien beyond the scheduled release date only in certain circumstances (e.g., when the alien was subject to a final order of removal or there were pending removal proceedings). In 2017, however, the Trump Administration restored the Secure Communities program.

[1093] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 18:

According to ICE, electronic checks against DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] databases occur within minutes of fingerprint data being submitted to the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC). The LESC usually reviews any electronic matches and notifies an ICE agent or ICE field office within four hours from when a potentially removable alien has been identified.

[1094] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Section 1373: “Communication Between Government Agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) In General

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

(b) Additional Authority of Government Entities

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:

(1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

(2) Maintaining such information.

(3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

(c) Obligation to Respond to Inquiries

The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

[1095] Notes on U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 13, Section 1551: “Immigration and Naturalization Service.” Accessed July 11, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

The Immigration and Naturalization Service was abolished by section 291(a) of Title 6, Domestic Security, upon completion of all transfers from the Immigration and Naturalization Service as provided for by chapter 1 of Title 6. Functions of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization performed under the Border Patrol program, the detention and removal program, the intelligence program, the investigations program, and the inspections program, and all personnel, assets, and liabilities pertaining to such programs, were transferred to the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security of the Department of Homeland Security by section 251 of Title 6 and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6. Functions of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization relating to adjudications of immigrant visa petitions, adjudications of naturalization petitions, adjudications of asylum and refugee applications, adjudications performed at service centers, and all other adjudications performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and all personnel, infrastructure, and funding provided to the Commissioner in support of such functions, were transferred to the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security by section 271(b) of Title 6 and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified.

[1096] Report: “Immigration Detainers: Legal Issues.” By Kate M. Manuel (Legislative Attorney), Congressional Research Service, May 7, 2015. <fas.org>

Pages 2–3:

Specifically, the fingerprints of persons arrested by state and local officers are sent to the FBI’s Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), which then sends them to ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). This system automatically notifies ICE personnel whenever the fingerprints of persons arrested by state and local officers match those of a person previously encountered and fingerprinted by immigration officials. ICE personnel then review other databases to determine whether the person is in the United States illegally or otherwise removable, and may issue detainers for aliens who appear to be removable. DHS has taken the position that this sharing of information “fulfills a 2002 Congressional mandate for the FBI to share information with ICE, and is consistent with a 2008 federal law that instructs ICE to identify criminal aliens for removal.” …

… Specifically, aliens [who are “priorities for civil immigration enforcement”] must have been convicted of an offense listed in the priority 1(a), (c), (d), or (e), or priority 2(a) or (b), categories as given in the November 20, 2014, memorandum on “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.” See “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants,” supra note 8. These “priority” categories include: (1) aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security; (2) aliens convicted of offenses of which an element was active participation in a criminal street gang … or aliens not younger than 16 years of age who intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang to further the illegal activity of the gang; (3) aliens convicted of offenses classified as a felony in the convicting jurisdiction (other than a state or local offense for which an essential element was the alien’s immigration status); (4) aliens convicted of an “aggravated felony,” as that term was defined in INA §101(a)(43) at the time of the conviction; (5) aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanor offenses (other than minor traffic offenses or state or local offenses for which an essential element was the alien’s immigration status), provided that the offenses arise out of three separate incidents; and (6) aliens convicted of “significant misdemeanors,” such as offenses of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; driving under the influence; or offenses for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or more.

[1097] Webpage: “Secure Communities.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Last updated February 9, 2021. <www.ice.gov>

While the biometric interoperability has remained constant since full implementation was achieved, ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] operational posture under Secure Communities was temporarily suspended by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] policy from November 20, 2014, through January 25, 2017.

Since its reactivation on January 25, 2017 through the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, as a result of Executive Order No. 13768, entitled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, more than 43,300 convicted criminal aliens have been removed as a result of Secure Communities. …

Secure Communities had a long and successful history prior to its suspension as indicated above. In fact, from its inception in 2008 through FY14 and since its reactivation on January 25, 2017 through the end of FY 2017, Secure Communities interoperability led to the removal of over 363,400 criminal aliens from the U.S. …

What is Secure Communities?

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prioritizes its enforcement efforts on the arrest and removal of public safety and national security threats, those who have violated our nation’s immigration laws, including those who have failed to comply with a final order of removal, and those who have engaged in fraud/willful misrepresentation in connection with official government matters. Secure Communities is a simple and common sense tool that helps ICE effectuate these priorities. Utilizing a federal information-sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Secure Communities helps to identify removable aliens who have been arrested and booked for violations of criminal law.

Under Secure Communities, the FBI, as mandated by statute, automatically sends these fingerprints to DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual may be unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable due to a criminal conviction, ICE determines what, if any, enforcement action to take—prioritizing the removal of those individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and other factors, as well as those who have violated immigration laws. The federal government, not the state or local law enforcement agency, determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate.

How Does Secure Communities Work?

When state and local law enforcement officers arrest and book someone into custody for a violation of a criminal offense, they generally fingerprint the person. After fingerprints are taken, the state and local authorities submit the fingerprints to the FBI. The FBI runs these fingerprints through its database of criminal records and sends the state and local authorities a record of the person’s criminal history.

Under Secure Communities, DHS receives these fingerprints from the FBI so that ICE can determine if that person is also subject to removal (deportation). This process fulfills a 2002 Congressional mandate for federal law enforcement agencies to share information that is relevant to determine the admissibility or deportability of an alien. …

What are the benefits of Secure Communities?

ICE’s enforcement priorities include the identification and removal of criminal aliens, other aliens who pose a threat to public safety, and aliens who have violated our nation’s immigration laws. The most effective way to identify such aliens is by checking the immigration status of individuals arrested and booked into custody for violations of criminal laws. …

By focusing on individuals who have been arrested and booked into custody for alleged violations of criminal laws, Secure Communities has proven to be one of ICE’s most important tools for identifying and removing criminal aliens as well as repeat immigration violators.

[1098] “Acting ICE Director’s Remarks on State and Local Cooperation and the Gonzalez Decision.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, October 10, 2019. <www.ice.gov>

For decades, immigration officers have utilized detainers as a collaborative law enforcement tool to request that other law enforcement entities notify ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] of the upcoming release of an alien that has been arrested for a criminal violation completely unrelated to their immigration status. The detainer serves as a request to hold that person for a short period of time, enabling ICE to assume custody. ICE issues detainers based on a finding by a trained immigration officer that there is probable cause to believe an individual is a removable alien. Like all law enforcement agencies, ICE utilizes all evidence at its disposal to determine if probable cause exists, including various databases and electronic data. Probable cause is the same legal standard that other law enforcement agencies must meet in order to make an arrest.

[1099] Webpage: “Secure Communities.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Last updated February 9, 2021. <www.ice.gov>

How Does Secure Communities Work? … In cases where ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] has probable cause of removability, ICE typically issues a detainer, requesting that the state or local jail facility hold the individual up to 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) to allow ICE to assume custody.”

[1100] Report: “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs.” By William A. Kandel. Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2016. <fas.org>

Page 10:

An “immigration detainer” is a document advising law enforcement agencies of ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] interest in individuals whom these agencies are detaining, and to request such agencies take actions (such as holding the alien temporarily) to facilitate their removal. Typically, the request involves holding the individual for up to 48 hours. See CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention, by Alison Siskin. Despite the new PEP [Priority Enforcement Program] policy of issuing requests for notification, ICE continues to issue large numbers of immigration detainers, even for criminal aliens held within “sanctuary” jurisdictions that may not honor them. ICE briefing to CRS on the Criminal Alien Program, April 7, 2016.

Page 18:

Proponents of cooperation between ICE and state and local law enforcement agencies have embraced interoperability and the §287(g) program as powerful tools to combat illegal immigration and associated criminal activity. … They cite the efficiency of interoperability and §287(g), which used biographic and biometric records created when individuals are arrested and in law enforcement custody to check for possible immigration violations.79

79 According to ICE, electronic checks against DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] databases occur within minutes of fingerprint data being submitted to the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC). The LESC usually reviews any electronic matches and notifies an ICE agent or ICE field office within four hours from when a potentially removable alien has been identified.

[1101] Letter from Matthew T. Albence (acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to Bill de Blasio (mayor of New York City), February 12, 2020. <www.ice.gov>

Page 2:

As a career law enforcement official who has worked in criminal justice for decades, I am profoundly saddened to see how this issue has become politicized, and concurrently, fraught with misinformation. To be clear, ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is not asking New York City to conduct immigration enforcement or change the manner in which NYPD performs its duties. Rather, we only seek your assistance with providing timely notice to ICE when removable criminal aliens are going to be released back into your community and when necessary, holding them for a very short period for ICE to take custody. We will use our authorities to keep them off your streets, where they may reoffend, and help you keep New York City safe.

In FY 2019, the ERO [Enforcement and Removal Operations] New York City field office issued 7,526 detainers on subjects associated with 6,705 criminal charges and 17,873 convictions; the subjects of these detainers had criminal histories including, but not limited to, more than 3,500 assaults, 1,500 DUIs [driving under the influence], 1,000 sex crimes, 1,000 weapon offenses, 500 robberies, and 200 homicide offenses. However, ICE’s data show that during the same time period, at least 4,000 detainers were declined, and our local leadership advises that New York City actually honored just 25 detainers.

[1102] “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2016.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 30, 2016. <www.ice.gov>

Page 9:

Declined detainers result in convicted criminals being released back into U.S. communities with the potential to re-offend, notwithstanding ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] requests for transfer of those individuals. Moreover, these releases constrain ICE’s civil immigration enforcement efforts because they required ICE to expend additional resources to locate and arrest convicted criminals who were at-large rather than transferred directly from jails into ICE custody, drawing resources away from other ICE enforcement efforts.

Page 14: “Appendix B: Key Terms and Definitions … Convicted Criminal: An individual convicted in the United States for one or more criminal offenses. This does not include civil traffic offenses.”

[1103] Report: “Immigration Detainers: Legal Issues.” By Kate M. Manuel (Legislative Attorney), Congressional Research Service, May 7, 2015. <fas.org>

Pages 10–12:

Are ICE’s Detainer Regulations and Practices Within Its Statutory Authority?

Because the INA [Immigration and Naturalization Act] only addresses detainers for controlled substance offenses,65 several plaintiffs and commentators have asserted that ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detainer regulations and practices exceed its statutory authority and, thus, are unlawful.66 In particular, those making this argument note that (1) these regulations and practices entail the issuance of detainers for offenses that do not involve controlled substances; and (2) ICE personnel are generally the ones determining whether to issue a detainer.67 Both things are, they assert, contrary to Section 287 of the INA, which they take to mean that ICE is only to determine whether to issue a detainer for an alien arrested for a controlled substance offense if and when requested to do so by a “Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer” or “another official.”68 Federal immigration authorities, in contrast, have taken a broader view of their authority, issuing detainers for offenses that do not involve controlled substances without a request from a non-immigration officer. In particular, the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] seems to have taken the position that holds are permissible pursuant to its general authority to make warrantless arrests for immigration violations, discussed below, and not Section 287’s detainer provisions.69

The only court to have ruled on this issue to date—the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California—found that DHS’s [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] detainer regulations are within DHS’s statutory authority in its 2009 decision in Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County v. County of Sonoma.70 In so finding, the court reviewed DHS’s regulations in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which established a two-step test for judicial review of an agency’s construction of a statute which it administers: (1) Has Congress directly spoken to the precise question at issue, and (2) If not, is the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute consistent with the purposes of the statute?71 Applying Chevron, the court first found that the DHS regulations were not “facially invalid,” or contrary to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. According to the court:

The fact that §[287] does not expressly authorize ICE to issue detainers for violations of laws other than laws relating to controlled substances hardly amounts to the kind of unambiguous expression of congressional intent that would remove the agency’s discretion at Chevron step one. Rather, the court finds that because Congress left a statutory gap for the agency to fill, Chevron step two requires the court to defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute so long as the interpretation is consistent with the purposes of the statute.72

The court further found that DHS’s regulations are “consistent with the purpose of the statute” and “not contrary to the discernible intent of Congress … [g]iven the broad authority vested in the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish such regulations as she deems necessary for carrying out her authority to administer and enforce laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens.”73 Here, the court specifically noted that the detainer provisions in Section 287 of the INA are to be construed “simply [as] placing special requirements on officials issuing detainers for a violation of any law relating to controlled substances, not as expressly limiting the issuance of immigration detainers solely to individuals violating laws relating to controlled substances.”74

The question of whether DHS’s detainer regulations and practices are beyond its statutory authority has, however, persisted despite the Committee for Immigrants Rights decision. For example, at least one suit filed against DHS in the early 2010s alleges that the government’s “application of the immigration detainer regulations and issuance of detainers … exceeds [its] … statutory authority.”75 It remains to be seen whether and how other courts might address such arguments and what significance, if any, they might attach to the legislative history of the 1986 amendments, which was apparently not considered by the California district court. Although this history is sparse, a statement by the sponsor of the 1986 amendments read on the floor in the House could be construed as indicating that these amendments were intended to expand—rather than restrict—the use of detainers by requiring immigration officers to at least consider issuing detainers when requested to do so by other law enforcement officers. According to this statement, the amendments responded to complaints from state and local officers that INS did not “issue judgment on a suspect’s citizenship fast enough to allow the authorities to continue to detain him,” and sought to compel INS to take “the necessary actions to detain the suspect and process the case.”76

[1104] “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2016.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 30, 2016. <www.ice.gov>

Page 9:

Declined detainers result in convicted criminals being released back into U.S. communities with the potential to re-offend, notwithstanding ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] requests for transfer of those individuals. Moreover, these releases constrain ICE’s civil immigration enforcement efforts because they required ICE to expend additional resources to locate and arrest convicted criminals who were at-large rather than transferred directly from jails into ICE custody, drawing resources away from other ICE enforcement efforts.

Page 14: “Appendix B: Key Terms and Definitions … Convicted Criminal: An individual convicted in the United States for one or more criminal offenses. This does not include civil traffic offenses.”

[1105] Report: “Immigration Detainers: Legal Issues.” By Kate M. Manuel (Legislative Attorney), Congressional Research Service, May 7, 2015. <fas.org>

Pages 12–15:

Are States and Localities Required to Comply with Immigration Detainers?

Questions as to whether states and localities are required to honor immigration detainers77 seem to have arisen primarily from a DHS [Department of Homeland Security] regulation which states that:

[u]pon a determination by the Department to issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise detained by a criminal justice agency, such agency shall maintain custody of the alien for a period [generally] not to exceed 48 hours … in order to permit assumption of custody by the Department.78

This regulation uses the word “shall,” and “shall” has been construed as indicating mandatory action when used in other contexts.79 Thus, the argument has been made that its use here means that states and localities are required to hold aliens whenever DHS issues a detainer calling for them to be held.80 However, others—including DHS—have taken the position that the regulation’s mandatory language applies only to the period of any detention pursuant to an immigration detainer, and does not require detention at DHS’s request.81

Earlier versions of the standard detainer form (Form I-247) may also have contributed to the view that compliance with immigration detainers is required. Indeed, the version of Form I-247 used between 1997 and 2010 expressly stated that federal regulations “required” recipients to hold aliens for up to 48 hours (excluding weekends and federal holidays) so that ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] could assume custody.82 This form was amended [by the Obama administration] in August 2010 to indicate that ICE “requested”—rather than “required”—that aliens be held.83 However, DHS further amended Form I-247 in December 2011, in a way that certain affected parties allege created confusion as to whether compliance with detainers is requested or required.84 Specifically, as amended in December 2011, Form I-247 stated that

This request flows from federal regulation 8 C.F.R. §287.7, which provides that a law enforcement agency “shall maintain custody of an alien” once a detainer has been issued by DHS. 85

This language was, however, only used until December 2012, when ICE [under the Obama administration] amended the detainer form yet again to indicate that “detainer request[s] derive[] from federal regulation,” without quoting the text of that regulation.86 Some jurisdictions may also have taken DHS’s statements that they were required, at that time, to participate in the Secure Communities program to mean that they must honor detainers issued in conjunction with that program.87 (DHS [under the Obama administration] announced the discontinuance of the Secure Communities program on November 20, 2014.)

The only federal appeals court to have addressed the issue found that states and localities are not required to comply with immigration detainers. Specifically, in its March 4, 2014, decision in Galarza v. Szalczyk, a majority of the reviewing three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that the word “shall” in DHS’s detainer regulation prescribes the maximum period of any detention, instead of requiring states and localities to hold aliens for DHS.88 The majority did so, in part, because it construed other language in 8 C.F.R. §287.7 as unambiguously describing detainers as “requests.”89 However, the majority also noted that, if the regulation were seen as ambiguous, DHS’s interpretation would “hold persuasive weight,” and that DHS and the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] have historically viewed detainers as requests, not commands.90 The majority also noted other federal court decisions that, while not directly addressing whether states and localities are required to comply with immigration detainers, characterized detainers as requests.91

The Third Circuit majority also cited the doctrine of constitutional avoidance in support of its interpretation, noting that “[e]ven if there were any doubt about whether immigration detainers are requests and not mandatory orders to local law enforcement officials, settled constitutional law clearly establishes that they must be deemed requests.”92 Specifically, the majority found that the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle, as articulated by the Supreme Court in New York v. United States93 and Printz v. United States,94 means that federal officials cannot require states and localities to detain aliens for them. According to the majority, if states and localities were required to detain aliens for DHS, they would have to “expend funds and resources to effectuate a federal regulatory scheme,” something found to be impermissible in New York and Printz.95 Further, according to the majority, such a requirement would be “exactly the type of command that has historically disrupted our system of federalism” by obscuring which level of government is accountable for particular policies, as was also noted in New York and Printz.96

The Third Circuit’s decision could potentially resolve the uncertainty as to whether compliance with immigration detainers is mandatory,97 as well as the related debate over whether state and local policies of declining to honor detainers for at least some aliens are preempted by federal law.98 However, while the Third Circuit’s Tenth Amendment concerns, in particular, seem well founded, those who view compliance with immigration detainers as mandatory may continue to assert that compliance with immigration detainers is required based on district court decisions from other jurisdictions, which are not bound by the Third Circuit’s decision.99 For example, at least one district court outside the Third Circuit has expressly rejected the view that the word “shall” in 8 C.F.R. §287.7(d) prescribes the maximum period of any detention, instead of requiring the alien be detained.100

[1106] “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2016.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 30, 2016. <www.ice.gov>

Page 9:

The enactment of numerous state statutes and local ordinances reducing and/or preventing cooperation with ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], in addition to federal court decisions which created liability concerns for cooperating law enforcement agencies, led an increasing number of jurisdictions to decline to honor immigration detainers before implementation of PEP [Priority Enforcement Program] in July 2015. Despite improvement following PEP implementation, ERO [Enforcement and Removal Operations] documented a total of 21,205 declined detainers in 567 counties in 48 states including the District of Columbia between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2016.

[1107] “Annual Performance Report, Fiscal Years 2015–2017.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, February 10, 2016. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 46:

As of the end of FY 2015, ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] removed 139,368 convicted criminal aliens, compared to 177,960 in FY 2014. Between FY 2014 and FY 2015, criminal encounters fell 13%. This drop was caused by policies limiting state and local law enforcement cooperation with ICE and a reduction in Border Patrol turnovers. Between January 1, 2014 and September 13, 2015, ICE recorded 18,499 instances of detainers that were declined by local jurisdictions, 8,389 of which were declined between October 1, 2014 and September 13, 2015. When local jurisdictions decline ICE detainers, ICE must dedicate additional officer resources to locate and arrest criminal aliens in the public domain, thereby increasing processing times and risking officer and public safety. Comparing FY 2014 to FY 2015, Border Patrol turnovers were down 26%. Roughly one quarter of border patrol turnovers are convicted criminals, meaning that there were 12,000 fewer convicted criminal turnovers to ICE in FY 2015 than FY 2014.

Page 92:

In FY 2015, many of ICE’s performance outcomes were negatively impacted by laws and policies in jurisdictions across the country that limit state and local law enforcement cooperation with ICE detainers, and federal court precedent that has resulted in the release of a greater number of criminal aliens on bonds and their placement on the slower, non-detained docket.

[1108] Calculated with data from: “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2017.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 13, 2017. <www.ice.gov>

Page 9:

ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] records a detainer as declined when a law enforcement agency fails to maintain custody of an alien for up to 48 hours, as requested on Form I-247A (Immigration Detainer – Notice of Action), and instead releases the alien into the community. ERO [Enforcement and Removal Operations] is working to ensure that these aliens, many of whom may reoffend, are not released from custody. For example, in a new approach, DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] and ICE, in coordination with the Department of Justice, have taken actions to support our state and local partners when they face legal challenges for lawfully cooperating with ICE detainers, including by filing statements of interest and amicus briefs before the courts.

In FY2017, law enforcement agencies declined 8,170 ERO detainers, as compared with 3,623 in FY2016, as seen in Table 5. This is the greatest number of declined detainers over the last three fiscal years. Despite intensified efforts to locate and arrest these aliens—many of whom are convicted criminals—ERO was only able to arrest 6 percent of them in FY17. While this is a 67 percent increase over FY2016, this further illustrates the public safety threat posed by those sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with ICE’s enforcement efforts, as 7,710 illegal and criminal aliens remain at-large as a direct result of these policies.

Table 5. FY2015–FY2017 Declined Detainers and Subsequent ERO Administrative Arrests

Time Frame

Declined Detainers

Individuals with a Declined Detainer and a Later Arrest

FY 2015

7,369

1,045

FY 2016

3,623

275

FY 2017

8,170

460

Between 1/20/2016 and 9/30/2016

2,267

181

Between 1/20/2017 and 9/30/2017

7,232

376

CALCULATION: 7,369 + 3,623 + 8,170 = 19,162

[1109] “ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year 2016.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 30, 2016. <www.ice.gov>

Page 9:

Declined detainers result in convicted criminals being released back into U.S. communities with the potential to re-offend, notwithstanding ICE’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] requests for transfer of those individuals. Moreover, these releases constrain ICE’s civil immigration enforcement efforts because they required ICE to expend additional resources to locate and arrest convicted criminals who were at-large rather than transferred directly from jails into ICE custody, drawing resources away from other ICE enforcement efforts.

Page 14: “Appendix B: Key Terms and Definitions … Convicted Criminal: An individual convicted in the United States for one or more criminal offenses. This does not include civil traffic offenses.”

[1110] “Sign-On Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Opposing S. 1814, the Stop Sanctuary Cities Act.” American Civil Liberties Union, August 4, 2015. <www.aclu.org>

Page 3:

The sponsors of S. 1814 fail to understand the fundamental purpose of community trust policies adopted by more than 300 jurisdictions across the country. Far from being “sanctuary” zones, these localities recognize that immigrant victims and witnesses will not report crime if they fear that police are collaborating with immigration enforcement authorities—and thus, in order to combat crime, local police need to win and maintain the trust of immigrant communities.

[1111] Article: “Teen Gets 50 Years in MS-13 Killing of 14-Year-Old Maryland Girl.” By Jack Moore. WTOP News (107.7 FM, Washington, D.C.), January 13, 2020. <wtop.com>

A 17-year-old, who pleaded guilty to the brutal gang-linked slaying of a 14-year-old Maryland girl last spring, has been sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Josue Fuentes-Ponce, who was 16 at the time of the killing, had pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and participating in a gang.

He was one of four teens who authorities said drove Ariana Funes-Diaz to a wooded area in Riverdale, Maryland, in April and attacked her with a baseball bat and a machete. Her body was discovered near a creek a month later.

Police said the teens, who were members of the MS-13 street gang, were worried Funes-Diaz would rat them out for an earlier gang-related kidnapping and robbery in D.C.

One of the other teens charged in the slaying, 18-year-old Joel Escobar, pleaded guilty in November and is due to be sentenced Feb. 26.

[1112] Article: “ICE Previously Sought to Detain 2 Suspects in Homicide of Maryland Girl.” By Matthew Stabley. NBC Washington, May 21, 2019. <www.nbcwashington.com>

Two teenagers charged in the death of a 14-year-old Maryland girl were arrested by Prince George’s County police in another case last year and should have been detained, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Salvadorans Josue Fuentes-Ponce, 16, and Joel Escobar, 17, were in the country illegally when they were arrested May 11, 2018, on several charges, including attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder and participation in gang activity, ICE said. They were released on an unknown date despite an ICE detainer, according to ICE. …

Fuentes-Ponce, Escobar and 14-year-old Cynthia Hernandez-Nucamendi were arrested last week and charged with first-degree murder and related charges in the death of 14-year-old Ariana Funes-Diaz, of Adelphi, whose body was found April 19 in a creek in the 6300 block of 64th Avenue in Riverdale.

The suspects were fearful Funes-Diaz would go to the police about a robbery all four of them allegedly committed in D.C. on April 17, police said.

[1113] Press release: “ICE Seeks Custody of Teen Murder Suspects for a Second Time.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, May 21, 2019. <www.ice.gov>

Following the recent arrest of two unlawfully present teens suspected in the violent murder of a young girl in Maryland, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers in Baltimore are again seeking to take custody of the illegal aliens through the ICE detainer process following the Prince George’s County Detention Center’s (PGCDC) failure to cooperate.

Josue Rafael Fuentes-Ponce and Joel Ernesto Escobar, both Salvadoran nationals, were previously arrested on May 11, 2018 when they were arrested by Prince George’s County Police Department (PGCPD) for attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, participation in gang activity, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted robbery, and other related charges. ICE officers lodged a detainer with PGCDC, however both were released on an unknown date and time without notification to ICE.

On May 16, 2019, PGCPD arrested the same individuals and charged them with first-degree murder.

ICE officers have again lodged detainers with PGCDC and will again seek to take custody of these public safety threats pending the outcome of their criminal proceedings.

Fuentes initially arrived in the U.S. on Dec. 23, 2015 as part of a family unit in Texas. They were ultimately paroled into the U.S. pending the outcome of the immigration case. On March 16, 2017, an immigration judge ordered Fuentes removed in absentia, yet he remained.

Escobar was found by immigration officials to be an unlawfully present unaccompanied juvenile on Aug. 23, 2016, near McAllen, Texas. Escobar was transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and later released to a family member in the Washington, D.C. area.

[1114] U.S. Code Title 8, Section 1357: “Powers of Immigration Officers and Employees.” Accessed October 20, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—

(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

(2) to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States….

[1115] Article: “Life Prison Term For Santa Rosa Man Who Killed Girlfriend.” By KPIX 5 (CBS, San Francisco Bay/Area), August 7, 2019. <www.cbsnews.com>

A Santa Rosa man was sentenced Tuesday to life in prison for the domestic violence murder of his girlfriend in 2017, according to the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office.

Nery Estrada-Margos, 40, pleaded no contest in Sonoma County Superior Court in June to first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon causing great bodily injury and domestic assault of Veronica Cabrera Ramirez, 42, prosecutors said.

[1116] Commentary: “California’s Proposed Sanctuary Law Endangers Lives.” By Thomas D. Homan (acting director of ICE), September 26, 2017. <www.sfchronicle.com>

When Nery Estrada Margos walked into the Santa Rosa Police Department on Aug. 18 to turn himself in, he told officers he believed he had killed his girlfriend, Veronica Cabrera Ramirez. Two weeks earlier, Estrada Margos had been arrested on charges of felony domestic battery against Cabrera Ramirez and booked into the Sonoma County Jail in Santa Rosa. During that process, Estrada Margos’ fingerprints triggered an alert to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because he had been deported to Guatemala in 2008 and was in the United States illegally. ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] immediately filed with the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office a detainer—a formal request that we be alerted 48 hours before law enforcement releases a deportable alien—so that ICE could take custody of Estrada Margos and remove him to his home country.

Unfortunately, the Sheriff’s Office did not honor our detainer and released Estrada Margos after he posted bail. ICE deportation officers in San Francisco—more than 50 miles from Santa Rosa—were notified just minutes before his release. The Sheriff’s Office was fully aware that our officers could not possibly be in Santa Rosa before Estrada Margos was back on the street.

[1117] Article: “Man Charged in Girlfriend’s Death Was on ICE’s Radar.” KTVU Fox 2 California, August 22 2017. <www.ktvu.com>

ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] issued a statement Tuesday evening. It said that the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department notified ICE only 16 minutes before releasing him, and that was not sufficient time to pick him up.

It also said the vast majority of calls from the county over the past six months have failed to provide adequate time for ICE agents.

[1118] Article: “Suspect In Fatal Santa Rosa Beating Had ICE Hold.” By Emily Turner. CBS San Francisco, August 22, 2017. <www.cbsnews.com>

Nery Estrada-Margos was flagged by Immigration and Customs Enforcement just two weeks before he allegedly beat his girlfriend Veronica Cabrera Ramirez to death last Friday. …

Just weeks earlier, the suspect was arrested for beating Cabrera Ramirez. But Estrada-Margos, an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala, was released after making bail.

ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] wanted Sonoma County authorities to alert them when Estrada-Margos was bailed out. However, Sonoma County officials say ICE never showed up for him when he made bail.

“It’s up to them. If they can come and pick someone up, that’s their responsibility, not ours,” explained Misty Harris [sic, Misti Harris] with the Sonoma County Sheriff’s office.

Federal sources tell KPIX 5 that Sonoma County Sheriff’s deputies did call to say they would be releasing Estrada-Margos.

ICE says it got the call at 8:20 p.m., but the sheriff’s office released him 16 minutes later at 8:36 p.m. That was hardly enough time for agents to get to the jail.

Estrada-Margos was released on Friday, August 4th. Two weeks later, on August 18th, Cabrera Ramirez was dead.

[1119] Article: “Sheriff’s Office to Limit ICE Cooperation at Sonoma County Jail.” By Nick Rahaim. Sonoma County Press Democrat, August 13, 2017. <www.pressdemocrat.com>

Interim Sheriff Rob Giordano has announced the Sonoma County Jail will limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities starting Friday (8/14). …

Under current policy, the Sheriff’s Office responds to every notification request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the date and time of an inmate’s release, even if an inmate’s detention does not result in a conviction.

Once the new policy is implemented, Sonoma County Jail officials will respond to ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] if a person has been convicted of a felony listed by the California Trust Act. The jail will cooperate when an inmate has been convicted of a Trust Act misdemeanor and 13 other crimes within the last five years. The additional misdemeanors, chosen by Giordano, include DUIs [driving under the influence], battery and seven sex crimes relating to minors. …

Inmates will also be given the right to contest the Sheriff’s Office decision to notify ICE of their release.

[1120] Article: “SF Killer Edwin Ramos Sentenced in Triple Slaying.” By Vivian Ho. San Francisco Chronicle, August 21, 2014. <www.sfgate.com>

Edwin Ramos didn’t take responsibility Monday for the 2008 murders of a San Francisco man and his two sons. …

Ramos, 25, was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole for shooting the victims as they drove down an Excelsior neighborhood street on a Sunday afternoon June 22, 2008. …

Superior Court Judge Charles Haines said Ramos “brutally and senselessly murdered” Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, after mistaking one of the sons for a gang rival.

[1121] Article: “Officials Try to Explain Murder Suspect’s Release.” By Jaxon Van Derbeken. San Francisco Chronicle, July 22, 2008. <www.sfgate.com>

Authorities couldn’t fully explain Monday how an alleged gang member and suspected illegal immigrant was able walk out of jail in San Francisco—three months before police say he shot and killed a father and two sons. …

The Chronicle reported on Sunday how Ramos, a native of El Salvador, was repeatedly shielded as a juvenile from deportation by city officials who failed to notify federal authorities of separate assault and attempted robberies he committed when he was 17. …

On Sunday, The Chronicle reported that Ramos, at age 17, was twice found to have committed felonies—a gang motivated assault of a Muni bus passenger followed by the attempted street robbery of a pregnant woman—but he was shielded from deportation by the city’s policy of providing sanctuary for immigrants.

[1122] Article: “Jury Returns with Guilty Verdict in Marilyn Pharis Murder Trial.” KSBY News, June 27, 2018. <www.ksby.com>

A jury in Santa Maria Wednesday found Victor Martinez guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Marilyn Pharis. …

The jury also found true special allegations of robbery, burglary, sexual penetration, and use of a deadly weapon (a hammer), but was deadlocked on an additional allegation of torture. Prosecutors moved to have the torture allegation dismissed.

[1123] Article: “Cops Say Calif. Murder Suspect in Country Illegally.” CBS, August 9, 2015. <www.cbsnews.com>

Santa Barbara County authorities say a man in the country illegally has been charged in the rape and fatal assault of a 64-year-old woman at her home in Santa Maria.

Prosecutors say Marilyn Pharis was attacked with a hammer and sexually assaulted in her home on the morning of July 24. She later died of her injuries.

Twenty-nine-year-old Victor Aureliano Martinez was arrested shortly after the attack.

[1124] Article: “Police Chief Blames Immigration, Crime Policies in Murder of California Woman.” By Eliott C. McLaughlin. CNN, August 10, 2015. <www.cnn.com>

Pharis was sleeping at her home just before 10 a.m. on July 24 when Victor Aureliano Martinez, 29, and Jose Fernando Villagomez, 20, allegedly broke into her home and assaulted her, Santa Maria police said in a news release. …

Pharis, 64, died in the hospital August 1. …

Police say Martinez has had numerous run-ins with the law, including an incident shortly before the attack on Pharis. …

He was picked up again on May 22, 2014, initially for felony drug and sexual assault charges, police said. The assault charge was later modified to misdemeanor battery. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement filed an “immigration detainer—notice of action,” but the sheriff’s office determined the request did not meet its “immigration detention requirements,” police said. Martinez posted bail and was released June 4. …

In a statement, ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] said it lodged an immigration detainer on Martinez after the May 2014 incident and asked that ICE “be notified prior to Mr. Martinez’s release to enable the agency to take custody to pursue possible administrative immigration enforcement action. Available records indicate that Mr. Martinez was released by local authorities a week later without ICE receiving the requested notification.” …

Villagomez, who was born in San Francisco, had been arrested at least twice before he was charged in Pharis’ killing.

[1125] Article: “After Being Deported in 2007, He Was Arrested Twice in Denver. Then, Police Say He Killed a Woman.” By Jesse Paul. Denver Post, February 22, 2017. <www.denverpost.com>

The other Denver case involves Ever Valles, 19, who was released from the Denver jail in October after immigration officials flagged him as an enforcement priority. Police say on Feb. 7 that Valles, a known gang member, and another 19-year-old were involved in the fatal shooting of 32-year-old Tim Cruz during a robbery at a light rail station.

Valles, a Mexican citizen, has been charged with first-degree murder.

[1126] Article: “Denver Defends Release of Illegal Immigrant Later Charged in Murder.” By Keith Coffman. Reuters, February 21, 2017. <www.reuters.com>

The Denver Sheriff’s Department on Tuesday defended its release of an illegal immigrant after he posted bond on theft charges only to be arrested for murder weeks later, saying it had no authority to hold him.

Ever Valles, 19, a Mexican national, was released from the Denver jail in late December. Last week he was charged by state prosecutors, along with another defendant, in the murder and robbery of a man at a light rail station this month. …

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials said in a statement that after Valles was arrested, it placed a detainer with the Denver County jail to hold him until its agents could take him into federal custody.

“The detainer wasn’t honored and he was released by the jail … without prior notification,” ICE said. “Valles is a known gang member whose gang history is documented in the Colorado gang database.”

[1127] Article: “San Francisco Status as ‘Sanctuary’ Criticized After Slaying.” By Janie Har and Amy Taxin. Associated Press, July 7, 2015. <www.sandiegouniontribune.com>

The killing of a woman at a sightseeing pier has brought criticism down on this liberal city because the Mexican man under arrest was in the U.S. illegally, had been deported five times and was out on the streets after San Francisco officials disregarded a request from immigration authorities to keep him locked up. …

In a jailhouse interview with a TV station, Francisco Sanchez, the 45-year-old repeat drug offender arrested in the shooting Wednesday of Kathryn Steinle, appeared to confirm that he came to the city because of its status as a sanctuary. …

Many other San Francisco politicians stayed quiet as mourners held a late morning vigil at Pier 14 on the downtown waterfront, where the 32-year-old Steinle was gunned down Wednesday, seemingly at random, during an evening stroll with her father and a family friend. She had recently moved to San Francisco.

[1128] Article: “Sanctuary Cities: How Kathryn Steinle’s Death Intensified the Immigration Debate.” By Christina Littlefield. Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2015. <www.latimes.com>

Sanchez was in federal prison for re-entering the country after his fifth deportation. But on March 26, as the date neared for him to be released into ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] custody, prison officials in Victorville shipped him north to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department on an outstanding drug-related warrant despite an immigration detainer. The San Francisco district attorney’s office declined to prosecute what authorities said was a decade-old marijuana possession case, and Sanchez was released April 15.

Immigration officials issued another detainer after Lopez-Sanchez arrived in San Francisco, requesting to be notified before his release so arrangements could be made to take custody, ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice said.

“The detainer was not honored,” Kice said in a statement.

San Francisco, as a sanctuary city, honors immigration holds only if the person has a violent record or if a judge had vetted the hold or approved a warrant. In this case, ICE did not seek a court order, Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said.

[1129] Article: “Developer’s Killing Said to Be Unplanned.” By Michael Schwirtz. New York Times, May 1, 2014. <www.nytimes.com>

In the four months since the body of a Brooklyn real-estate developer [Menachem Stark] was found smoldering in a trash container outside a Long Island gas station, rumors of devious and occasionally outlandish plots have swirled around his death in the community and the media. …

The suspect, Kendel Felix, a Brooklyn construction worker, told investigators that he and another person forced Mr. Stark into a minivan after seizing him outside his office during a major snowstorm on the evening of Jan. 2, according to the criminal complaint. In the course of the abduction, Mr. Stark died, Mr. Felix told investigators, according to the complaint.

Mr. Felix’s lawyer, David Jacobs, would not comment on the case. He said Mr. Felix was self-employed and had a wife and two children, ages 4 and 10 months.

His criminal record includes an arrest in February 2013 for violating an order of protection and criminal harassment, a Police Department spokesman said. He had five other arrests from 2011 to May 2013, all of them sealed, the spokesman said.

[1130] Article: “St Lucians Indicted in Connection with Murder of Brooklyn Landlord.” Jamaica Observer, December 22, 2016. <www.jamaicaobserver.com>

“A jury has already convicted Kendel Felix, of first-degree kidnapping and second-degree murder in the case. He is awaiting sentencing and faces up to 25 years to life in prison.”

[1131] Press Release: “Criminal Aliens Set Free By Sanctuary Cities.” White House, February 13, 2018. <www.whitehouse.gov>

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) arrested Kendel Felix, a citizen of St. Lucia and a national of the United Kingdom, on various local criminal charges in July 2012, September 2012, and February 2013. Despite an immigration detainer lodged by ICE, he was released by the New York City Department of Corrections in April 2013. One year later, Felix was arrested by the NYPD and charged with murder. He was later convicted in September 2016 of kidnapping/abduction resulting in death.

[1132] Article: “Suspect in 3 Missouri Slayings Faced ICE Issue in New Jersey.” By David Porter and Heather Hollingsworth. Associated Press, November 9, 2018. <apnews.com>

Twenty-three-year-old Luis Perez, who is from Mexico, is charged with fatally shooting two men and wounding two others Nov. 1 and then fatally shooting a woman the next day. He is jailed without bond on 11 felonies, including first-degree murder and assault. …

Middlesex County adopted a policy last year that honors detainer requests from ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] if the inmate has previously been convicted of a first- or second-degree offense or was the subject of a final order of deportation signed by a federal judge. …

According to authorities in Missouri, Perez opened fire on Steven Marler, 38, and Aaron Hampton, 23, at their home in Springfield, Missouri, on Nov. 1. Two other people were wounded but survived. Perez then shot and killed Sabrina Starr, 21, a day later at her house, the documents say. Perez faces eight other felony counts in the shootings.

[1133] Article: “Man Sentenced for Killing 3, Injuring 2 in Missouri.” Associated Press, January 6, 2023. <apnews.com>

Luis Perez, 27, was sentenced after being found guilty in October of three counts of first-degree murder and two counts of assault, The Springfield News-Leader reported.

Court documents say Perez was killed two former roommates, Steven Marler, 38, and Aaron “Joshua” Hampton, 23, and injured two others on Nov. 1, 2018, after he was kicked out of their Springfield home.

The next day, Perez killed 21-year-old Sabrina Starr, who gave him the weapon he used to kill the other victims, police said.

[1134] Press release: “Mexican National Released From Local Custody Facing Murder Charges.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, November 9, 2018. <www.ice.gov>

Luis Rodrigo Perez was being held at Middlesex County Jail in December of last year on domestic violence charges. ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] issued a detainer and requested notification prior to his release, so that he may be taken into ICE custody and placed in removal proceedings. In accordance with their local policy, Middlesex County Jail did not honor the detainer, did not notify ICE upon completion of the criminal proceedings, and released Perez into the community.

“Yet again, an ICE detainer was ignored and a dangerous criminal alien was released to the streets and is now charged with killing three people,” said ICE Acting Executive Associate Director Corey Price. “Had ICE’s detainer request in December 2017 been honored by Middlesex County Jail, Luis Rodrigo Perez would have been placed in deportation proceedings and likely sent home to his country—and three innocent people might be alive today. It is past time that localities realize the perils of dangerous sanctuary policies and resume their primary goal of protecting their residents.”

[1135] Article: “ICE Blames Middlesex County Jail for Releasing Illegal Immigrant Charged with Three Missouri Murders.” Bridgewater Courier News, November 9, 2018. <www.mycentraljersey.com>

“We have tried unsuccessfully to work with Middlesex County Jail in the interest of public safety to accept detainers and to contact ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] prior to releasing criminals.” Tsoukaris said. “There have been other cases where ICE detainers were not honored and those released went on to commit serious crimes. In this most recent case, Perez had a violent history, but despite that, the detainer was not honored. We hope that this tragic turn of events forces Middlesex to reconsider its policy and that the local elected officials stop protecting criminal aliens.”

In Perez’s case, county officials said via email from a spokeswoman Friday, ICE was advised the county wouldn’t honor its detainer request in December because it didn’t meet the necessary criteria

During the ensuing 51 days Perez was in custody, officials wrote, ICE didn’t request an order of deportation from a federal judge.

“This order would have authorized Middlesex County to turn over custody of Mr. Perez prior to, or upon completion of his sentence,” they wrote. “Instead ICE officials chose to do nothing, which places all responsibility of Mr. Perez’s actions squarely upon ICE.”

[1136] U.S. Code Title 8, Section 1357: “Powers of Immigration Officers and Employees.” Accessed October 25, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—

(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

(2) to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States …

(4) to make arrests for felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under any law of the United States regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, if he has reason to believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such felony and if there is likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the person arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest available officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States….

[1137] Press Release: “ICE Lodges Detainer Against Guyanese National Arrested for the Murder of a 92-Year-Old New York City Woman.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, January 13, 2020. <www.ice.gov>

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) deportation officers assigned to the Criminal Alien Program lodged a detainer with the New York Police Department (NYPD), following their arrest of a suspect in the murder of a 92-year-old resident of Richmond Hill, New York.

Reeaz Khan, 21, an unlawfully present Guyanese national, was arrested Jan. 10 by the NYPD and charged with murder, sexual abuse, contact by forcible compulsion, and sexual abuse against a person incapable of consent. Khan was previously released from local law enforcement custody in November 2019 with an active detainer, due to New York City’s sanctuary policies. …

On Nov. 27, Khan was arrested by the NYPD for the charges of assault, and criminal possession of a weapon. On that same date, ERO deportation officers lodged a detainer with the NYPD. The detainer was not honored, and Khan was released following arraignment.

[1138] Article: “ICE: Man Accused of Raping, Killing Queens Woman, 92, Should Have Been Deported.” By Adam Warner. 1010 WINS, January 15, 2020. <www.audacy.com>

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said the NYPD released Khan in November after he attacked his father with a broken coffee cup, ignoring a federal request to turn him over for deportation.

City Hall and the NYPD have said a detainer was not issued for Khan.

[1139] Article: “Acting ICE Director Slams New York City’s Sanctuary City Policy Following Murder of 92-Year-Old Woman.” By Anthony Ali. ABC News, January 17, 2020. <abcnewsradioonline.com>

The NYPD said it never received the detainer for Khan back in November.

Under its rules, the NYPD honors federal detainers if “ICE [U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement] presents a warrant issued by a federal judge establishing that there is probable cause to take the person into custody, and the person has been convicted of a ‘violent or serious crime’ within five years of the arrest or is a possible match on the terrorist watch list,” according to a spokesperson to the department.

“The NYPD follows local law as it pertains to detainer requests,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

[1140] Twitter post: “Transmission Verification Report.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, January 15, 2020. <twitter.com>

“It is the height of hypocrisy for NYC to blame ICE [U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement] for this tragic crime. The mayor & police chief have continually celebrated that they don’t honor ICE detainers, & to deflect the criticism for this completely preventable murder is incredibly disingenuous & shameful…”

Transmission Verification Report … Time: 11/27/2019 07:42

Attached is an IMMIGRATION DETAINER—NOTICE OF ACTION for a subject in your custody. … Name: KHAN, Reeaz

[1141] Letter from Matthew T. Albence (Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to Bill de Blasio (Mayor of New York City, February 12, 2020. <www.ice.gov>

Page 2:

As a career law enforcement official who has worked in criminal justice for decades, I am profoundly saddened to see how this issue has become politicized, and concurrently, fraught with misinformation. To be clear, ICE [U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is not asking New York City to conduct immigration enforcement or change the manner in which NYPD performs its duties. Rather, we only seek your assistance with providing timely notice to ICE when removable criminal aliens are going to be released back into your community and when necessary, holding them for a very short period for ICE to take custody. We will use our authorities to keep them off your streets, where they may reoffend, and help you keep New York City safe.

In FY 2019, the ERO [Enforcement and Removal Operations] New York City field office issued 7,526 detainers on subjects associated with 6,705 criminal charges and 17,873 convictions; the subjects of these detainers had criminal histories including, but not limited to, more than 3,500 assaults, 1,500 DUIs, 1,000 sex crimes, 1,000 weapon offenses, 500 robberies, and 200 homicide offenses. However, ICE’s data show that during the same time period, at least 4,000 detainers were declined, and our local leadership advises that New York City actually honored just 25 detainers.

[1142] Article: “Bambi Larson Killed Nearly One Year Ago, Suspect Has Yet to Enter Plea.” By Fladeboe. KRON 4 (San Francisco), February 24, 2020. <www.kron4.com>

24-year-old Carlos Arevalo Carranza is alleged to have stalked, beaten and fatally stabbed 59-year-old Bambi Larson on February 28, 2019. …

Larson’s murder outraged the community when it came out that Carranza was a convicted felon and undocumented immigrant from El Salvador who had been ordered, detained by federal authorities and had been released from the Santa County Jail twice before Larson’s murder.

Evidence includes a security video showing him outside her home that day.

[1143] Article: “Man Ordered Detained by ICE 9 Times Arrested on Suspicion of San Jose Woman’s Stabbing Death; Liccardo Criticizes County’s Policy.” By Nico, Mark Gomez, and Jason Green. Mercury News, March 11, 2019. <www.mercurynews.com>

A homeless man arrested Monday in connection with the stabbing death of a San Jose woman at her home last month was an undocumented immigrant who had been ordered detained by federal authorities nine times, officials said Tuesday. But the man, who had multiple convictions for misdemeanor and felony offenses, was released from Santa Clara County Jail twice in the months leading up to the killing. …

Larson’s son had gone to check on his mother on the afternoon of Feb. 28 after he said coworkers told him she had not shown up to work that day. He found her covered in blood in her bedroom and called police about 1:45 p.m. …

DNA collected from Arevalo-Carranza on Sunday, when he was arrested for an unrelated charge and released, was ultimately used to link him to the killing, said Garcia, adding that Larson’s cellphone and tablet were also found with his personal property.

[1144] Article: “Bambi Larson Murder Suspect In U.S. Illegally With Lengthy Criminal Record.” By Anne Makovec. KPIX 5 (CBS San Francisco Bay Area), March 12, 2019. <www.cbsnews.com>

“Carlos Eduardo Arevalo Carranza stalked this San Jose neighborhood and his victim,” said San Jose Police Chief Eddie Garcia. “He is a self-admitted gang member.” …

“His criminal history convictions consist of in Feb. 2013 he was detained by the Department of Homeland Security at the border near McAllen, Texas, and deported.”

“In 2015, he was arrested for drug paraphernalia. In 2015 he was convicted of burglary in San Jose. In 2016, battery of an officer, resisting arrest and entering a property. In 2016, he was arrested for battery in Los Angeles. In 2017, he was arrested and convicted of false imprisonment in San Jose. On April of 2018, arrested for paraphernalia again. In May, he was arrested for possession of methamphetamine.”

“In August of 2018, he was arrested for prowling. On October 2018, he was arrested for false identification and paraphernalia once again.”

ICE [U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Acting Field Office Director Erik Bonnar said his agency has had nearly a dozen detainer requests for Arevalo-Carranza that have gone unanswered. They filed a 10th detainer on his on Tuesday after his arrest.

“ICE preliminary information suggests this is at least the tenth detainer ICE has lodged with local California law enforcement agencies on Arevalo-Carranza since 2016,” Bonnar said in a statement. “All nine known previously lodged detainers have been ignored and have allowed Arevalo-Carranza back onto our streets to re-offend.” …

Larson was a medical testing company manager and lived alone here with her dog and cat.

[1145] Article: “ICE Criticizes Sanctuary Laws in Murder of Federal Way Teen.” By Essex Porter. KIRO 7 Seattle, October 11, 2019. <www.kiro7.com>

Two people have been charged with first-degree murder in the death of 16-year-old Juan Carlos Con Guzman.

Newly released court documents say Rudy Garcia-Hernandez and Carlos Iraheta-Vega “contacted Juan Carlos on Snapchat” and picked him up for a “pre-arranged fight to settle a dispute.”

But prosecutors allege they had “a plan to torture and kill him” and that they “beat the victim with a baseball bat and mercilessly chopped his neck repeatedly with a machete.”

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says Iraheta-Vega is an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador who arrived in the U.S. three years ago. And that he was arrested and released from the King County Jail last year despite a request from ICE [U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to detain him.

[1146] Article: “Two Charged in Murder of Teen Pulled From the Green River in September.” K5 News Seattle, October 9, 2019. Updated 11/11/19. <www.king5.com>

A 16-year-old whose body was found in the Green River in September was allegedly killed during a fight with two MS-13 gang members, according to court documents.

King County Sheriff deputies discovered Juan Carlos Con Guzman’s body on Sept. 10 in the Green River. The King County Medical Examiner determined Con Guzman died of a combination of blunt force trauma and cuts to his neck, court documents said. …

The three went to the 12300 block of the Green River Valley Road SE in Auburn to have the fight. Detectives said in court documents that after the fistfight was over, Iraheta-Vega pulled out a baseball bat that he had previously hidden in the bushes there and beat Con Guzman. Garcia-Hernandez then cut Con Guzman’s neck, court documents said. …

Officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed Iraheta-Vega is a citizen of El Salvador and is in the United States illegally.

Con Guzman attended Mount Rainier High School. His father reported the teen missing on September 10, and that’s when detectives started investigating.

[1147] Webpage: “Courthouse History.” King County, Washington. Last updated October 27, 2017. <kingcounty.gov>

“In December of 1852, King County’s boundaries were defined. On Jan. 6, 1853, primarily through the efforts of Seattle pioneer Dr. Maynard, the county seat was located on the Maynard, Boren and Denny Land Claim in the Village of Seattle by the Oregon Legislature.”

[1148] Press release: “Year Two of SB 54: More Individuals Reoffending in Orange County Post-Release.” Orange County Sheriff’s Department, February 3, 2020. <www.ocsheriff.gov>

Pages 1–2:

In 2019, 1,507 inmates released from the Orange County Jail had ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detainers, which means federal authorities requested notification upon the inmate’s release. Of those inmates, 492 were released to ICE upon completion of their local sentences and in accordance with [California] SB 54 [Senate Bill] regulations.

Restrictions outlined by SB 54 prevented the Sheriff’s Department from notifying ICE on the release of the remaining 1,015 inmates, despite the individuals having ICE detainers. Of those inmates, 238 individuals were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County including on charges of assault and battery, rape, and robbery, among others. These numbers only reflect individuals arrested on new charges and who were returned back to the Orange County Jail. It does not include individuals who may have committed crimes in Orange County and were released on citation, booked into a city jail or committed offenses in another county’s jurisdiction. …

SB 54 was signed into law in 2017, despite heavy opposition from law enforcement leaders across the state, including Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Don Barnes, citing safety concerns in limiting local law enforcement communication with federal partners.

The senate bill restricts law enforcement from notifying, transferring and communicating with federal immigration authorities regarding certain offenders. The implementation of this bill also effectively ended the Sheriff’s Departments 287(g) program, which allowed custody deputies to place detainers on undocumented individuals in the Orange County Jail.

The Sheriff’s Department has always had clear delineation between its patrol and custody operations in its partnership with federal immigration authorities. It is not the Sheriff’s Department’s responsibility to enforce immigration law. Deputies do not ask for immigration status in the performance of their duties, and they do not make arrests for violation of federal immigration laws. However, in a custody setting, sharing information is critical to public safety and serves as a valuable tool to ensure those harming others are removed from the community. …

Assault and Battery

10

Assault with a Deadly Weapon

7

Battery

10

Burglary

17

Criminal Threats

3

Disorderly Conduct

14

Disturbing the Peace

3

Domestic Violence

14

Driving Under the Influence

27

Drug Related Charges

88

Identity Theft

5

Indecent Exposure

1

Larceny

1

Lewd or Lascivious Acts with a Child

1

Rape

2

Receiving Stolen Property

12

Resisting Arrest

20

Robbery

9

Theft

16

Trespassing

27

Vandalism

15

Vehicle Theft

4

Violation of Court Order

20

[1149] Executive order: “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” By Donald J. Trump. White House, January 25, 2017. <www.govinfo.gov>

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), and in order to ensure the public safety of the American people in communities across the United States as well as to ensure that our Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed, I hereby declare the policy of the executive branch to be, and order, as follows:

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:

(a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code;

(b) Make use of all available systems and resources to ensure the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States;

(c) Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law;

(d) Ensure that aliens ordered removed from the United States are promptly removed; and

(e) Support victims, and the families of victims, of crimes committed by removable aliens. …

Sec. 5. Enforcement Priorities. In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who:

(a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;

(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;

(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;

(d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;

(e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;

(f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or

(g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

[1150] Senate Bill 1591: “End Mass Deportation Act.” U.S. Senate, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 3, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV] (Introduced 05/22/2019) …

To nullify the effect of the Executive order that makes the vast majority of unauthorized individuals priorities for removal and aims to withhold critical Federal funding to sanctuary cities.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as the “End Mass Deportation Act”.

Sec. 2. Rescission of Executive Order 13768.

The provisions of Executive Order 13768 … entitled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”, are rescinded and shall not have any legal effect.

[1151] Webpage: “Cosponsors of Senate Bill 1591: End Mass Deportation Act.” U.S. Senate, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 3, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

“Sponsor: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV] Cosponsor statistics: 24 current – includes 24 original … Party … Democratic [23] … Independent [1]”

[1152] Webpage: “Actions on Senate Bill 1591: End Mass Deportation Act.” U.S. Senate, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 3, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

[1153] House Resolution 3000: “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act.” U.S. House of Representatives, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 3, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-4] (Introduced 05/23/2019) …

Sec. 4. Sanctuary Jurisdictions Ineligible for Certain Federal Funds.

(a) Economic Development Administration Grants.—

(1) Grants for Public Works and Economic Development.—Section 201(b) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3141(b)) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (2), by striking “and” at the end;

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(4) the area in which the project is to be carried out is not a sanctuary jurisdiction (as defined in section 3 of the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act).”.

(2) Grants for Planning and Administrative Expenses.—Section 203(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3143(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “A sanctuary jurisdiction (as defined in section 3 of the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act) may not be deemed an eligible recipient under this subsection.”.

(3) Supplementary Grants.—Section 205(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3145(a)) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (2), by striking “and” at the end;

(B) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(4) will be carried out in an area that does not contain a sanctuary jurisdiction (as defined in section 3 of the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act).”.

(4) Grants for Training, Research, and Technical Assistance.—Section 207 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3147) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(c) Ineligibility Of Sanctuary Jurisdictions.—Grant funds authorized under this section may not be used to provide assistance to a sanctuary jurisdiction (as defined in section 3 of the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act).”.

[1154] Senate Bill 1644: “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act.” U.S. Senate, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 3, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Sen. Toomey, Pat [R-PA] (Introduced 05/23/2019) …

Sec. 4. Sanctuary Jurisdictions Ineligible for Certain Federal Funds.

(a) Economic Development Administration Grants.—

(1) Grants for Public Works and Economic Development.—Section 201(b) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3141(b)) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (2), by striking “and” at the end;

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(4) the area in which the project is to be carried out is not a sanctuary jurisdiction (as defined in section 3 of the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act).”.

(2) Grants for Planning and Administrative Expenses.—Section 203(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3143(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “A sanctuary jurisdiction (as defined in section 3 of the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act) may not be deemed an eligible recipient under this subsection.”.

(3) Supplementary Grants.—Section 205(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3145(a)) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (2), by striking “and” at the end;

(B) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(4) will be carried out in an area that does not contain a sanctuary jurisdiction (as defined in section 3 of the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act).”.

(4) Grants for Training, Research, and Technical Assistance.—Section 207 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3147) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(c) Ineligibility Of Sanctuary Jurisdictions.—Grant funds authorized under this section may not be used to provide assistance to a sanctuary jurisdiction (as defined in section 3 of the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act).”.

[1155] Calculated with data from:

a) Webpage: “Cosponsors of House Resolution 3000: Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act.” U.S. House of Representatives, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 3, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

“Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-4] Cosponsor statistics: 34 current … Republican [34]”

b) Webpage: “Cosponsors of Senate Bill 1644: “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act.” U.S. Senate, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 3, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

“Sponsor: Sen.Toomey, Pat [R-PA] … Cosponsor statistics: 26 current … Republican [26]”

CALCULATION: 34 cosponsors of House bill + 26 cosponsors of Senate bill = 60 total

[1156] Webpage: “Actions on House Resolution 3000: Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act.” U.S. House of Representatives, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 3, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

[1157] Webpage: “Actions on Senate Bill 1644: “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act.” U.S. Senate, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 3, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

[1158] Ruling: State of New York vs. U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, February 26, 2020. Decided 3–0. Majority: Winter, Cabranes, Raggi. <cases.justia.com>

Pages 4–5:

The principal legal question presented in this appeal is whether the federal government may deny grants of money to State and local governments that would be eligible for such awards but for their refusal to comply with three immigration‐related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States. Those conditions require grant applicants to certify that they will (1) comply with federal law prohibiting any restrictions on the communication of citizenship and alien status information with federal immigration authorities…. (2) provide federal authorities, upon request, with the release dates of incarcerated illegal aliens; and (3) afford federal immigration officers access to incarcerated illegal aliens.

The case implicates several of the most divisive issues confronting our country and, consequently, filling daily news headlines: national immigration policy, the enforcement of immigration laws, the status of illegal aliens in this country, and the ability of States and localities to adopt policies on such matters contrary to, or at odds with, those of the federal government.

Intertwined with these issues is a foundational legal question: how, if at all, should federal, State, and local governments coordinate in carrying out the nation’s immigration policy? There is also a corollary question: to what extent may States and localities seeking federal grant money to facilitate the enforcement of their own laws adopt policies to extricate themselves from, hinder, or even frustrate the enforcement of federal immigration laws?

… For reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions. …

… [W]e cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue. These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations. But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.

[1159] Webpage: “Past Inauguration Ceremonies.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed May 19, 2021 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

“59th Inaugural Ceremonies

President Joseph R. Biden and Vice President Kamala D. Harris

January 20th, 2021

West Front, U.S. Capitol

Washington, DC”

[1160] Executive order: “Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities.” By Joseph R. Biden. White House, January 20, 2021. <www.govinfo.gov>

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: …

Sec. 2. Revocation. Executive Order 13768 of January 25, 2017 (Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States), is hereby revoked. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the heads of any other relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall review any agency actions developed pursuant to Executive Order 13768 and take action, including issuing revised guidance, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, that advances the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

[1161] Webpage: “Commonly Used Terms.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last reviewed January 26, 2021. <www.cdc.gov>

“Illicit drugs – The nonmedical use of a variety of drugs that are prohibited by law. These drugs can include: amphetamine-type stimulants, marijuana/cannabis, cocaine, heroin, other opioids, and synthetic drugs, such as illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF) and ecstasy (MDMA).”

[1162] Report: “Neuroscience of Psychoactive Substance Use and Dependence.” World Health Organization, March 2004. <www.who.int>

Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) refer to a group of drugs whose principal members include amphetamine and methamphetamine. However, a range of other substances also fall into this group, such as methcathinone, fenetylline, ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, methylphenidate and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or “Ecstasy”—an amphetamine-type derivative with hallucinogenic properties. The use of ATS is a global and growing phenomenon and in recent years, there has been a pronounced increase in the production and use of ATS worldwide.

Over the past decade, use of ATS has infiltrated its way into the mainstream culture in certain countries. Younger people in particular seem to possess a skewed sense of safety about these substances, believing rather erroneously that they are safe and benign. Meanwhile, ATS are posing a serious threat to the health, social and economic fabric of families, communities and countries.

[1163] Dataset: “Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed October 6, 2022 at <www.cdc.gov>

“12 Month-ending Provisional Counts of Drug Overdose Deaths … December 2021 … Predicted Value [=] 108,886”

[1164] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed October 6, 2022 at <www.cdc.gov>

“12 Month-ending Provisional Counts of Drug Overdose Deaths … December 2021 … Predicted Value [=] 108,886”

b) Report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999–2020.” By Holly Hedegaard, Arialdi M. Miniño, Merianne Rose Spencer, and Margaret Warner. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2021. <www.cdc.gov>

Page 6: “Of the drug overdose deaths in 2020, 91.0% were unintentional, 4.7% were suicides, 4.1% were of undetermined intent, and less than 1% were homicides.”

CALCULATION: 108,886 overdose deaths × 91.0% unintentional = 99,086

[1165] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed October 6, 2022 at <www.cdc.gov>

“12 Month-ending Provisional Counts of Drug Overdose Deaths … December 2021 … Predicted Value [=] 108,886”

b) Report: “Characteristics of Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Opioids and Stimulants — 24 States and the District of Columbia, January–June 2019.” By Julie O’Donnell and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 4, 2020. <www.cdc.gov>

“Illicitly manufactured fentanyls (IMFs), heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine (alone or in combination) were involved in 83.8% of overdose deaths during January–June 2019….”

CALCULATION: 108,886 overdose deaths × 83.8% illicitly manufactured = 91,246

[1166] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed October 6, 2022 at <www.cdc.gov>

“12 Month-ending Provisional Counts of Drug Overdose Deaths … December 2021 … Predicted Value [=] 108,886”

b) Report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999–2020.” By Holly Hedegaard, Arialdi M. Miniño, Merianne Rose Spencer, and Margaret Warner. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2021. <www.cdc.gov>

Page 6: “Of the drug overdose deaths in 2020, 91.0% were unintentional, 4.7% were suicides, 4.1% were of undetermined intent, and less than 1% were homicides.”

c) Report: “Characteristics of Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Opioids and Stimulants — 24 States and the District of Columbia, January–June 2019.” By Julie O’Donnell and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 4, 2020. <www.cdc.gov>

“Illicitly manufactured fentanyls (IMFs), heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine (alone or in combination) were involved in 83.8% of overdose deaths during January–June 2019….”

CALCULATION: 108,886 overdose deaths × 91.0% unintentional × 83.8% illicitly manufactured = 83,034

[1167] Report: “FY2022 Performance Budget: Congressional Budget Submission.” U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, May 25, 2021. Revised 1/28/22. <www.justice.gov>

Page 1: “Mexican Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) remain the greatest drug trafficking threat to the United States. … Mexican TCOs continue to supply most of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and illicit fentanyl and its analogues smuggled into the country, while violent street gangs dominate the retail sale and distribution of these illicit drugs at the local level.”

Page 2:

The Sinaloa Cartel is one of the oldest and most established TCOs in Mexico with significant presence in 15 of the 32 Mexican states. The Sinaloa Cartel controls drug trafficking activity in various regions in Mexico, particularly along the Pacific Coast in northwestern Mexico and near Mexico’s southern and northern borders. Additionally, the Sinaloa Cartel maintains the most expansive international footprint compared to other Mexican TCOs, providing the group an added advantage over its rivals. The Sinaloa Cartel exports and distributes wholesale amounts of fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana in the United States by maintaining distribution hubs in various cities.

[1168] Report: “2020 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary.” U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, March 2021. <www.dea.gov>

Page 2: “Mexican transnational criminal organizations continue to supply most of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl smuggled into the country, while violent street gangs dominate the retail sale and distribution of these illicit drugs at the local level.”

Page 7:

Mexican TCOs [transnational criminal organizations] have established clandestine laboratories in Mexico for the synthesis of fentanyl, and Mexican authorities have encountered a rise in illegal fentanyl pill press and tableting operations. Likewise, Mexican TCOs are responsible for the production and trafficking across the Southwest Border (SWB) of the overwhelming majority of the heroin available in the United States.

Page 13: “Heroin of Mexican origin accounted for 92 percent of the total weight of heroin analyzed under the HSP [Heroin Signature Program], the seventh consecutive year that Mexico has been identified as the primary source of origin for heroin encountered in the United States.”

Page 16: “The majority of heroin and fentanyl available in the United States is smuggled overland across the SWB.”

Page 17: “Mexican TCOs will remain the primary source of supply for heroin and fentanyl smuggled into the United States, using precursors primarily sourced from China, and they will continue to use their extensive infrastructure in both Mexico and the United States to supply lucrative U.S. opioid markets.”

Page 21: “Mexican TCOs continue to be the primary producers and suppliers of low cost, high purity methamphetamine available in the United States. Mexican TCOs regularly produce large quantities of methamphetamine, which has led to a significant supply of methamphetamine in the U.S. market.”

Page 24: “The SWB remains the main entry point for the majority of methamphetamine entering the United States.”

Page 33:

Mexican TCOs control cocaine trafficking in the United States, which is likely to continue as no other trafficking group is positioned to challenge them in the near term. While Mexican TCOs dominate the wholesale distribution of cocaine to the United States, Colombian TCOs maintain control over its production and supply. Mexican TCOs continue to obtain multi-ton shipments of powder cocaine from South American traffickers, moving it through Central America and Mexico, and then smuggling it into the United States over the Southwest Border. … Mexican TCOs dominate cocaine transportation throughout the United States, but rely on local criminal groups for retail-level distribution.

Page 47: “Mexico remains the most significant foreign source for marijuana in the United States; however, in U.S. markets, Mexican marijuana has largely been supplanted by domestic-produced marijuana.”

Page 65:

Mexican TCOs continue to control lucrative smuggling corridors, primarily across the SWB, and maintain the greatest drug trafficking influence in the United States. …

Mexican TCOs export significant wholesale quantities of fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana into the United States annually. The drugs are delivered to user markets in the United States through transportation routes and distribution cells that are managed or influenced by Mexican TCOs, and with the cooperation and participation of local street gangs….

Page 66: “The cartels dominate the drug trade influencing the United States market, with most cartels having a polydrug market approach that allows for maximum flexibility and resiliency of their operations….”

Page 69: “Mexican TCOs transport the majority of illicit drugs entering into the United States, moving product across the SWB using a wide array of smuggling techniques.”

Page 77:

Barring significant, unanticipated changes to the illicit drug market, Mexican TCOs will continue to dominate the wholesale importation and distribution of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, and fentanyl in U.S. markets. No other criminal organizations currently possess a logistical infrastructure to rival that of Mexican TCOs. Mexican TCOs will continue to grow in the United States through expansion of distribution networks and continued interaction with local criminal groups and gangs.

[1169] Report: “2019 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary.” U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, December 2019. <www.dea.gov>

Page 5:

Fentanylc and Other Synthetic Opioidsd: Fentanyl and other highly potent synthetic opioids—primarily sourced from China and Mexico—continue to be the most lethal category of illicit substances misused in the United States. Fentanyl continues to be sold as counterfeit prescriptions pills as traffickers—wittingly or unwittingly—are increasingly selling fentanyl to users both alone and as an adulterant, leading to rising fentanyl-involved deaths. Fentanyl suppliers will continue to experiment with other new synthetic opioids in an attempt to circumvent new regulations imposed by the United States and China.

Heroin: Heroin-related overdose deaths remain at high levels in the United States, due to continued use and availability, while fentanyl is increasingly prevalent in highly profitable white powder heroin markets. Mexico remains the primary source of heroin available in the United States according to all available sources of intelligence, including law enforcement investigations and scientific data. Further, high-levels of sustained opium poppy cultivation and heroin production in Mexico allow Mexican Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) to continue to supply high-purity, low-cost heroin. …

Methamphetamine: Methamphetamine remains widely available, with traffickers attempting to create new customers by expanding into new, non-traditional methamphetamine markets such as the Northeast, or other user bases with new product forms. Most of the methamphetamine available in the United States is produced in Mexico and smuggled across the Southwest Border (SWB). Domestic production occurs at much lower levels than in Mexico and seizures of domestic methamphetamine laboratories have declined steadily for many years while overall supply has increased.

c Unless explicitly stated, the term “fentanyl,” when used in this report, refers to clandestinely manufactured and illegally distributed fentanyl and not to pharmaceutical or “licit” fentanyl.

d In this document, the phrase “synthetic opioid” refers to only those substances, which are classified as opioids and have no plant-based material in their production (i.e. fentanyl, fentanyl-related substances, and other novel opioids) and therefore does not include heroin.

Page 59: “The SWB remains cocaine’s primary point of entry into the United States while Mexico-based TCOs maintain their dominance of transportation and distribution.”

[1170] Report: “FY2022 Performance Budget: Congressional Budget Submission.” U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, May 25, 2021. Revised 1/28/22. <www.justice.gov>

Page 3: “Illicit fentanyl, fentanyl-related substances, and other novel psychoactive substances (NPS) are inexpensive, available via the Internet, and often manufactured in China where they may be shipped via the international postal system or express consignment couriers to the United States.”

[1171] Report: “2020 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary.” U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, March 2021. <www.dea.gov>

Page 17: “Mexican TCOs [Transnational Criminal Organizations] will remain the primary source of supply for heroin and fentanyl smuggled into the United States, using precursors primarily sourced from China, and they will continue to use their extensive infrastructure in both Mexico and the United States to supply lucrative U.S. opioid markets.”

[1172] Calculated with data from the report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999–2020.” By Holly Hedegaard and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2021. <www.cdc.gov>

“Data Table for Figure 4. Age-adjusted Rates of Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Opioids, By Type of Opioid: United States, 1999–2020.” <www.cdc.gov>

NOTES: Drug overdose deaths are identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD–10) underlying cause-of-death codes X40–X44, X60–X64, X85, and Y10–Y14. Drug overdose deaths involving selected drug categories are identified by specific multiple-cause-of-death codes: any opioid, T40.0–T40.4 and T40.6; heroin, T40.1; natural and semisynthetic opioids, T40.2; methadone, T40.3; and synthetic opioids other than methadone, T40.4. Deaths involving more than one opioid category (such as a death involving both methadone and a natural or semisynthetic opioid) are counted in both categories. Natural and semisynthetic opioids include drugs such as morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone; synthetic opioids other than methadone include such drugs as fentanyl, fentanyl analogs, and tramadol. The percentage of drug overdose deaths that identified the specific drugs involved varied by year, ranging from 75%–79% from 1999 through 2013 and increasing from 81% in 2014 to 94% in 2020.

SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.

“Data table for Figure 5. Age-adjusted Rates of Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Stimulants, By Type of Stimulant: United States, 1999–2020.” <www.cdc.gov>

NOTES: Drug overdose deaths are identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD–10) underlying cause-of-death codes X40–X44, X60–X64, X85, and Y10–Y14. Drug overdose deaths involving selected drug categories are identified by specific multiple-cause-of-death codes: any opioid, T40.0–T40.4 and T40.6; heroin, T40.1; natural and semisynthetic opioids, T40.2; methadone, T40.3; and synthetic opioids other than methadone, T40.4. Deaths involving more than one opioid category (such as a death involving both methadone and a natural or semisynthetic opioid) are counted in both categories. Natural and semisynthetic opioids include drugs such as morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone; synthetic opioids other than methadone include such drugs as fentanyl, fentanyl analogs, and tramadol. The percentage of drug overdose deaths that identified the specific drugs involved varied by year, ranging from 75%–79% from 1999 through 2013 and increasing from 81% in 2014 to 94% in 2020.

SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[1173] Report: “2016 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary.” U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, November, 2016. <www.dea.gov>

Pages 52–53: “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] estimates the number of heroin deaths is undercounted by as much as 30 percent. This is due both to variations in state reporting procedures, and because heroin metabolizes into morphine very quickly in the body, making it difficult to determine the presence of heroin.”

[1174] Calculated with data from the webpage: “Drug Seizure Statistics.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified October 21, 2022. <www.cbp.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[1175] Calculated with data from:

a) “Drug Seizure Statistics.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified October 21, 2022. <www.cbp.gov>

b) Paper: “Comparison of Acute Lethal Toxicity of Commonly Abused Psychoactive Substances” By Robert S. Gable. Addiction, July 2004. Pages 686–696. <www.researchgate.net>

Pages 689–690: “Table 1. Estimated lethal and effective doses of abused psychoactive substances”

c) Book: “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices.” U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2012. <www.nist.gov>

d) Dataset: “Table 7.1. Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and Chained Dollars.” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2022. <apps.bea.gov>

Line 18: “Population (Midperiod, Thousands)”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[1176] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 1:

Everyone who is employed in the United States (U.S.) is required to have a Social Security Number (SSN). An SSN is a unique, nine-digit identification number used for taxpayer identification, income reporting, and record-keeping purposes. The Social Security Administration issues numbers to all U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and eligible foreign nationals. Generally, only those noncitizens authorized to work in the United States by the Department of Homeland Security can get an SSN.

Any person required to file a tax return is required to include an identifying number, referred to as a taxpayer identification number. For the majority of filers, the taxpayer identification number is the individual’s SSN. Non-U.S. citizens who do not have employment authorization must prove a valid reason for requesting an SSN in order to receive one. There are very limited circumstances for this, and these Social Security Cards are marked “Not Valid for Employment.”

Many individuals who are not eligible to obtain an SSN earn income in the United States.

[1177] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1324a: “Unlawful Employment of Aliens.” Accessed September 9, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Making Employment of Unauthorized Aliens Unlawful

(1) In General

It is unlawful for a person or other entity—

(A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3)) with respect to such employment, or

(B)

(i) to hire for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) or

(ii) if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 1802 of title 29), to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b).

(2) Continuing Employment

It is unlawful for a person or other entity, after hiring an alien for employment in accordance with paragraph (1), to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is (or has become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.

(3) Defense

A person or entity that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of subsection (b) with respect to the hiring, recruiting, or referral for employment of an alien in the United States has established an affirmative defense that the person or entity has not violated paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such hiring, recruiting, or referral.

(4) Use of Labor Through Contract

For purposes of this section, a person or other entity who uses a contract, subcontract, or exchange, entered into, renegotiated, or extended after November 6, 1986, to obtain the labor of an alien in the United States knowing that the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3)) with respect to performing such labor, shall be considered to have hired the alien for employment in the United States in violation of paragraph (1)(A). …

(h) Miscellaneous Provisions

(3) Definition of Unauthorized Alien

As used in this section, the term “unauthorized alien” means, with respect to the employment of an alien at a particular time, that the alien is not at that time either (A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (B) authorized to be so employed by this chapter or by the Attorney General.

[1178] Calculated with data from the report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Page 2:

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of people living in the U.S. who were foreign born and not U.S. citizens was 21.7 million in January 2009. Of these, 12.6 million individuals were not legal permanent residents of the U.S. We refer to this group as other immigrants (other than legal permanent resident immigrants). Of this number, about 10.8 million resided in the U.S. in an unauthorized status. The remaining other immigrants resided in the U.S. in a temporary authorized status (for example students and workers with temporary visas).

… The estimated number of other immigrants working is 8.3 million in 2010. OCACT [Office of the Chief Actuary] estimates 0.6 million of the 8.3 million other immigrant workers in 2010 had temporary work authorized at some point in the past and have overstayed the term of their visas. In addition, OCACT estimates that 0.7 million unauthorized workers in 2010 obtained fraudulent birth certificates at some point in the past and these birth certificates allowed the workers to get an SSN [Social Security number]. …

OCACT estimates 1.8 million other immigrants worked and used an SSN that did not match their name in 2010. … Finally, OCACT estimates 3.9 million other immigrants worked in the underground economy in 2010.

CALCULATION: (0.6 million immigrants with expired visas + 0.7 million with SSNs from fraudulent birth certificates + 1.8 million using SSNs that did not match their name + 3.9 million in the underground economy) / 10.8 million unauthorized immigrants = 65%

[1179] Calculated with data from the article: “Unauthorized Immigrant Totals Rise in 7 States, Fall in 14.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn. Pew Research, November 18, 2014. <www.pewhispanic.org>

Nationally, the population of 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants in 2012 was unchanged from 2009, the year the Great Recession ended (Passel, Cohn, Krogstad and Gonzalez-Barrera). …

The 8.1 million unauthorized immigrants who were working or looking for work in 2012 made up 5.1% of the labor force.

CALCULATION: 8.1 million / 11.2 million = 72%

[1180] Book: Economics of International Migration (Volume 1A, The Immigrants). Edited by Barry R. Chiswick and Paul W. Miller. Elsevier, 2015.

Chapter 13: “Undocumented Immigrants and Human Trafficking.” By Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny. Pages 659–716.

Page 686: “Unauthorized immigrants are more likely to work off the books than legal immigrants, further reducing how much they pay in taxes.”

[1181] Report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Page 2:

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of people living in the U.S. who were foreign born and not U.S. citizens was 21.7 million in January 2009. Of these, 12.6 million individuals were not legal permanent residents of the U.S. We refer to this group as other immigrants (other than legal permanent resident immigrants). Of this number, about 10.8 million resided in the U.S. in an unauthorized status. The remaining other immigrants resided in the U.S. in a temporary authorized status (for example students and workers with temporary visas).

… The estimated number of other immigrants working is 8.3 million in 2010. OCACT [Office of the Chief Actuary] estimates 0.6 million of the 8.3 million other immigrant workers in 2010 had temporary work authorized at some point in the past and have overstayed the term of their visas. In addition, OCACT estimates that 0.7 million unauthorized workers in 2010 obtained fraudulent birth certificates at some point in the past and these birth certificates allowed the workers to get an SSN [Social Security number]. …

OCACT estimates 1.8 million other immigrants worked and used an SSN that did not match their name in 2010. … Finally, OCACT estimates 3.9 million other immigrants worked in the underground economy in 2010.

[1182] Report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Page 2:

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of people living in the U.S. who were foreign born and not U.S. citizens was 21.7 million in January 2009. Of these, 12.6 million individuals were not legal permanent residents of the U.S. We refer to this group as other immigrants (other than legal permanent resident immigrants). …

… The estimated number of other immigrants working is 8.3 million in 2010. OCACT [Office of the Chief Actuary] estimates 0.6 million of the 8.3 million other immigrant workers in 2010 had temporary work authorized at some point in the past and have overstayed the term of their visas. In addition, OCACT estimates that 0.7 million unauthorized workers in 2010 obtained fraudulent birth certificates at some point in the past and these birth certificates allowed the workers to get an SSN [Social Security number]. …

OCACT estimates 1.8 million other immigrants worked and used an SSN that did not match their name in 2010. … Finally, OCACT estimates 3.9 million other immigrants worked in the underground economy in 2010.

[1183] Article: “Senate Leader: ‘Half Of My Family’ Eligible For Deportation Under Trump Order.” CBS Los Angeles, February 6, 2017. <losangeles.cbslocal.com>

A Los Angeles lawmaker leading the fight to make California a so-called “sanctuary state” has suggested half of his family would be deported for using falsified Social Security cards and other fake identification.

California Senate Leader Kevin de Leon made the claims during testimony before the Senate’s Public Safety Committee for SB54, a bill introduced by De Leon that would create a statewide sanctuary for immigrants living in the country illegally.

[1184] Hearing on Senate Bill 54: “Law Enforcement: Sharing Data.” California Senate, Public Safety Committee, January 31, 2017. <youtu.be>

Time marker 1:26:40:

Kevin De Leon:

Immigrants who come to this country, the vast majority, irrespective of their legal status, are very hard-working, law-abiding residents who pay their taxes every year. And the reality is with the [Trump’s] executive order and the criteria that has been developed—any individual—I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under the executive order, because if they got a false social security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB [assembly bill] 60, if they got a false green card—and anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.

[1185] U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 75, Section 1546: “Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Fraud and Misuse of Visas, Permits, and Other Documents.” Accessed October 20, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(b) Whoever uses—

(1) an identification document, knowing (or having reason to know) that the document was not issued lawfully for the use of the possessor,

(2) an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the document is false, or

(3) a false attestation,

for the purpose of satisfying a requirement of section 274A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

[1186] Public Law 99-603: “Immigration Reform and Control Act.” 99th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 22:

Sec. 103. Fraud and Misuse of Certain Immigration-Related Documents.

(a) Application to Additional Documents.—Section 1546 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by amending the heading to read as follows:

“§ 1546. Fraud and Misuse of Visas, Permits, and Other Documents”

(6) by adding at the end the following new subsections:

“(b) Whoever uses—

“(1) an identification document, knowing (or having reason to know) that the document was not issued lawfully for the use of the possessor,

“(2) an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the document is false, or

“(3) a false attestation,

for the purpose of satisfying a requirement of section 274A(b) of the Ante, p. 3360. Immigration and Nationality Act, shall be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than two years,† or both.

“(c) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States, or any activity authorized under title V of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (18 U.S.C. note prec. 3481).”.

NOTE: † Subsequent legislation increased the penalty from two years to five years.

[1187] Article: “House Passes Immigration Bill—with a Catch.” By Christopher Drew. Chicago Tribune, October 10, 1986. <articles.chicagotribune.com>

The House late Thursday resurrected and speedily passed by a vote of 230–166 a controversial immigration reform bill that had been debated for years and presumed dead for this congressional session. …

The politically sensitive bill would legalize possibly millions of aliens already in the country and would discourage further immigration by levying fines and jail terms on employers who knowingly hire illegals. …

Later, the House dodged a “killer amendment” by a vote of 199–192 that would have stripped the bill of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens now living in the United States. …

The farm-worker dispute had pitted proponents of a stringent crackdown on illegal immigration against mostly Western growers interested in keeping a cheap labor supply to pick perishable crops.

[1188] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143:

After years of heated debate involving ethnic and religious groups, labor and agricultural organizations, business interests, and the government, a compromise measure was reached. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for “brief, casual, and innocent” absences, from the beginning of 1982; provided amnesty to seasonal agricultural workers employed at least 90 days during the year preceding May 1986; required all amnesty applicants to take courses in English and American government to qualify for permanent residence; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, including civil fines and criminal penalties up to $3,000 and six months in jail; prohibited employers from discrimination on the basis of national origins; increased border patrol by 50 percent in 1987 and 1988; and, in a matter unrelated to illegal aliens, introduced a lottery program for 5,000 visas for countries “adversely affected” by provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

[1189] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.

[1190] Calculated with data from the webpage: “Actions on Senate Bill 1200: Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” U.S. Senate, 99th Congress (1985–1986). Accessed April 6, 2017 at <www.congress.gov>

“10/17/1986: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea–Nay Vote. 63–24. Record Vote No: 357. … 10/15/1986: House Agreed to Conference Report by Yea–Nay Vote: 238–173 (Record Vote No: 469).”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 63 / (63 + 24) = 72% Senate
  • 238 / (238 + 173) = 58% House

[1191] Public Law 99-603: “Immigration Reform and Control Act.” 99th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. <www.govinfo.gov>

[1192] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) provided amnesty to undocumented aliens continuously resident in the United States, except for ‘brief, casual, and innocent’ absences, from the beginning of 1982….”

[1193] “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” By Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The provisions of new INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] section 245A(a)(4)(B) and (b)(1)(C)(ii), added by section 201(a) of the bill, state that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or the permanent residence status provided in that section if he or she has been convicted of any felony or three or more misdemeanors committed in the United States.

New INA section 245A(d)(2) states that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or permanent residence status provided in that section if “likely to become [a] public charge [ ].” This disqualification could be waived by the Attorney General under certain circumstances. A likelihood that an applicant would become a public charge would exist, for example, if the applicant had failed to demonstrate either a history of employment in the United States of a kind that would provide sufficient means without public cash assistance for the support of the alien and his likely dependents who are not United States citizens or the possession of independent means sufficient by itself for such support for an indefinite period.

[1194] Report: “Naturalization Rates Among IRCA Immigrants: A 2009 Update.” By Bryan C. Baker. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, October 2010. <www.dhs.gov>

Page 1:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 provided a path to legal permanent residence and citizenship for several categories of unauthorized immigrants. The two primary groups1 were immigrants who had continuously and unlawfully resided within the U.S. since before January 1, 1982 (“pre-1982s”) and special agricultural workers (“SAWs”), who were required to have worked at least 90 days in agriculture during each of the years ending on May 1, 1984, 1985, and 1986 (Group 1) or solely during the year ending on May 1, 1986 (Group 2).

1 The other categories, Cuban and Haitian immigrants and Registry immigrants, were small by comparison and are not discussed in this Report.

[1195] Article: “Agriculture.” American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and ‎John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2014. Pages 415–423.

Page 420: “The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act sought to provide a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with the agricultural labor situation, as well as undocumented immigration. … Verification of citizenship status became a lasting requirement for all new hires.”

[1196] Report: “Identity Fraud, Prevalence and Links to Alien Illegal Activities.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, June 25, 2002. <www.gao.gov>

Page 8:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 198615 made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. IRCA requires employers to comply with an employment verification process intended to provide employers with a means to avoid hiring unauthorized aliens. The process requires newly hired employees to present documentation establishing their identity and eligibility to work. From a list of 27 acceptable documents, employees have the choice of presenting 1 document establishing both identity and eligibility to work (such as an INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] permanent resident card) or 1 document establishing identity (such as a driver’s license) and 1 establishing eligibility to work (such as a Social Security card). Generally, employers cannot require the employees to present a specific document. Employers are to review the document or documents that an employee presents and complete an Employment Eligibility Form, INS Form I-9. On the form, employers are to certify that they have reviewed the documents and that the documents appear genuine and relate to the individual. Employers are expected to judge whether the documents are obviously fraudulent. INS is responsible for checking employer compliance with IRCA’s verification requirements.

[1197] Public Law 99-603: “Immigration Reform and Control Act.” 99th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 1:

Title I—Control of Illegal Immigration

Part A—Employment

Page 22:

Sec. 103. Fraud and Misuse of Certain Immigration-Related Documents.

(a) Application to Additional Documents.—Section 1546 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by amending the heading to read as follows:

“§ 1546. Fraud and Misuse of Visas, Permits, and Other Documents”

(6) by adding at the end the following new subsections:

“(b) Whoever uses—

“(1) an identification document, knowing (or having reason to know) that the document was not issued lawfully for the use of the possessor,

“(2) an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the document is false, or

“(3) a false attestation,

for the purpose of satisfying a requirement of section 274A(b) of the Ante, p. 3360. Immigration and Nationality Act, shall be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than two years,† or both.

“(c) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States, or any activity authorized under title V of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (18 U.S.C. note prec. 3481).”.

NOTE: † Subsequent legislation increased the penalty from two years to five years.

[1198] Encyclopedia of North American Immigration. By John Powell. Facts on File, 2005.

Page 143: “Because the measure was meant as a one-time resolution of a longstanding problem, a strict deadline for application was established: All applications for legalization were required within one year of May 5, 1987.”

[1199] Report: “Identity Fraud, Prevalence and Links to Alien Illegal Activities.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, June 25, 2002. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 1–2:

According to Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials, the use of fraudulent documents by aliens is extensive. At ports of entry, INS inspectors have intercepted tens of thousands of fraudulent documents in each of the last few years. These documents were presented by aliens attempting to enter the United States to seek employment or obtain other immigration benefits, such as naturalization or permanent residency status. The types of false documents most frequently intercepted by INS inspectors include border crossing cards, alien registration cards, nonimmigrant visas, and passports and citizenship documents (both U.S. and foreign). Also, INS has reported that large-scale counterfeiting has made fraudulent employment eligibility documents (such as Social Security cards) widely available.

Federal investigations have shown that some aliens use fraudulent documents in connection with more serious illegal activities, such as narcotics trafficking and terrorism. This is a cause for greater concern.

Page 8:

Significant numbers of aliens unauthorized to work in the United States have used fraudulent documents to circumvent the employment verification process designed to prevent employers from hiring them. For example, INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] data showed that about 50,000 unauthorized aliens were found to have used 78,000 fraudulent documents to obtain employment over the 20-month period from October 1996 through May 1998. About 60 percent of the fraudulent documents used were INS documents; 36 percent were Social Security cards, and 4 percent were other documents, such as driver’s licenses. Also, we noted that counterfeit employment eligibility documents were widely available. For instance, in November 1998 in Los Angeles, INS seized nearly 2 million counterfeit documents, such as INS permanent resident cards and Social Security cards, which were headed for distribution points around the country.

Page 9:

Aliens have also attempted to use fraudulent documents or other illegal means to obtain other immigration benefits, such as naturalization or permanent residency. Document fraud encompasses the counterfeiting, sale, or use of false documents, such as birth certificates, passports, or visas, to circumvent U.S. immigration laws and may be part of some benefit application fraud cases. Such fraud threatens the integrity of the legal immigration system.

Although INS has not quantified the extent of immigration benefit fraud, agency officials told us that the problem was pervasive and would increase.16 In one case, for example, an immigration consulting business filed 22,000 applications for aliens to qualify under a legalization program. Nearly 5,500 of the aliens’ claims were fraudulent and 4,400 were suspected of being fraudulent. In another example, according to an INS Miami District Office official, during the month of January 2001 its investigative unit received 205 leads, of which 84 were facilitator cases (such as cases involving individuals or entities who prepare fraudulent benefit applications or who arrange marriages for a fee for the purpose of fraudulently enabling an alien to remain in the United States). In both of these examples, fraudulent documents played a role in the attempts to obtain immigration benefits.

Pages 9–11:

Identity Theft and Fraudulent Documents Can Be Components of Serious Crimes

Federal law enforcement officials have acknowledged that identity theft often is an essential component of many criminal activities, ranging from bank and credit card fraud to international terrorism. At a May 2, 2002, press conference to announce an initiative to crack down on identity theft, the Attorney General said that:

“In addition to the credit card and financial fraud crimes often committed, identity theft is a major facilitator of international terrorism. Terrorists have used stolen identities in connection with planned terrorist attacks. An Algerian national facing U.S. charges of identity theft, for example, allegedly stole the identities of 21 members of a health club in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and transferred the identities to one of the individuals convicted in the failed 1999 plot to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport.”

The events of September 11, 2001, have increased the urgency of being able to effectively authenticate the identity of individuals.

Alien Smugglers Use Fraudulent Documents

In addition to using identity theft or identity fraud to enter the United States illegally and seek job opportunities, some aliens have used fraudulent documents in connection with serious crimes, such as narcotics trafficking and terrorism. For instance, according to INS, although most aliens are smuggled into the United States to pursue employment opportunities, some are smuggled as part of a criminal or terrorist enterprise.

INS believes that its increased enforcement efforts along the southwest border have prompted greater reliance on alien smugglers and that alien smuggling is becoming more sophisticated, complex, organized, and flexible. In a fiscal year 2000 threat assessment, INS predicted that fraud in obtaining immigration benefits would continue to rise as the volume of petitions for benefits grows and as smugglers search for other methods to introduce illegal aliens into the United States. Also, INS believes organized crime groups will increasingly use smugglers to facilitate illegal entry of individuals into the United States to engage in criminal activities. Alien smugglers are expected to increasingly use fraudulent documents to introduce aliens into the United States.

Conspirator in World Trade Center Bombing Used Fraudulent Document to Enter United States

In February 1993, a massive explosion at the World Trade Center complex in New York City killed 6 people and injured approximately 1,000 others. According to a report by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General:

“One of the conspirators in the World Trade Center bombing entered the country on a photo-substituted Swedish passport in September 1992. The suspect used a Swedish passport ‘expecting to pass unchallenged through the INS inspection area at New York’s Kennedy Airport—since an individual bearing a valid Swedish passport does not even need a visa to enter the United States.’ When the terrorist arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), an INS inspector suspected that the passport had been altered. A search of his luggage revealed instructional materials for making bombs; the subject was detained and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for passport fraud. In March 1994 he was convicted for his role in the World Trade Center bombing and sentenced to 240 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.”17

Furthermore, regarding this terrorist incident, a United States Sentencing Commission report noted that, “The World Trade Center defendant used, and was in possession of, numerous false identification documents, such as photographs, bank documents, medical histories, and education records from which numerous false identities could have been created.”18

Page 12:

In the May 2002 report, the SSA [Social Security Administration] Inspector General noted that identity theft begins, in most cases, with the misuse of an SSN [social security number]. In this regard, the Inspector General emphasized the importance of protecting the integrity of the SSN, especially given that this “de facto” national identifier is the “key to social, legal, and financial assimilation in this country” and is a “link in our homeland security goal.”

[1200] Article: “Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions.” By Eduardo Porter. New York Times, April 5, 2005. <www.nytimes.com>

It is impossible to know exactly how many illegal immigrant workers pay taxes. But according to specialists, most of them do. Since 1986, when the Immigration Reform and Control Act set penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, most such workers have been forced to buy fake ID’s to get a job.

Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card. It provides cover for employers, who, if asked, can plausibly assert that they believe all their workers are legal. It also means that workers must be paid by the book—with payroll tax deductions.

[1201] Article: “Utah Children’s Social Security Numbers Still Being Used by Illegal Immigrants.” By Don Hudson. ABC4 News. Last updated July 28, 2010. <www.abc4.com>

As of February, 1,265 Utah children, under the age of 12, are victims of somebody else misusing their number.” That’s according to Utah Assistant Attorney General Rich Hamp. And Hamp should know he is the man in charge of prosecuting these cases. … And Hamp says most of the offenders are illegal immigrants using the numbers for work. “In virtually every case we have investigated, with the exception of one, it has come back to an illegal immigrant. …

Hamp says while he has prosecuted hundreds of people—he can’t really keep up because there are thousands of cases. … And remember, these are just the ones that have been reported. The state estimates around 20,000 Utah children’s numbers are being used. Some, like Ron Mortensen, a child identity expert, believe the number could be closer to 50,000.

Hamp says it is just so much easier to use a child’s number versus an adult’s number. “Someone on a child’s number is going to get away with years of misuse before anyone discovers it.”

[1202] Report: “Processes Are Not Sufficient to Assist Victims of Employment-Related Identity Theft.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, August 10, 2016. <www.treasury.gov>

Page 1: “Taxpayers may first realize they are a victim of employment-related identity theft when they receive an IRS notice proposing a change to their tax liability due to a discrepancy in the income they reported on their tax return.”

Page 2: “In cases of employment-related identity theft, the discrepancy results from the innocent taxpayer’s stolen identity being used by another individual to gain employment. This can cause significant burden to innocent taxpayers, including the incorrect computation of taxes based on income that does not belong to them.”

Page 5:

Our review identified that, during the period February 2011 to December 2015, the IRS identified almost 1.1 million taxpayers who were victims of employment-related identity theft. The IRS identifies these victims when it processes electronically filed (e-filed) tax returns in which the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN)5 used to file the tax return does not match the SSN listed on third-party income documents associated with the tax return, such as a Form W-2.

5 The IRS created the ITIN to provide a Taxpayer Identification Number, when needed for tax purposes, to individuals who do not have and are not eligible to obtain an SSN. Individuals assigned an ITIN are not entitled to work in the United States.

[1203] Calculated with data from the report: “Most Employment Identity Theft Victims Have Not Been Notified That Their Identities Are Being Used by Others for Employment.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, February 12, 2018. <www.treasury.gov>

Page 1:

Employment-related identity theft (hereafter referred to as employment identity theft) involves using another person’s identity to gain employment. Employment identity theft can cause a significant burden to innocent taxpayers, including the incorrect computation of taxes based on income that does not belong to them. Cases of employment identity theft identified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) usually involve an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN)1 filer who used the Social Security Number (SSN) of another individual, i.e., victim, to gain employment.

The IRS identifies employment identity theft with its ITIN/SSN mismatch process. This process detects instances in which an ITIN is listed as either the primary or secondary Taxpayer Identification Number on Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and the Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, included with the return has an SSN. The SSN belongs to the employment identity theft victim. The IRS refers to these cases as ITIN/SSN mismatches.

When the IRS receives electronically filed (e-filed) returns, systemic programming is in place to identify an ITIN/SSN mismatch on the returns. Once identified, the program creates an e-file ITIN/SSN mismatch marker, which is placed on the SSN owner’s tax account. This marker keeps victims from being identified by the IRS Automated Underreporter Program2 as having income discrepancies, and alerts employees who may be assisting the SSN owner that he or she may be a victim of employment identity theft.

Pages 3–4:

Our review of Processing Year (PY) 2017 e-filed returns processed between February 27, 2017, and May 22, 2017, identified that the IRS did not send the CP01E notice a notice informing the recipient that the IRS believe another person used the taxpayer’s SSN to obtain employment] to 458,658 taxpayers whose SSNs were used to report income by an ITIN filer on a PY 2017 e-filed tax return. A programming error limited notifications to only those victims whose information was identified on an ITIN/SSN mismatch return who were not previously identified as a victim. Each of these 458,658 taxpayer’s SSNs were used by an ITIN filer prior to PY 2017 and identified by the IRS as a victim of employment identity theft. Without receiving the notice, the 458,658 victims remain unaware that their SSNs were used by someone else.

On April 13, 2017, we notified IRS management of our concerns that repeat victims were not being notified. In response, the IRS prepared an information technology request, on September 27, 2017, to correct the programming error that limited notifications to only those victims whose information was identified on an ITIN/SSN mismatch return and were not previously identified as a victim. The IRS stated the correction to the programming will be implemented by January 27, 2018.

In addition, IRS management noted that they will evaluate the results of the CP01E notice program after the first year and determine an appropriate course of action with respect to the previously identified potential victims who were not victims in PY 2017. IRS management also stated that they decided to send notices to only taxpayers victimized in PY 2017 because they wanted to use their limited resources efficiently and prevent taxpayer confusion by preventing multiple notices from being issued to the same taxpayer. …

Our review of the 112,445 CP01E employment identity theft notices issued by the IRS between February 27, 2017, and May 22, 2017, identified that 15,168 (13.5 percent) notices were erroneously sent to taxpayers. The majority of these cases involved an ITIN filer whose spouse had an SSN that was used to report income on the ITIN filer’s e-filed tax return. The IRS erroneously placed the employment identity theft marker on the SSN owners’ tax account, which then generated the notices.

CALCULATIONS:

  • 112,445 notices – 15,168 false notices = 97,277 legitimate notices
  • 458,658 victims without notices + 97,277 legitimate notices = 555,935

[1204] Report: “Taxpayer First Act: Implementation of Identity Theft Victim Assistance Provisions.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, September 10, 2020. <www.treasury.gov>

Pages 9–10:

Our review of 1,031,345 PY [processing year] 2019 tax returns with an ITIN/SSN [Individual Taxpayer Identification Number/Social Security Number] mismatch identified 883,114 (85.6 percent) returns for which an ITIN filer used an identity theft victim’s valid TIN15 to gain employment. Further analysis of these returns identified 392,949 victims who were not notified. The IRS was unable to notify 198,213 of these victims because they did not have an active tax account. Without a tax account, the IRS does not have a current address to send the CP01E Notice a notice informing the recipient that the IRS believe another person used the taxpayer’s SSN to obtain employment]. For the remaining 194,736 victims:

• 133,864 did not have an active tax account but were claimed as a dependent on a filed tax return, such as by a parent or legal guardian. We provided the 133,864 dependent TINs to the IRS. Management stated that 960 of the 133,864 dependents we identified were claimed on more than one tax return. Thus, the IRS could not be sure which parent/guardian should receive a notification about possible TIN misuse. The dependents claimed on more than one tax return are less than 1 percent of the 133,864 accounts we identified.

15 A nine-digit number assigned to taxpayers for identification purposes. Depending upon the nature of the taxpayer, a valid TIN is either an Employer Identification Number or ITIN issued by the IRS or an SSN issued by the Social Security Administration.

[1205] Report: “U.S. Code Statutes For Which IRS Criminal Investigation Has Jurisdiction.” U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, April 23, 2019. <www.irs.gov>

Pages 2–5:

Title 26 USC § 7201.

Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof:

• shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years

• or fined not more than $250,000 for individuals ($500,000 for corporations1

• or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Title 26 USC § 7202.

Willful failure to collect or pay over tax

Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof:

• shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years

• or fined not more than $250,000 for individuals ($500,000 for corporations)1

• or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Title 26 USC § 7203.

Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof:

• shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year

• or fined not more than $100,000 for individuals ($200,000 for corporations)1

• or both, together with the costs of prosecution. …

Title 26 USC § 7206(1).

Fraud and false statements

Any person who …

(1) Declaration under penalties of perjury.

– Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof:

• shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years

• or fined not more than $250,000 for individuals ($500,000 for corporations)1

• or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Title 26 USC § 7206(2).

Fraud and false statements

Any person who …

(2) Aid or assistance. – Willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the Internal Revenue laws, of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return, affidavit, claim, or document; shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof:

• shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years

• or fined not more than $250,000 for individuals ($500,000 for corporations)1

• or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Title 26 USC § 7212A.

Attempts to interfere with administration of Internal Revenue laws

Whoever corruptly or by force endeavors to intimidate or impede any officer or employee of the United States acting in an official capacity under this title, or in any other way corruptly or by force obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title, upon conviction:

• shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years

• or fined not more than $250,000 for individuals ($500,000 for corporations)1

• or both. …

Title 18 USC § 371.

Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each:

• shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years

• or fined not more than $250,000 for individuals ($500,000 for corporations)

• or both.

[1206] Calculated with data from the report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Page 2:

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of people living in the U.S. who were foreign born and not U.S. citizens was 21.7 million in January 2009. Of these, 12.6 million individuals were not legal permanent residents of the U.S. We refer to this group as other immigrants (other than legal permanent resident immigrants). Of this number, about 10.8 million resided in the U.S. in an unauthorized status. The remaining other immigrants resided in the U.S. in a temporary authorized status (for example students and workers with temporary visas).

… Finally, OCACT [Office of the Chief Actuary] estimates 3.9 million other immigrants worked in the underground economy in 2010.

CALCULATION: 3.9 million in the underground economy / 10.8 million unauthorized immigrants = 36%

[1207] Report: “Making Tax Compliance Easier and Collecting What’s Due.” By Nina E. Olson. IRS, Taxpayer Advocate Service, June 28, 2011. <www.irs.gov>

Page 2: “According to the IRS’s most recent comprehensive estimate, the net tax gap stood at $290 billion in 2001,2 when 132 million tax returns were filed.3 This means that each taxpayer was effectively paying a ‘surtax’ of some $2,200 to subsidize noncompliance by others. For this reason, it is important to reduce the tax gap.”

[1208] Written statement: “How Tax Complexity Hinders Small Businesses: The Impact On Job Creation And Economic Growth.” By Nina E. Olson. Internal Revenue Service, National Taxpayer Advocate, April 13, 2011. <www.irs.gov>

Page 4:

IRS data show that when taxpayers have a choice about reporting their income, tax compliance rates are remarkably low. Workers who are classified as employees have little opportunity to underreport their earned income because it is subject to tax withholding. Employees thus report about 99 percent of their earned income. But among workers whose income is not subject to withholding, compliance rates plummet. IRS studies show that nonfarm sole proprietors report only 43 percent of their business income and unincorporated farming businesses report only 28 percent.12

Noncompliance cheats honest taxpayers, who must pay more to make up the difference. To me, this raises an important question: Why is it that few Americans would steal from a local charity, yet a high percentage of taxpayers who have a choice about paying taxes appear to have no compunctions about cheating their fellow citizens?

The Taxpayer Advocate Service has conducted research into the causes of noncompliance and plans to conduct additional studies. While we do not have definitive answers, we can suggest at least two hypotheses. First, no one wants to feel like a “tax chump”—paying more while suspecting that others are taking advantage of loopholes to pay less. Taxpayers who believe they are unfairly paying more than others inevitably will feel more justified in “fudging” to right the perceived wrong. Transparency is a critical feature of a successful tax system. It is essential if the system is to build taxpayer confidence and maintain high rates of compliance. Simplifying the code to make computations more transparent would go a long way toward reassuring taxpayers that the system is not rigged against them.

12 See IRS News Release, IRS Updates Tax Gap Estimates, IR-2006-28 (Feb. 14, 2006) (accompanying charts at <www.irs.gov>).

[1209] Report: “Tax Gap Estimates for Tax Years 2011–2013.” Internal Revenue Service, September 2019. <www.irs.gov>

Page 3:

Findings from earlier tax gap analyses that compliance is higher when amounts are subject to information reporting and even higher when also subject to withholding continue to hold. The extent of coverage by information reporting and/or withholding is called “visibility” because incomes that are reported to the IRS are more “visible” to both the IRS and taxpayers. Based on the TY [tax year] 2011–2013 estimates, misreporting of income amounts subject to substantial information reporting and withholding is 1 percent; of income amounts subject to substantial information reporting but not withholding, it is 5 percent; and of income amounts subject to little or no information reporting, such as nonfarm proprietor income, it is 55 percent.

[1210] Report: “Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2015 to 2024.” Congressional Budget Office, November 20, 2014. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 38:

Low- and moderate-income people are eligible for certain refundable tax credits under the individual income tax if they meet specified criteria. If the amount of a refundable tax credit exceeds a taxpayer’s tax liability before that credit is applied, the government pays the excess to that person. Two refundable tax credits are available only to workers: the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the refundable portion of the child tax credit (referred to in the tax code as the additional child tax credit).

[1211] Report: “Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures.” Joint Committee on Taxation, March 14, 1978. <www.jct.gov>

Pages 1–2:

The tax incentives usually are designed to encourage certain kinds of economic behavior as an alternative to employing direct expenditures or loan programs to achieve the same or similar objectives. These provisions take the form of exclusions, deductions, credits, preferential tax rates, or deferrals of tax liability. Tax expenditures also are analogous to uncontrolled expenditures made through individual entitlement programs because the taxpayer who can meet the criteria specified in the Internal Revenue Code may use the provision indefinitely without any further action by the Federal Government.

[1212] Report: “Overview of the Federal Tax System.” By Molly F. Sherlock and Donald J. Marples. Congressional Research Service, November 21, 2014. <www.fas.org>

Page 7: “If a tax credit is refundable, and the credit amount exceeds tax liability, a taxpayer receives a payment from the government.”

[1213] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 2:

Refundable credits can result in refunds even if no income tax is withheld or paid; that is, the credits can exceed the liability for the tax. Two of the largest refundable tax credits are the EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] and the ACTC [Additional Child Tax Credit]. …

The ACTC is the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC). The CTC can reduce an individual’s taxes owed by as much as $1,000 for each qualifying child. The ACTC is provided in addition to the CTC to individuals whose taxes owed were less than the amount of CTC they were entitled to claim. The ACTC is always the refundable portion of the CTC, which means an individual claiming the ACTC receives a refund even if no income tax was withheld or paid. As with all refundable credits, the risk of fraud for these types of claims is significant.

[1214] Report: “Overview of the Federal Tax System as in Effect for 2022.” U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, June 28, 2022. <www.jct.gov>

Pages 9–10:

An individual’s income tax liability may be reduced by using available tax credits. For example, tax credits are allowed for certain business expenditures, certain foreign income taxes paid or accrued, certain energy conservation expenditures, certain education expenditures, certain child care expenditures, certain health care costs, and for certain elderly or disabled individuals.

Some credits are wholly or partially “refundable,” meaning that if the amount of the credit exceeds the taxpayer’s precredit tax liability (after reduction for other nonrefundable credits), the credit creates an overpayment that may generate a refund, even if it exceed[s] actual payments credited to the taxpayer account. Two large refundable credits (in terms of overall loss of Federal revenues) are the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit.39

An individual may claim a refundable child tax credit (“CTC”) which includes an amount of $2,000 for each qualifying child under age 17.40 The aggregate amount of child credits that may be claimed is phased out for individuals with income over certain threshold amounts. Specifically, the otherwise allowable CTC is reduced by $50 for each $1,000, or fraction thereof of modified adjusted gross income41 over $400,000 for married individuals filing jointly and $200,000 for all other individuals. To the extent the credit amount exceeds the taxpayer’s tax liability, the taxpayer is eligible for a refundable credit (the additional child tax credit) equal to 15 percent of earned income in excess of $2,500,42 not to exceed $1,500 per child in 2022. The maximum amount of the refundable portion of the credit is indexed for inflation.

For taxpayers with dependents other than qualifying children, such as a 17-year-old child living at home, a full-time college student, or other adult member of the household for whom the taxpayer provides financial support, taxpayers are able to claim a $500 nonrefundable credit.

A refundable earned income tax credit (“EITC”) is available to low-income workers who satisfy certain requirements.43 The amount of the EITC varies depending on the taxpayer’s earned income and whether the taxpayer has more than two, two, one, or no qualifying children. For 2022, the maximum EITC for taxpayers is $6,935 with more than two qualifying children, $6,164 with two qualifying children, $3,733 with one qualifying child, and $560 with no qualifying children. The credit amount begins to phase out at an income level of $26,260 for

joint-filers with qualifying children, $20,130 for other taxpayers with qualifying children, $15,290 for joint-filers with no qualifying children, and $9,160 for other taxpayers with no qualifying children. The phaseout percentages, or the rates at which the credit amount phases out, are 21.06 percent for taxpayers with two or more qualifying children, 15.98 percent for taxpayers with one qualifying child, and 7.65 percent for taxpayers with no qualifying children.

[1215] U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 14, Section 1601: “Statements of National Policy Concerning Welfare and Immigration.” Accessed October 20, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

The Congress makes the following statements concerning national policy with respect to welfare and immigration:

(1) Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes.

(2) It continues to be the immigration policy of the United States that—

(A) aliens within the Nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations, and

(B) the availability of public benefits not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States.

(3) Despite the principle of self-sufficiency, aliens have been applying for and receiving public benefits from Federal, State, and local governments at increasing rates.

(4) Current eligibility rules for public assistance and unenforceable financial support agreements have proved wholly incapable of assuring that individual aliens not burden the public benefits system.

(5) It is a compelling government interest to enact new rules for eligibility and sponsorship agreements in order to assure that aliens be self-reliant in accordance with national immigration policy.

(6) It is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.

(7) With respect to the State authority to make determinations concerning the eligibility of qualified aliens for public benefits in this chapter, a State that chooses to follow the Federal classification in determining the eligibility of such aliens for public assistance shall be considered to have chosen the least restrictive means available for achieving the compelling governmental interest of assuring that aliens be self-reliant in accordance with national immigration policy.

[1216] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 1:

Everyone who is employed in the United States (U.S.) is required to have a Social Security Number (SSN). An SSN is a unique, nine-digit identification number used for taxpayer identification, income reporting, and record-keeping purposes. The Social Security Administration issues numbers to all U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and eligible foreign nationals. Generally, only those noncitizens authorized to work in the United States by the Department of Homeland Security can get an SSN.

Any person required to file a tax return is required to include an identifying number, referred to as a taxpayer identification number. For the majority of filers, the taxpayer identification number is the individual’s SSN. Non-U.S. citizens who do not have employment authorization must prove a valid reason for requesting an SSN in order to receive one. There are very limited circumstances for this, and these Social Security Cards are marked “Not Valid for Employment.”

Many individuals who are not eligible to obtain an SSN earn income in the United States. This presents a problem for tax administration because the Internal Revenue Code requires foreign investors and individuals working without authorization in the United States to file tax returns and pay any Federal income taxes owed. As explained by a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner, “the IRS’s job is to make sure that everyone who earns income within our borders pays the proper amount of taxes, even if they may not be working here legally.” …

An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) is available to individuals who are required to have a taxpayer identification number for tax purposes, but do not have and are not eligible to obtain an SSN because they are not authorized to work in the United States. An ITIN is issued by the IRS and looks very similar to an SSN in that it is a nine-digit number. ITINs are issued regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code. ITINs are for Federal tax reporting only and are not intended to serve any other purpose. Even income obtained illegally is subject to income taxes. Therefore, the IRS issues ITINs to help individuals comply with the U.S. tax laws and to provide a means to process and account for tax returns and payments for those not eligible for SSNs. An ITIN does not authorize an individual to work in the United States or provide eligibility for Social Security benefits or the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC); however, the IRS currently processes claims for the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), a refundable tax credit, filed by taxpayers with ITINs.

Page 2:

Refundable credits can result in refunds even if no income tax is withheld or paid; that is, the credits can exceed the liability for the tax. Two of the largest refundable tax credits are the EITC and the ACTC. The appropriations for these credits in Fiscal Year 2010 were $54.7 billion for the EITC and $22.7 billion2 for the ACTC. Because concerns were raised by Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and the IRS regarding noncompliance with EITC requirements, a law was passed in Calendar Year 1996 to deny the EITC to individuals who file a tax return without an SSN that is valid for employment.3 As such, filers using an ITIN are not eligible for the EITC. The change in the law was made prior to the establishment of the ACTC.4 However, the same law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the United States from receiving most Federal public benefits, with the exception of certain emergency services and programs.

Nonetheless, IRS management’s view is that the law does not provide sufficient legal authority for the IRS to disallow the ACTC to ITIN filers. In addition, the Internal Revenue Code does not require an SSN to claim the ACTC and does not provide the IRS math error authority to deny the credit without an examination. As such, the IRS continues to pay the ACTC to ITIN filers.

The ACTC is the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC). The CTC can reduce an individual’s taxes owed by as much as $1,000 for each qualifying child. The ACTC is provided in addition to the CTC to individuals whose taxes owed were less than the amount of CTC they were entitled to claim. The ACTC is always the refundable portion of the CTC, which means an individual claiming the ACTC receives a refund even if no income tax was withheld or paid. As with all refundable credits, the risk of fraud for these types of claims is significant. …

3 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-193).

4 The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Pub. L. No. 105-34) established the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit.

Page 4:

Although they are not authorized to work in the United States, ITIN filers are receiving billions of dollars in CTCs and ACTCs intended for working families. Prior to Tax Year7 2001, the CTC was only refundable if the taxpayer had three or more qualifying children and Social Security taxes8 exceeding any earned income credits. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 20019 removed these requirements and increased the CTC over time from $500 to $1,000 per child, making more families eligible for the refundable portion of the credit (known as the ACTC). Since then, claims for the ACTC by ITIN filers have increased significantly. In Processing Year 2005, 796,000 ITIN filers claimed ACTCs totaling $924 million. By Processing Year 2008, these claims had risen to 1,526,276 ITIN filers claiming ACTCs totaling $2.1 billion.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)10 temporarily increased eligibility by changing the income threshold for calculating the ACTC for Tax Years 2009 and 2010. Prior to the Recovery Act, the ACTC would have been limited to 15 percent of earned income more than $12,550. The Recovery Act changed this threshold to 15 percent of earned income more than $3,000. As such, more taxpayers could claim the ACTC or claim a greater amount. In Processing Year 2010, 2.3 million ITIN filers claimed ACTCs totaling $4.2 billion.11

[1217] Article: “Tax Loophole Costs Billions.” By Bob Segall. WTHR, April 26, 2012. Updated July 5, 2012. <www.wthr.com>

But 13 Investigates has found many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico. …

The whistleblower has thousands of examples, and he brought some of them to 13 Investigates. …

WTHR spoke to several undocumented workers who confirmed it is easy. …

Full statement to WTHR from the Internal Revenue Service …

The IRS has procedures in place specifically for the evaluation of questionable credit claims early in the processing stream and prior to issuance of a refund.

[1218] Article: “IRS Workers OK ‘Phony’ Documents From Illegal Immigrants.” By Bob Segall. WTHR, May 24, 2012. <www.wthr.com>

After WTHR exposed a tax loophole that allows illegal immigrants to collect tax credits worth billions, the Internal Revenue Service pointed the finger at Congress. But IRS whistleblowers are now coming forward to say the real blame lies within. …

Eleven current and former IRS workers contacted WTHR in the past three weeks. …

“I just saw your report and there’s something I need to tell you….” “I see this stuff every day and there isn’t anything I can do about it.” …

“We get applications from Mexico, Honduras, China, Japan, Bulgaria, all over the world. … But I guarantee 90% of them are phony. We see the same signatures hundreds of times. We see the same docs photocopied and attached to different applications. It’s the same person, same photo, same address. I’ve seen the same birth certificate twelve times now in the past day.” …

“Most of these documents are fraudulent and there’s absolutely no system here to catch it.” …

“We don’t have the resources to follow up on much and we’re not allowed to flag problems….”

[1219] Report: “Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 16, 2012.

Highlights: “In Calendar Year 1996, the IRS created the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) so that individuals who are not eligible to obtain Social Security Numbers could obtain an identification number for tax purposes. … In Processing Year 2011, the IRS processed more than 2.9 million ITIN tax returns resulting in tax refunds of $6.8 billion.”

Page 2:

An ITIN is issued regardless of an individual’s immigration status. However, individuals assigned an ITIN should either be a resident not authorized to work in the United States or a nonresident. Nonresident aliens must file a tax return only if they are engaged in a trade or business in the United States or if they have any other U.S. sources of income on which the tax was not fully paid by the amount of tax withheld at the source.

Page 3: “The IRS Submission Processing Center in Austin, Texas, is responsible for processing all ITIN applications.”

[1220] Report: “Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 16, 2012.

Page 17: “Figure 5: Most Frequently Used Addresses on ITIN [Individual Taxpayer Identification Number] Applications”

Addresses on ITIN Applications

[1221] Report: “Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 16, 2012.

Page 18: “Figure 6: Most Frequently Used Addresses for ITIN [Individual Taxpayer Identification Number] Tax Refunds”

Addresses for ITIN Tax Refunds

[1222] Report: “Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 16, 2012.

Page 18: “Figure 7: Most Frequently Used Bank Accounts for ITIN [Individual Taxpayer Identification Number] Tax Refunds”

Bank Accounts for ITIN Tax Refunds

[1223] Report: “Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 16, 2012.

Page 12:

The Questionable Identification Detection Team was in place from October 2007 to April 2010. While in operation, procedures required all questionable ITIN [Individual Taxpayer Identification Number] applications with identified discrepancies to be sent to this team. The purpose of this team was to reduce misuse of ITINs by identifying patterns involving questionable applications and fraudulent tax refund claims. Despite its successes in identifying ITIN application fraud schemes and patterns, IRS management disbanded the Questionable Identification Detection Team but did not put in place similar adequate processes to identify schemes and detect trends that could indicate fraud.

IRS guidelines directed tax examiners to refer daily those ITIN applications with questionable documentation. Tax examiners did not have to identify a certain number of errors with ITIN applications to make a referral to the Questionable Identification Detection Team. Any ITIN application and tax return with similar characteristics or patterns were routed to this team for analysis. The Questionable Identification Detection Team consisted of three experienced tax examiners who, upon receipt of referred applications, would prepare case summary sheets that captured characteristics from questionable applications to identify fraud schemes. According to IRS records, this team prepared 6,395 case summary sheets during the time period it was in place.

The Questionable Identification Detection Team worked in partnership with Criminal Investigation by referring potential fraud schemes for review. Based on this work, thousands of fraudulent ITIN tax returns with erroneous tax refunds totaling more than $43 million were identified.

[1224] Report: “Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 16, 2012.

Page 7:

The environment created by management discourages tax examiners from identifying questionable ITIN [Individual Taxpayer Identification Number] applications. Although the IRS states that the mission of the ITIN Program is to ensure ITINs are issued timely to qualifying individuals, IRS management’s primary focus is on quickly processing the applications rather than on ensuring ITINs are issued only to qualifying individuals.

Page 10:

This could negatively impact tax examiners’ performance rating, the length of their employment, and whether they are called to return to duty (for seasonal tax examiners). Below are examples of tax examiners’ comments relating to the quality review process.15

• “If TEs [tax examiners] do not identify supporting documents as questionable or fraudulent, they are not charged with a quality error. So where is the incentive to report fraud…Where is the disincentive NOT to report fraud? In fact TE’s are negatively impacted with regard to their quality and efficiency ratings when they do identify and properly process fraudulent applications as they take longer and are more prone to errors.”

• “There is no penalty if TEs fail to properly or diligently identify questionable fraudulent documents or applications.”

• “QR [quality review] has issues also in being able to determine if a document is valid, most times they want it changed to valid when it is truly fraudulent.”

Page 22:

Individuals applying for an ITIN are not required to provide original documents and/or copies of documents certified by the issuing agency (reproduction of a document or record authenticated by the issuing agency) to establish their identity and foreign status. The IRS will accept notarized copies. However, notarized copies have serious limitations and present difficulties for tax examiners required to verify these documents and confirm the identity and foreign status of the individual applying for the ITIN. Concerns about this issue were raised in an IRS ITIN Task Force report in September 2002. The Task Force recommended that all supporting required documents be one of the following:

• Original.

• Certified by the issuing agency.

The IRS did not act on the recommendation and continues to accept notarized copies of the documentation required to be provided in support of ITIN applications. Figure 10 provides a list of acceptable documentation.

Page 23:

The IRS’s acceptance of notarized copies differs significantly from other Federal agencies. For example, original documents or copies certified by the issuing agency are required to obtain an SSN [Social Security Number] or a passport. The SSA [Social Security Administration] accepts only original documents or certified documents from applicants submitting an application for an SSN and returns these documents submitted with the application. We discussed this issue with representatives from the SSA, who stated that notarized documents are not accepted because a notary does not authenticate the legitimacy of the documents or prove the identity of the individuals. Unlike an original document or a copy certified by the issuing agency, notaries are not responsible for the accuracy or legality of documents they notarize. A notary only certifies the identity of signers by witnessing the signature of the individual signing the documents. The signers are responsible for the content of the documents. Figure 11 shows a comparison of the requirements for obtaining an ITIN to other Federal Government programs.

[1225] Article: “Tax Scam: IRS Pays Out Billions in Fraudulent Refunds.” By Eamon Javers. CNBC, August 2, 2012. <www.cnbc.com>

The IRS is paying out billions of dollars in fraudulent tax refunds to identity thieves; a problem that the tax service’s inspector general told CNBC is a “growing problem” involving numbers that are increasing “exponentially.” …

“Once the money is out the door, it is almost impossible to get it back,” IRS inspector general J. Russell George told CNBC. “The bad guys know that the IRS is unable, given the limited number of its staff it has, to address every single allegation of tax fraud it has.”

[1226] House Resolution 5652: “Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012.” U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress (2011–2012). Accessed March 13, 2020 at <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 157 (Title VI, Subtitle B):

Social Security Number Required to Claim the Refundable Portion of the Child Tax Credit

(a) In General.—Subsection (d) of section 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(5) Identification Requirement with Respect to Taxpayer.—

“(A) In General.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any taxpayer for any taxable year unless the taxpayer includes the taxpayer’s Social Security number on the return of tax for such taxable year. …”

NOTE: The information in the next footnote shows why this bill would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.

[1227] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Highlights:

Many individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States, and thus not eligible to obtain a Social Security Number (SSN) for employment, earn income in the United States. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides such individuals with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to facilitate their filing of tax returns.

Pages 10–12:

Although the IRS created the ITIN to help individuals who cannot legally obtain an SSN comply with the U.S. tax laws, the fact remains that these individuals generally cannot obtain a job in the United States without an SSN. Therefore, these individuals may either fabricate an SSN or improperly use someone else’s SSN (and sometimes their name) to obtain employment. These SSNs may also be used for other purposes, such as to obtain credit, which can cause significant hardships to the lawful taxpayers to whom these SSNs belong.

In the process of validating wages and withholding, AMTAP [Accounts Management Taxpayer Assurance Program] function employees are in a unique position to identify cases in which a taxpayer’s SSN has been compromised. In reviewing the Forms W-2 attached to the returns, these employees can see that an SSN was used to gain employment that did not belong to the person filing the return.

[1228] Calculated with data from vote 247: “To Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Section 201 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.” U.S. House of Representatives, May 10, 2012. <clerk.house.gov>

House

Party

Voted “Yes”

Voted “No”

Voted “Present” or Did Not Vote †

Number

Portion

Number

Portion

Number

Portion

Republican

218

90%

16

7%

7

3%

Democrat

0

0%

183

96%

7

4%

Independent

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

NOTE: † Voting “Present” is effectively the same as not voting.

[1229] Webpage: “Actions on House Resolution 5652: Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012.” U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress (2011–2012). Accessed March 13, 2020 at <www.congress.gov>

5/15/2012

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 398.

5/14/2012

Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.

5/10/2012

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

5/10/2012

On passage Passed by recorded vote: 218–199, 1 Present (Roll no. 247). (text: CR H2583–2600)

[1230] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 556: Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act of 2013.” U.S. House of Representatives, 113th Congress (2013–2014). Accessed March 13, 2020 at <www.congress.gov>

“Sponsor: Rep. Johnson, Sam [R-TX] (Introduced 02/06/2013)”

Summary:

Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act of 2013—Amends the Internal Revenue Code, with respect to the child tax credit, to require taxpayers claiming such credit to provide their social security numbers on their tax returns.

Prohibits taxpayers who improperly claimed such credit in a previous year from claiming such credit during a disallowance period of: (1) 2 years for claims made with reckless or intentional disregard of rules governing such credit, or (2) 10 years for fraudulent claims.

Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe a form for completion by paid income tax preparers in connection with claims for the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Imposes a penalty on preparers who fail to comply with due diligence requirements for claiming the refundable portion of the credit.

NOTE: The information in the next footnote shows why this bill would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.

[1231] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Highlights: “Many individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States, and thus not eligible to obtain a Social Security Number (SSN) for employment, earn income in the United States. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides such individuals with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to facilitate their filing of tax returns.”

Pages 10–12:

Although the IRS created the ITIN to help individuals who cannot legally obtain an SSN comply with the U.S. tax laws, the fact remains that these individuals generally cannot obtain a job in the United States without an SSN. Therefore, these individuals may either fabricate an SSN or improperly use someone else’s SSN (and sometimes their name) to obtain employment. These SSNs may also be used for other purposes, such as to obtain credit, which can cause significant hardships to the lawful taxpayers to whom these SSNs belong.

In the process of validating wages and withholding, AMTAP [Accounts Management Taxpayer Assurance Program] function employees are in a unique position to identify cases in which a taxpayer’s SSN has been compromised. In reviewing the Forms W-2 attached to the returns, these employees can see that an SSN was used to gain employment that did not belong to the person filing the return.

[1232] Webpage: “Cosponsors of House Resolution 556: Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act of 2013.” U.S. House of Representatives, 113th Congress (2013–2014). Accessed March 13, 2020 at <www.congress.gov>

“Sponsor: Rep. Johnson, Sam [R-TX]; Cosponsor statistics: 67 current … Party … Republican [67]”

[1233] Webpage: “Actions on House Resolution 556: Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act of 2013.” U.S. House of Representatives, 113th Congress (2013–2014). Accessed March 13, 2020 at <www.congress.gov>

2/26/2013

Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Action By: House of Representatives

2/26/2013

Introduced in House

Action By: House of Representatives

[1234] Webpage: “Summary House Resolution 713: To Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Disallow the Refundable Portion of the Child Credit to Taxpayers Using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers Issued by the Internal Revenue Service.” House of Representatives, 114th Congress (2015–2016). Accessed March 13, 2020 at <www.congress.gov>

“Sponsor: Rep. Bucshon, Larry [R-IN] (Introduced 02/04/2015)”

SUMMARY:

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to disallow the refundable portion of the child tax credit to taxpayers who use individual taxpayer identification numbers issued by the Internal Revenue Service instead of social security account numbers to claim such credit on their tax returns.

NOTE: The information in the next footnote shows why this bill would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.

[1235] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Highlights: “Many individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States, and thus not eligible to obtain a Social Security Number (SSN) for employment, earn income in the United States. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides such individuals with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to facilitate their filing of tax returns.”

Pages 10–12:

Although the IRS created the ITIN to help individuals who cannot legally obtain an SSN comply with the U.S. tax laws, the fact remains that these individuals generally cannot obtain a job in the United States without an SSN. Therefore, these individuals may either fabricate an SSN or improperly use someone else’s SSN (and sometimes their name) to obtain employment. These SSNs may also be used for other purposes, such as to obtain credit, which can cause significant hardships to the lawful taxpayers to whom these SSNs belong.

In the process of validating wages and withholding, AMTAP [Accounts Management Taxpayer Assurance Program] function employees are in a unique position to identify cases in which a taxpayer’s SSN has been compromised. In reviewing the Forms W-2 attached to the returns, these employees can see that an SSN was used to gain employment that did not belong to the person filing the return.

[1236] Webpage: “Cosponsors of Summary House Resolution 713: To Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Disallow the Refundable Portion of the Child Credit to Taxpayers Using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers Issued by the Internal Revenue Service.” House of Representatives, 114th Congress (2015–2016). Accessed March 13, 2020 at <www.congress.gov>

“Sponsor: Rep. Johnson, Sam [R-TX]; Cosponsor statistics: 4 current … Party … Republican [4]”

[1237] Webpage: “Actions on House Resolution 713: To Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Disallow the Refundable Portion of the Child Credit to Taxpayers Using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers Issued by the Internal Revenue Service.” U.S. House of Representatives, 114th Congress. Accessed April 03, 2017 at <www.congress.gov>

2/04/2015

Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Action By: House of Representatives

2/04/2015

Introduced in House

Action By: House of Representatives

[1238] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 1041: SHUT Act of 2017.” U.S. House of Representatives, 115th Congress (2017–2018). Accessed December 24, 2019 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12] (Introduced 02/14/2017) …

Summary: …

Stop Handouts to Unauthorized Taxpayers Act of 2017 or the SHUT Act of 2017

This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to deny the refundable portion of the child tax credit to individuals unless they include their Social Security number on their tax return or otherwise demonstrate that they are authorized to be employed in the United States.

The bill prohibits the Department of the Treasury or any delegate of Treasury from issuing an individual taxpayer identification number unless the supporting documentary evidence is submitted to a Treasury employee.

NOTE: The information in the next footnote shows why this bill would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.

[1239] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Highlights: “Many individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States, and thus not eligible to obtain a Social Security Number (SSN) for employment, earn income in the United States. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides such individuals with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to facilitate their filing of tax returns.”

Pages 10–12:

Although the IRS created the ITIN to help individuals who cannot legally obtain an SSN comply with the U.S. tax laws, the fact remains that these individuals generally cannot obtain a job in the United States without an SSN. Therefore, these individuals may either fabricate an SSN or improperly use someone else’s SSN (and sometimes their name) to obtain employment. These SSNs may also be used for other purposes, such as to obtain credit, which can cause significant hardships to the lawful taxpayers to whom these SSNs belong.

In the process of validating wages and withholding, AMTAP [Accounts Management Taxpayer Assurance Program] function employees are in a unique position to identify cases in which a taxpayer’s SSN has been compromised. In reviewing the Forms W-2 attached to the returns, these employees can see that an SSN was used to gain employment that did not belong to the person filing the return.

[1240] Webpage: “Cosponsors of House Resolution 1041: SHUT Act of 2017.” U.S. House of Representatives, 115th Congress (2017–2018). Accessed December 24, 2019 at <www.congress.gov>

“Sponsor: Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12] Cosponsor statistics: 2 current … Party … Republican [2]”

[1241] Webpage: “Actions on House Resolution 1041: SHUT Act of 2017.” U.S. House of Representatives, 115th Congress (2017–2018). Accessed December 24, 2019 at <www.congress.gov>

[1242] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 979: Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act of 2019.” U.S. House of Representatives, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 9, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL-8] (Introduced 02/05/2019) …

Summary: …

Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act of 2019

This bill requires taxpayers who are claiming the refundable portion of the child tax credit to include their Social Security number on their tax return.

NOTE: The information in the next footnote shows why this bill would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.

[1243] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Highlights: “Many individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States, and thus not eligible to obtain a Social Security Number (SSN) for employment, earn income in the United States. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides such individuals with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to facilitate their filing of tax returns.”

Pages 10–12:

Although the IRS created the ITIN to help individuals who cannot legally obtain an SSN comply with the U.S. tax laws, the fact remains that these individuals generally cannot obtain a job in the United States without an SSN. Therefore, these individuals may either fabricate an SSN or improperly use someone else’s SSN (and sometimes their name) to obtain employment. These SSNs may also be used for other purposes, such as to obtain credit, which can cause significant hardships to the lawful taxpayers to whom these SSNs belong.

In the process of validating wages and withholding, AMTAP [Accounts Management Taxpayer Assurance Program] function employees are in a unique position to identify cases in which a taxpayer’s SSN has been compromised. In reviewing the Forms W-2 attached to the returns, these employees can see that an SSN was used to gain employment that did not belong to the person filing the return.

[1244] Webpage: “Cosponsors of House Resolution 979: Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act of 2019.” U.S. House of Representatives, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 9, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

“Posey, Bill [R-FL-8] Cosponsor statistics: 10 current … Party … Republican [10]”

[1245] Webpage: “Actions on House Resolution 979: Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act of 2019.” U.S. House of Representatives, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 9, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

[1246] Webpage: “Senate Amendment 1556 to House Resolution 6201.” U.S. Senate, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 10, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] (Submitted 03/18/2020, Proposed 03/18/2020) …

Purpose: …

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require a social security number for purposes of the child tax credit, to provide the President the authority to transfer funds as necessary, and to terminate United States military operations and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan.

NOTE: The information in the next footnote shows why this bill would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.

[1247] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Highlights: “Many individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States, and thus not eligible to obtain a Social Security Number (SSN) for employment, earn income in the United States. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides such individuals with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to facilitate their filing of tax returns.”

Pages 10–12:

Although the IRS created the ITIN to help individuals who cannot legally obtain an SSN comply with the U.S. tax laws, the fact remains that these individuals generally cannot obtain a job in the United States without an SSN. Therefore, these individuals may either fabricate an SSN or improperly use someone else’s SSN (and sometimes their name) to obtain employment. These SSNs may also be used for other purposes, such as to obtain credit, which can cause significant hardships to the lawful taxpayers to whom these SSNs belong.

In the process of validating wages and withholding, AMTAP [Accounts Management Taxpayer Assurance Program] function employees are in a unique position to identify cases in which a taxpayer’s SSN has been compromised. In reviewing the Forms W-2 attached to the returns, these employees can see that an SSN was used to gain employment that did not belong to the person filing the return.

[1248] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 6201: Families First Coronavirus Response Act.” U.S. House of Representatives, 116th Congress (2019–2020). Accessed June 10, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Rep. Lowey, Nita m. [D-NY-17] (Introduced 03/11/2020) …

Summary: …

Public Law No: 116-127 (03/18/2020)

Families First Coronavirus Response Act

This bill responds to the COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) outbreak by providing paid sick leave, tax credits, and free COVID-19 testing; expanding food assistance and unemployment benefits; and increasing Medicaid funding.

[1249] Calculated with data from vote 73: “Senate Amendment 1556 to House Resolution 6201.” U.S. Senate, March 18, 2020. <www.senate.gov>

Senate

Party

Voted “Yes”

Voted “No”

Voted “Present” or Did Not Vote †

Number

Portion

Number

Portion

Number

Portion

Republican

3

6%

48

91%

2

4%

Democrat

0

0%

45

100%

0

0%

Independent

0

0%

2

100%

0

0%

NOTE: † Voting “Present” is effectively the same as not voting.

[1250] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 663: Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act of 2021.” U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Congress (2021–2022). Accessed June 2, 2021 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL-8] (Introduced 02/01/2021) …

Summary: …

This bill requires taxpayers who are claiming the refundable portion of the child tax credit to include their Social Security account number on their tax return

NOTE: The information in the next footnote shows why this bill would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.

[1251] Report: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, July 7, 2011. <www.justfacts.com>

Highlights: “Many individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States, and thus not eligible to obtain a Social Security Number (SSN) for employment, earn income in the United States. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides such individuals with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to facilitate their filing of tax returns.”

Pages 10–12:

Although the IRS created the ITIN to help individuals who cannot legally obtain an SSN comply with the U.S. tax laws, the fact remains that these individuals generally cannot obtain a job in the United States without an SSN. Therefore, these individuals may either fabricate an SSN or improperly use someone else’s SSN (and sometimes their name) to obtain employment. These SSNs may also be used for other purposes, such as to obtain credit, which can cause significant hardships to the lawful taxpayers to whom these SSNs belong.

In the process of validating wages and withholding, AMTAP [Accounts Management Taxpayer Assurance Program] function employees are in a unique position to identify cases in which a taxpayer’s SSN has been compromised. In reviewing the Forms W-2 attached to the returns, these employees can see that an SSN was used to gain employment that did not belong to the person filing the return.

[1252] Webpage: “Actions on House Resolution 663: Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act of 2021.” U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Congress (2021–2022). Accessed October 25, 2022 at <www.congress.gov>

“02/01/2021 Introduced in House”

[1253] Public Law 115-97: “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.” 115th Congress. Signed into law by Donald Trump on December 22, 2017. <www.congress.gov>

Section 11022. Increase in and Modification of Child Tax Credit

Social security number required.—No credit shall be allowed under this section to a taxpayer with respect to any qualifying child unless the taxpayer includes the social security number of such child on the return of tax for the taxable year. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘social security number’ means a social security number issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration, but only if the social security number is issued—

(A) to a citizen of the United States or pursuant to subclause (I) (or that portion of subclause (III) that relates to subclause (I)) of section 205(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act, and

(B) before the due date for such return.

[1254] Calculated with data from the report: “U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Total Dips to Lowest Level in a Decade.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and others. Pew Research Center, November 27, 2018. <www.pewresearch.org>

Page 12:

Most unauthorized immigrants live with spouses, partners, their children or other relatives. In 2016, 5.6 million children younger than 18 were living with unauthorized immigrant parents.5 Of these, 675,000 were unauthorized immigrants themselves, a number that has fallen by half since 2007. The other 5 million children were born in the U.S., a number that rose from 4.5 million in 2007.

5 More than 99% of the U.S.-born and unauthorized immigrant children live with their unauthorized immigrant parents or live in households where the only adult(s) are a related unauthorized immigrant or a related couple where one or both spouses/partners are unauthorized immigrants. See Methodology for details.

Page 48:

Small modifications to these definitions are made in defining “U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants” and “unauthorized immigrant children.” First, these groups comprise all individuals under 18 who are the child of an unauthorized immigrant in the household even if the child is a parent or spouse/partner themselves. More than 99% of individuals classified as children of unauthorized immigrants fit this definition. Then, individuals under 18 who live in households where the only adult(s) are an unauthorized immigrant or a couple in which one or both are unauthorized immigrants; further, an adult is a relative of the child. This group accounts for about 45,000 of the 5 million U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrant in 2016 and about 4,000 of the 675,000 unauthorized immigrant children. Finally, the 5 million U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants include about 10,000 children who are actually lawful immigrants with an unauthorized immigrant parent.

CALCULATION: (5,600,000 – 675,000) / 5,600,000 = 88%

[1255] Report: “Budget of the U.S. Government: A New Foundation for American Greatness.” White House Office of Management and Budget, May 23, 2017. <www.govinfo.gov>

Pages 10–11: “The Budget also proposes to require a Social Security Number (SSN) that is valid for work in order to claim the CTC [Child Tax Credit] and EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit]. Under current law, individuals who do not have SSNs valid for work can claim the CTC, including the refundable portion of the credit. This proposal would ensure only people who are authorized to work in the United States are eligible for the CTC.”

Page 37: “Require Social Security Number (SSN) for Child Tax Credit & Earned Income Tax Credit”

Page 39: “Require Social Security Number (SSN) for Child Tax Credit & Earned Income Tax Credit”

[1256] Report: “Efficient, Effective, Accountable: An American Budget.” White House Office of Management and Budget, February 2018. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 91:

The Budget also includes several proposals to ensure that taxpayers comply with their obligations, that tax refunds are only paid to those taxpayers who are eligible for them, and that taxpayer dollars are protected from criminals seeking to commit fraud: …

• Requiring a valid Social Security Number for work in order to claim the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit—this proposal would ensure that only individuals authorized to work in the United States could claim these credits.

Page 137: “Require Social Security Number (SSN) for Child Tax Credit & Earned Income Tax Credit”

[1257] Report: “A Budget for a Better America.” White House Office of Management and Budget, March 21, 2019. <www.whitehouse.gov>

Page 129: “Require Social Security Number for Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and credit for other dependents”

Page 132: “Require Social Security Number for Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and credit for other dependents”

[1258] Report: “A Budget for America’s Future.” White House Office of Management and Budget, February 10, 2020. <www.govinfo.gov>

Page 87: “The Budget also includes several proposals to ensure that taxpayers comply with their obligations and that tax refunds are only paid to those who are eligible, including … requiring a valid Social Security Number for work in order to claim certain tax credits….”

Page 119: “Require Social Security Number for Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and credit for other dependents”

[1259] Article: “Immigration’s Impact on Republican Political Prospects, 1980 to 2012.” By James G. Gimpel (professor of government at the University of Maryland, College Park). Center for Immigration Studies, April 2014. <cis.org>

Page 3: “The 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, conducted by YouGov, gauged the partisan preferences of over 2,900 naturalized immigrants, finding 62.5 percent to be Democratic identifiers, 24.6 percent Republican, and 12.9 percent independent (see Table 1).”

[1260] “Guide to the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey (Data Release No. 1).” By Stephen Ansolabehere and Brian Schaffner. Harvard University, March 11, 2013. <dataverse.harvard.edu>

Page 7:

The Cooperative Congressional Election Study, or CCES, seeks to study how Americans view Congress and hold their representatives accountable during elections, how they voted and their electoral experiences, and how their behavior and experiences vary with political geography and social context. This study constructed a very large sample capable of capturing variation across a wide variety of legislative constituencies. In fact, the state-level samples are sufficiently large as to measure with a reasonable degree of precision the distribution of voters’ preferences within most states

Pages 13–15:

The sampling method uses YouGov/Polimetrix’s matched random sample methodology. …

Sample matching is a methodology for selection of “representative” samples from non-randomly selected pools of respondents. …

The purpose of matching is to find an available respondent who is as similar as possible to the selected member of the target sample. The result is a sample of respondents who have the same measured characteristics as the target sample. Under certain conditions, described below, the matched sample will have similar properties to a true random sample. That is, the matched sample mimics the characteristics of the target sample. It is, as far as we can tell, “representative” of the target population (because it is similar to the target sample).

When choosing the matched sample, it is necessary to find the closest matching respondent in the panel of opt-ins to each member of the target sample. Various types of matching could be employed: exact matching, propensity score matching, and proximity matching. Exact matching is impossible if the set of characteristics used for matching is large and, even for a small set of characteristics, requires a very large panel (to find an exact match). …

The intuition behind sample matching is analogous to stratified sampling: if respondents who are similar on a large number of characteristics tend to be similar on other items for which we lack data, then substituting one for the other should have little impact upon the sample. This intuition can be made rigorous under certain assumptions.

Assumption 1: Ignorability. Panel participation is assumed to be ignorable with respect to the variables measured by survey conditional upon the variables used for matching. What this means is that if we examined panel participants and non-participants who have exactly the same values of the matching variables, then on average there would be no difference between how these sets of respondents answered the survey. This does not imply that panel participants and non-participants are identical, but only that the differences are captured by the variables used for matching. Since the set of data used for matching is quite extensive, this is, in most cases, a plausible assumption. …

Assumption 2: Smoothness. The expected value of the survey items given the variables used for matching is a “smooth” function. Smoothness is a technical term meaning that the function is continuously differentiable with bounded first derivative. In practice, this means that that the expected value function doesn’t have any kinks or jumps.

Assumption 3: Common Support. The variables used for matching need to have a distribution that covers the same range of values for panelists and non-panelists. More precisely, the probability distribution of the matching variables must be bounded away from zero for panelists on the range of values (known as the “support”) taken by the non-panelists. In practice, this excludes attempts to match on variables for which there are no possible matches within the panel. For instance, it would be impossible to match on computer usage because there are no panelists without some experience using computers.

… Data on reported 2008 voter registration and turnout from the November 2008 Current Population Survey was matched to this frame using a weighted Euclidean distance metric. Data on religion, church attendance, born again or evangelical status, news interest, party identification and ideology was matched from the 2007 Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. The target sample was selected by stratification by age, race, gender, education, and by simple random sampling within strata.

[1261] Article: “When Labels Don’t Fit: Hispanics and Their Views of Identity.” By Paul Taylor and others. Pew Hispanic, April 4, 2012. <www.pewresearch.org>

Appendix: “Methodology” (<www.pewhispanic.org>):

Results for this study are based on telephone interviews conducted by Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS), an independent research company, among a nationally representative sample of 1,220 Latino respondents ages 18 and older, from November 9 through December 7, 2011. Of those respondents, 436 were native born (excluding Puerto Rico), and 784 were foreign born (including Puerto Rico).

Section V: “Politics, Values and Religion” (<www.pewhispanic.org>):

When it comes to the size of government, Hispanics are more likely than the general public to say they would rather have a bigger government providing more services than a smaller government with fewer services. … By contrast, just 41% of the general U.S. public say they want a bigger government, while nearly half (48%) say they want a smaller government.

Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services. …

… More than half (51%) of adult Hispanics say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, a share greater than that (41%) observed among the general public.

… Nearly six-in-ten (58%) immigrant Hispanics say abortion should mainly be illegal. …

When asked whether homosexuality should be accepted or discouraged by society, majorities of Latinos (59%) and of the U.S. general public (58%) say it should be accepted. Meanwhile, 30% of Latinos and 33% of the general public say homosexuality should be discouraged. …

Views on homosexuality vary somewhat by immigrant generation. Just over half (53%) of immigrant Hispanics say homosexuality should be accepted.

NOTE: For facts about what constitutes a scientific survey and the factors that impact their accuracy, visit Just Facts’ research on Deconstructing Polls & Surveys.

[1262] Poll: “National Hispanic Survey Results.” By John McLaughlin. McLaughlin & Associates, June 21, 2013. <mclaughlinonline.com>

Page 3:

This bi-lingual national survey of 800 Hispanics was conducted from June 5th through June 16th, 2013.

Interview selection was within predetermined census units of Hispanic adults. 560 interviews were conducted via landline telephone by professional interviewers. To increase coverage, this landline sample was supplemented with 240 interviews, 30%, conducted via internet of cellphone only users. 64% of all respondents use cell phones. 60% of all interviews were conducted in Spanish. 93% of all respondents speak at least some Spanish at home. These samples were then combined and structured to correlate with actual adult Hispanic census population.

This poll of 800 Hispanic adults has an accuracy of ± 3.4% at a 95% confidence interval. Within the sample, 470 of the Hispanic adults are also registered voters. For this subsample the accuracy is ± 4.5% at a 95% confidence interval.

Page 4:

The uniqueness of this poll is that it is very strong demographically and methodologically. 60% of the interviews were actually conducted in Spanish; 76% speak Spanish mostly or equally. 23% always speak Spanish; 93% speak at least some Spanish at home; 30% of the interviews were conducted among cell phone only users. 64% of Hispanic adults have cell phones.

Page 68:

Voter Profile

Total

Registered

Non-Registered

Republican

12%

15%

7%

Democrat

53%

60%

44%

Independent/Other

29%

22%

39%

Where Born … U.S. [=] 37% … Puerto Rico [=] 5% … Outside U.S. [=] 59%

[1263] Article: “A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States.” By Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn. Pew Hispanic, April 14, 2009. <www.pewresearch.org>

These are among the key findings of a new analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center, which builds on previous work estimating the size and growth of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population. …

Based on March 2008 data collected by the Census Bureau, the Center estimates that unauthorized immigrants are 4% of the nation’s population and 5.4% of its workforce. Their children, both those who are unauthorized immigrants themselves and those who are U.S. citizens, make up 6.8% of the students enrolled in the nation’s elementary and secondary schools.

About three-quarters (76%) of the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population are Hispanics. The majority of undocumented immigrants (59%) are from Mexico, numbering 7 million.

[1264] Article: “Latino Voters in the 2012 Election. By Mark Hugo Lopez and Paul Taylor. Pew Hispanic, November 7, 2012. <www.pewresearch.org>

Year

Candidate

Dem. Advantage

Democrat

Republican

1980

Carter

Reagan

+21

1984

Mondale

Reagan

+24

1988

Dukakis

Bush, G.H.

+39

1992

Clinton

Bush, G.H.

+36

1996

Clinton

Dole

+51

2000

Gore

Bush, G.W.

+27

2004

Kerry

Bush, G.W.

+18

2008

Obama

McCain

+36

2012

Obama

Romney

+44

[1265] Article: “Latino Voters in the 2012 Election. By Mark Hugo Lopez and Paul Taylor. Pew Hispanic, November 7, 2012. <www.pewresearch.org>

“Latinos voted for President Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney by 71% to 27%, according to an analysis of exit polls by the Pew Hispanic Center, a Project of the Pew Research Center.”

[1266] Webpage: “Eliseo Medina.” Service Employees International Union. Accessed January 10, 2015 at <www.seiu.org>

Eliseo Medina is described by the Los Angeles Times as “one of the most successful labor organizers in the country” and was named one of the “Top 50 Most Powerful Latino Leaders” in Poder Magazine. The International Secretary-Treasurer of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Medina also leads the union’s efforts to achieve comprehensive immigration reform that rebuilds the nation’s economy, secures equal labor- and civil-rights protections for workers to improve their wages and work conditions and provides legal channels and a path to citizenship. Medina’s work to help grow Latino voting strength in the 2012 elections is widely recognized as a key factor in propelling the 2013 debate in Congress over commonsense immigration reform. …

In 1996, Medina was elected to serve as international executive vice president of SEIU. He made history by becoming the first Mexican American elected to a top post at the 2 million-member SEIU.

His work helped grow SEIU on the West Coast and make it the largest union in California. Since 1996, more than 1.2 million workers across the country have united with SEIU, the nation’s largest union of healthcare workers and the union with the largest membership of immigrant workers. …

In 2010, Medina was unanimously elected to serve as International Secretary-Treasurer of the 2 million-member union.

[1267] Speech by Eliseo Medina at the “America’s Future Now!” conference in Washington, DC. Campaign for America’s Future, June 2, 2009. <www.youtube.com>

Transcript of Medina’s remarks:

We in the last election had the largest turnout of Latino voters in our history. And everything tells us these voters fully intend to become engaged into elections in the future.

They have tasted what it is like to participate and win, and they are not going to go away, because their involvement is basically because they feel that they are being taken advantage of, they are being singled out, and they are being scapegoated.

Now when they voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up.

So I think there’s two things, very quickly, that matter for the progressive community.

Number one, if we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That will expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future. And let me tell you, when you are in the middle of a fight for your life. you will remember who was there with you, and immigrants count on progressives to be able to do that.

Number two. We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three, if we have eight million new voters that care about our issues and will be voting, we will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.

NOTE: Credit for bringing this to the attention of Just Facts belongs to Matthew Boyle of Breitbart News. <www.breitbart.com>

[1268] Book: American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2015.

Article: “Census, U.S.” By Susan Wierzbicki. Pages 69–72.

Page 72:

Because the census determines congressional representation and how resources are allocated, it is often the subject of political contention. One issue has to do with sampling, that is, using various statistical techniques to reduce the problem of undercounting those likely to be missed by census takers. Predominant among these are the homeless and, most significant, undocumented immigrants. Since such people tend to be located in primarily Democratic regions of the country—urban areas and states such as California and New York—sampling has been denounced by Republicans, who say it is unscientific and does not meet the constitutional mandate for a decadal “enumeration.” For these reasons, sampling has not been used to determine final census numbers for the purposes of congressional representation.

[1269] Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: Hispanic Americans and Native Americans (Volume 2). Edited by Jeffrey D. Schultz and others. Oryx Press, 2000.

Page 529:

One of the most significant pieces of federal legislation since Reconstruction, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, made it illegal to interfere with anyone’s right to vote. A major success of the civil rights movement, this act suspended the use of literacy tests and, most important, sent federal voter registrars into counties where less than 50 percent of the voting age population was registered—under the premise that if so few potential voters had registered, there must have existed serious barriers to registration. Those who sought through intimidation to deter minorities from voting now had to face the federal government. The Voting Rights Act was renewed and expanded in 1970, 1975, and 1982. It now covers more states and other minorities, such as Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and Eskimos, and thus serves as a basic protection for minority voting rights. For example, states must provide bilingual ballots in counties in which 5 percent or more of the local population does not speak English. In most instances, this has alleviated the language barrier for Hispanics unable to read English.

The 1982 amendments of the Voting Rights Act and the act’s subsequent judicial interpretation expanded the applicability of the act. In addition to protecting minorities’ voting rights, the act now requires states with large minority populations to draw boundaries that will increase the probability that minorities will win seats. After the 1990 census, 11 new congressional districts were created for African Americans, and 6 for Hispanics. All but one district were then won by blacks and Hispanics in the 1992 elections. Partly as result of this redistricting, blacks were elected to Congress for the first time since Reconstruction in states such as Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Hispanics were elected for the first time in Illinois and New Jersey. In all, 39 blacks and 19 Hispanics were elected to Congress, a dramatic increase from the 25 African Americans and 10 Hispanics serving before the 1992 election. Hispanics have thus dramatically improved their representation in national political office, from a little more than 3,000 Hispanic public officials in 1985 to nearly 5,200 in 1998.

[1270] “Register to Vote in Your State by Using This Postcard Form and Guide For U.S. Citizens.” U.S. Election Assistance Commission, September 21, 2022. <www.eac.gov>

Page 1:

How to Find Out If You Are Eligible to Register to Vote in Your State

Each State has its own laws about who may register and vote. Check the information under your State in the State Instructions. All States require that you be a United States citizen by birth or naturalization to register to vote in federal and State elections. Federal law makes it illegal to falsely claim U.S. citizenship to register to vote in any federal, State, or local election. You cannot be registered to vote in more than one place at a time.

[1271] “USCIS Policy Manual.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Accessed July 20, 2022 at <www.uscis.gov>

Volume 12 (Citizenship & Naturalization), Part F (Good Moral Character), Chapter 5 (Conditional Bars for Acts in Statutory Period):

For unlawful voting, the applicant’s conduct must be unlawful under the relevant federal, state, or local election law.103

103 The officer should consider the controlling statutes in cases involving potential unlawful voting offenses, as some local municipalities permit LPRs [lawful permanent residents] or other noncitizens to vote in municipal elections.”

[1272] U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1015: “Naturalization, Citizenship or Alien Registry.” Accessed October 20, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(b) Whoever knowingly, with intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, denies that he has been naturalized or admitted to be a citizen, after having been so naturalized or admitted; or

(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or

(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or

(f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Subsection (f) does not apply to an alien if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of making the false statement or claim that he or she was a citizen of the United States.

[1273] U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 29, Section 611: “Voting by Aliens.” Accessed October 20, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless—

(1) the election is held partly for some other purpose;

(2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and

(3) voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.

(b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an alien if—

(1) each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization);

(2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16; and

(3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.

[1274] Ruling: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. U.S. Supreme Court, June 17, 2013. Decided 7–2. Majority: Scalia, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kennedy. Concurrence: Kennedy. Dissenting: Thomas, Alito. <www.law.cornell.edu>

Majority:

The National Voter Registration Act requires States to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections. The contents of that form (colloquially known as the Federal Form) are prescribed by a federal agency, the Election Assistance Commission [EAC]. The Federal Form developed by the EAC does not require documentary evidence of citizenship; rather, it requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen.

[1275] “Register To Vote In Your State By Using This Postcard Form and Guide For U.S. Citizens.” U.S. Election Assistance Commission, September 21, 2022. <www.eac.gov>

Page 1: “All States require that you be a United States citizen by birth or naturalization to register to vote in federal and State elections. Federal law makes it illegal to falsely claim U.S. citizenship to register to vote in any federal, State, or local election. You cannot be registered to vote in more than one place at a time.”

Page 6 (of PDF):

Voter Registration Application

Are you a citizen of the United States of America? Yes / No …

I have reviewed my state’s instructions and I swear/affirm that:

• I am a United States citizen.

• I meet the eligibility requirements of my state and subscribe to any oath required.

• The information I have provided is true to the best of my knowledge under penalty of perjury. If I have provided false information, I may be fined, imprisoned, or (if not a U.S. citizen) deported from or refused entry to the United States.

[1276] “Register To Vote In Your State By Using This Postcard Form and Guide For U.S. Citizens.” U.S. Election Assistance Commission, September 21, 2022. <www.eac.gov>

Pages 3–27:

State Instructions

State

Identification Requirements

Alabama

If you have one, you must provide your Alabama driver’s license number or Alabama nondriver identification card number. If you do not have an Alabama driver’s license or nondriver identification card, you must provide the last 4 digits of your Social Security number. If you have not been issued any of these numbers you must write the word “NONE” and a unique identifier will be provided for you.

Alaska

You must provide one of the following identification numbers; Alaska Driver’s License or Alaska State Identification Card Number. If you do not have an Alaska Driver’s License or Alaska State Identification Card, you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number. If you do not have any of these identification numbers, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned to you for voter registration purposes.

Arizona

Your completed voter registration form must contain the number of your Arizona driver license, or non-operating identification license issued pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-3165, if the license is current and valid. If you do not have a current and valid Arizona driver license or non-operating identification license, you must include the last four digits of your social security number if one has been issued to you. If you do not have a current and valid driver license or non-operating identification license or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

Arkansas

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number or nonoperating identification number. If you do not have a driver’s license or nonoperating identification, you must include the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license or a nonoperating identification or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

California

When you register to vote, you must provide your California driver’s license or California identification card number, if you have one. If you do not have a driver’s license or ID card, you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number (SSN). If you do not include this information, you will be required to provide identification when you vote if it is your first time voting in a federal election.

Colorado

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number or identification number. If you do not have a driver’s license or state issued identification, you must include the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license or a state issued identification or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

Connecticut

Connecticut Driver’s License Number, or if none, the last four digits of your Social Security Number.

Delaware

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number or nonoperating identification number. If you do not have a driver’s license or nonoperating identification, you must include the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license or a nonoperating identification or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

District of Columbia

Federal law now requires that all voter registration applications must include either the applicant’s driver’s license number or the last four digits of the applicant’s social security number in order to be processed.

Florida

If you have one, you must provide your Florida driver’s license number or Florida identification card number. If you do not have a Florida driver’s license or identification card, you must provide the last four digits of your social security number. If you have not been issued any of these numbers, you must write the word “NONE.”

Georgia

Federal law requires you to provide your full GA Driver’s License number or GA State issued ID number. If you do not have a GA Driver’s License or GA ID you must provide the last 4 digits of your Social Security number. Providing your full Social Security number is optional. Your Social Security number will be kept confidential and may be used for comparison with other state agency databases for voter registration identification purposes. If you do not possess a GA Driver’s License or Social Security number, a unique identifier will be provided for you.

Hawaii

When you register to vote, you must provide your Hawaii driver’s license or State identification number, if you have one. If you do not have a driver’s license or ID number, you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number (SSN). If you do not have any of this information, the Clerk’s Office will issue you a unique identification number, which will serve to identify you for voter registration purposes.

Idaho

Enter the number from your Idaho driver’s license card or state identification card issued by the Idaho Transportation Department. If you have no such card, enter the last 4 digits of your social security number.

Illinois

Illinois requires either the Driver’s License (or Secretary of State ID Card) or the last 4 digits of Social Security Number. For people who do not have either of those items, and have not registered in Illinois before, a mail in registration form should be accompanied by a copy of other identifying information: you must send, with this application, either (i) a copy of a current and valid photo identification, or (ii) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. If you do not provide the information required above, then you will be required to provide election officials with either (i) or (ii) described above the first time you vote at a voting place.

Indiana

Your state voter ID number is your ten digit Indiana issued driver’s license number. If you do not possess an Indiana driver’s license then provide the last four digits of your social security number. Please indicate which number was provided. (Indiana Code 3-7-13-13)

Iowa

Your ID number is your Iowa driver’s license number (or Iowa non-operator identification number) if you have one, if not then the last four digits of your social security number. The ID number you provide will be verified with the Iowa Department of Transportation or the Social Security Administration.

Kansas

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number or nondriver’s identification card number. If you do not have a driver’s license or nondriver’s identification card, you must include the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license or a nondriver’s identification card or social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

Kentucky

Your full social security number is required. It is used for administrative purposes only and is not released to the public (KRS 116.155). No person shall be denied the right to register because of failure to include social security number.

Louisiana

You must provide your Louisiana driver’s license number or Louisiana special identification card number, if issued. If not issued, you must provide at least the last four digits of your social security number, if issued. The full social security number may be provided on a voluntary basis. If the applicant has neither a Louisiana driver’s license, a Louisiana special identification card, or a social security number, the applicant shall attach one of the following items to his application: (a) a copy of a current and valid photo identification; or (b) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of applicant.

Maine

You must list your valid Maine driver’s license number. If you don’t have a valid Maine driver’s license, then you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number. Voters who don’t have either of these forms of ID must write “NONE” in this space.

Maryland

If you do not have a current, valid Maryland driver’s license or MVA [Motor Vehicle Administration] ID card, you must enter the last 4 digits of your social security number.

Massachusetts

Federal law requires that you provide your driver’s license number to register to vote. If you do not have a current and valid Massachusetts’ driver’s license then you must provide the last four (4) digits of your social security number. If you have neither, you must write “NONE” in the box and a unique identifying number will be assigned to you.

Michigan

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number or state issued personal identification card number. If you do not have a driver’s license or state issued personal identification card, you must include the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license or a state issued personal identification card or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

Minnesota

You are required to provide your Minnesota driver’s license or state ID number to register to Vote. If you do not have a Minnesota driver’s license or state ID then you will have to provide the last four digits of your social security number. If you have neither, please write “none” on the form.

Mississippi

You are required to provide your current and valid driver’s license number or, if you don’t have one, the last four digits of your social security number.

Missouri

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number. Your completed voter registration form must also include the last four digits of your social security number. (Section 115.155, RSMo). If you do not have a driver’s license or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

Montana

You must provide your Montana (MT) Driver’s License number, MT Identification (ID) card number, or the last 4 digits of your Social Security number (SSN). If you are unable to provide the preceding forms of identification, you can provide a United States passport, Montana tribal ID card, military ID card, or Montana concealed carry permit when you register; or submit a photo identification, including, but not limited to, a school district or postsecondary education photo identification with your name on it, and a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document that shows your name and current address.

Nebraska

You must provide your Nebraska driver’s license number. If you do not have a Nebraska driver’s license number then you must list the last four digits of your social security number.

Nevada

You must supply a Nevada driver’s license number or Nevada ID card number if you have been issued one by the DMV. If you do not have a valid Nevada driver’s license or Nevada ID card, you must supply the last four digits of your Social Security Number. If you do not have a valid Nevada driver’s license or Nevada ID card or a Social Security Number, please contact your County Clerk/ Registrar of Voters to be assigned a unique identifier.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire town and city clerks will accept this application only as a request for their own absentee voter mail-in registration form. You need to fill in only Box 1 and Box 2 or 3.

New Jersey

The last four digits of your Social Security number OR your New Jersey Driver’s License number is required for voter registration. If you do not possess either of these identifications, please write “NONE” on the form. The State will assign a number that will serve to identify you for voter registration purposes.

New Mexico

Your full social security number is required. This registration card containing your social security number will become part of the permanent voter registration records of your locality, which are open to inspection by the public in the office of the county clerk.

New York

Federal law requires that you provide your driver’s license number to register to vote. If you do not have a driver’s license then you will have to provide at least the last four digits of your social security number. If you have neither, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned to you by your State.

North Carolina

Provide your North Carolina driver’s license number, or North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles ID number. If you do not have a driver’s license, then list the last four digits of your social security number.

North Dakota

North Dakota does not have voter registration.

Ohio

Your social security number is requested. Providing this number is voluntary. This information allows the Board of Elections to verify your registration if necessary (O.R.C. 3503.14). [Federal law requires that you provide your driver’s license number to register to vote. If you do not have a driver’s license then you will have to provide at least the last four digits of your social security number. If you don’t have either number you will have to write “NONE” on the form and the State will assign you a number.]

Oklahoma

You must provide either your valid Oklahoma driver’s license number, state identification card number, or the last four digits of your Social Security number.

Oregon

To be eligible to vote in Oregon elections, you must provide a valid Oregon Driver’s License, Permit or ID number. If you do not have an Oregon-issued ID, then you will have to provide at least the last four digits of your social security number. If you have neither, you will need to write “NONE” on the form.

Pennsylvania

You must supply a Driver’s License Number, if you have one. If you do not have a Driver’s License Number, you must supply the last four digits of your Social Security Number. If you do not have either form of ID, please write “NONE” in the box.

Rhode Island

The applicant shall be required to provide their Rhode Island driver’s license or State ID number if the applicant has been issued a current and valid Rhode Island driver’s license or State ID. In the case of an applicant who has not been issued a current and valid driver’s license or State ID, they must provide the last four (4) digits of their social security number. An applicant, who has neither, will be assigned a unique identifying number by the State of Rhode Island.

South Carolina

You must provide at least the last four digits of your social security number. You may provide your full social security number on a voluntary basis. Social security number does not appear on any report produced by the State Election Commission nor is it released to any unauthorized individual. (South Carolina Title 7-5-170)

South Dakota

Any person registering to vote shall provide the person’s valid South Dakota driver license number or a South Dakota nondriver identification number on the voter registration form. If a person does not have a valid South Dakota driver license or a South Dakota nondriver identification

number, the person shall provide the last four digits of the person’s social security number on the voter registration form. If a person does not have a valid South Dakota driver license, a South Dakota nondriver identification number, or a social security number, the person may only register at the county auditor’s office and shall sign a statement verifying the fact that the

person does not have a valid South Dakota driver license, a South Dakota nondriver identification number, or a social security number.

Tennessee

Your full social security number is required. Social security number, if any, is required for purposes of identification and to avoid duplicate registration (TCA 2.2.116).

Texas

You must provide your driver’s license number to register to vote. If you do not have a driver’s license then you will have to provide at least the last four digits of your social security number. If you have neither, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will instead be assigned to you by your State.

Utah

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number or nonoperating identification number. If you do not have a driver’s license or nonoperating identification, you must include the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license or a nonoperating identification or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

Vermont

You must provide your Vermont Driver’s license number, or if none, the last 4 digits of your Social Security number. If you do not have a Vermont Driver’s license or a Social Security number, please write “NONE” on the form. The Secretary of State’s office will assign you a unique identifying number.

Virginia

Your full social security number is required.

Washington

You must provide your Washington driver’s license or ID card number. If you do not have a Washington driver’s license or ID card, you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number.

West Virginia

Enter your driver’s license number. If you do not have a driver’s license number, enter the last four numbers of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license number or a social security number, an identification number will be assigned to you.

Wisconsin

Provide your unexpired Wisconsin driver license or DOT-issued ID card number. If you do not have a current and valid DOT-issued driver license or ID card, provide the last four digits of your social security number.

[1277] Report: “Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds.” By Stephen Goss and others. U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, April 2013. <www.ssa.gov>

Page 2:

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of people living in the U.S. who were foreign born and not U.S. citizens was 21.7 million in January 2009. Of these, 12.6 million individuals were not legal permanent residents of the U.S. We refer to this group as other immigrants (other than legal permanent resident immigrants). …

… In addition, OCACT [Office of the Chief Actuary] estimates that 0.7 million unauthorized workers in 2010 obtained fraudulent birth certificates at some point in the past and these birth certificates allowed the workers to get an SSN [Social Security number]. …

OCACT estimates 1.8 million other immigrants worked and used an SSN that did not match their name in 2010.

[1278] Webpage: “How to Register to Vote.” USA.gov. Last updated August 9, 2022. <www.usa.gov>

“Each state makes its own voting and election rules, including when and how to register. Check with your state or local election office to get the most detailed and up-to-date information for where you live.”

[1279] “Register To Vote In Your State By Using This Postcard Form and Guide For U.S. Citizens.” U.S. Election Assistance Commission, September 21, 2022. <www.eac.gov>

Pages 3–27:

State Instructions

State

Identification Requirements

Alabama

If you have one, you must provide your Alabama driver’s license number or Alabama nondriver identification card number. If you do not have an Alabama driver’s license or nondriver identification card, you must provide the last 4 digits of your Social Security number. If you have not been issued any of these numbers you must write the word “NONE” and a unique identifier will be provided for you.

Alaska

You must provide one of the following identification numbers; Alaska Driver’s License or Alaska State Identification Card Number. If you do not have an Alaska Driver’s License or Alaska State Identification Card, you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number. If you do not have any of these identification numbers, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned to you for voter registration purposes.

Arizona

Your completed voter registration form must contain the number of your Arizona driver license, or non-operating identification license issued pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-3165, if the license is current and valid. If you do not have a current and valid Arizona driver license or non-operating identification license, you must include the last four digits of your social security number if one has been issued to you. If you do not have a current and valid driver license or non-operating identification license or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

Arkansas

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number or nonoperating identification number. If you do not have a driver’s license or nonoperating identification, you must include the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license or a nonoperating identification or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

California

When you register to vote, you must provide your California driver’s license or California identification card number, if you have one. If you do not have a driver’s license or ID card, you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number (SSN). If you do not include this information, you will be required to provide identification when you vote if it is your first time voting in a federal election.

Colorado

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number or identification number. If you do not have a driver’s license or state issued identification, you must include the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license or a state issued identification or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

Connecticut

Connecticut Driver’s License Number, or if none, the last four digits of your Social Security Number.

Delaware

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number or nonoperating identification number. If you do not have a driver’s license or nonoperating identification, you must include the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license or a nonoperating identification or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

District of Columbia

Federal law now requires that all voter registration applications must include either the applicant’s driver’s license number or the last four digits of the applicant’s social security number in order to be processed.

Florida

If you have one, you must provide your Florida driver’s license number or Florida identification card number. If you do not have a Florida driver’s license or identification card, you must provide the last four digits of your social security number. If you have not been issued any of these numbers, you must write the word “NONE.”

Georgia

Federal law requires you to provide your full GA Driver’s License number or GA State issued ID number. If you do not have a GA Driver’s License or GA ID you must provide the last 4 digits of your Social Security number. Providing your full Social Security number is optional. Your Social Security number will be kept confidential and may be used for comparison with other state agency databases for voter registration identification purposes. If you do not possess a GA Driver’s License or Social Security number, a unique identifier will be provided for you.

Hawaii

When you register to vote, you must provide your Hawaii driver’s license or State identification number, if you have one. If you do not have a driver’s license or ID number, you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number (SSN). If you do not have any of this information, the Clerk’s Office will issue you a unique identification number, which will serve to identify you for voter registration purposes.

Idaho

Enter the number from your Idaho driver’s license card or state identification card issued by the Idaho Transportation Department. If you have no such card, enter the last 4 digits of your social security number.

Illinois

Illinois requires either the Driver’s License (or Secretary of State ID Card) or the last 4 digits of Social Security Number. For people who do not have either of those items, and have not registered in Illinois before, a mail in registration form should be accompanied by a copy of other identifying information: you must send, with this application, either (i) a copy of a current and valid photo identification, or (ii) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. If you do not provide the information required above, then you will be required to provide election officials with either (i) or (ii) described above the first time you vote at a voting place.

Indiana

Your state voter ID number is your ten digit Indiana issued driver’s license number. If you do not possess an Indiana driver’s license then provide the last four digits of your social security number. Please indicate which number was provided. (Indiana Code 3-7-13-13)

Iowa

Your ID number is your Iowa driver’s license number (or Iowa non-operator identification number) if you have one, if not then the last four digits of your social security number. The ID number you provide will be verified with the Iowa Department of Transportation or the Social Security Administration.

Kansas

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number or nondriver’s identification card number. If you do not have a driver’s license or nondriver’s identification card, you must include the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license or a nondriver’s identification card or social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

Kentucky

Your full social security number is required. It is used for administrative purposes only and is not released to the public (KRS 116.155). No person shall be denied the right to register because of failure to include social security number.

Louisiana

You must provide your Louisiana driver’s license number or Louisiana special identification card number, if issued. If not issued, you must provide at least the last four digits of your social security number, if issued. The full social security number may be provided on a voluntary basis. If the applicant has neither a Louisiana driver’s license, a Louisiana special identification card, or a social security number, the applicant shall attach one of the following items to his application: (a) a copy of a current and valid photo identification; or (b) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of applicant.

Maine

You must list your valid Maine driver’s license number. If you don’t have a valid Maine driver’s license, then you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number. Voters who don’t have either of these forms of ID must write “NONE” in this space.

Maryland

If you do not have a current, valid Maryland driver’s license or MVA [Motor Vehicle Administration] ID card, you must enter the last 4 digits of your social security number.

Massachusetts

Federal law requires that you provide your driver’s license number to register to vote. If you do not have a current and valid Massachusetts’ driver’s license then you must provide the last four (4) digits of your social security number. If you have neither, you must write “NONE” in the box and a unique identifying number will be assigned to you.

Michigan

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number or state issued personal identification card number. If you do not have a driver’s license or state issued personal identification card, you must include the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license or a state issued personal identification card or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

Minnesota

You are required to provide your Minnesota driver’s license or state ID number to register to Vote. If you do not have a Minnesota driver’s license or state ID then you will have to provide the last four digits of your social security number. If you have neither, please write “none” on the form.

Mississippi

You are required to provide your current and valid driver’s license number or, if you don’t have one, the last four digits of your social security number.

Missouri

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number. Your completed voter registration form must also include the last four digits of your social security number. (Section 115.155, RSMo). If you do not have a driver’s license or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

Montana

You must provide your Montana (MT) Driver’s License number, MT Identification (ID) card number, or the last 4 digits of your Social Security number (SSN). If you are unable to provide the preceding forms of identification, you can provide a United States passport, Montana tribal ID card, military ID card, or Montana concealed carry permit when you register; or submit a photo identification, including, but not limited to, a school district or postsecondary education photo identification with your name on it, and a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document that shows your name and current address.

Nebraska

You must provide your Nebraska driver’s license number. If you do not have a Nebraska driver’s license number then you must list the last four digits of your social security number.

Nevada

You must supply a Nevada driver’s license number or Nevada ID card number if you have been issued one by the DMV. If you do not have a valid Nevada driver’s license or Nevada ID card, you must supply the last four digits of your Social Security Number. If you do not have a valid Nevada driver’s license or Nevada ID card or a Social Security Number, please contact your County Clerk/ Registrar of Voters to be assigned a unique identifier.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire town and city clerks will accept this application only as a request for their own absentee voter mail-in registration form. You need to fill in only Box 1 and Box 2 or 3.

New Jersey

The last four digits of your Social Security number OR your New Jersey Driver’s License number is required for voter registration. If you do not possess either of these identifications, please write “NONE” on the form. The State will assign a number that will serve to identify you for voter registration purposes.

New Mexico

Your full social security number is required. This registration card containing your social security number will become part of the permanent voter registration records of your locality, which are open to inspection by the public in the office of the county clerk.

New York

Federal law requires that you provide your driver’s license number to register to vote. If you do not have a driver’s license then you will have to provide at least the last four digits of your social security number. If you have neither, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned to you by your State.

North Carolina

Provide your North Carolina driver’s license number, or North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles ID number. If you do not have a driver’s license, then list the last four digits of your social security number.

North Dakota

North Dakota does not have voter registration.

Ohio

Your social security number is requested. Providing this number is voluntary. This information allows the Board of Elections to verify your registration if necessary (O.R.C. 3503.14). [Federal law requires that you provide your driver’s license number to register to vote. If you do not have a driver’s license then you will have to provide at least the last four digits of your social security number. If you don’t have either number you will have to write “NONE” on the form and the State will assign you a number.]

Oklahoma

You must provide either your valid Oklahoma driver’s license number, state identification card number, or the last four digits of your Social Security number.

Oregon

To be eligible to vote in Oregon elections, you must provide a valid Oregon Driver’s License, Permit or ID number. If you do not have an Oregon-issued ID, then you will have to provide at least the last four digits of your social security number. If you have neither, you will need to write “NONE” on the form.

Pennsylvania

You must supply a Driver’s License Number, if you have one. If you do not have a Driver’s License Number, you must supply the last four digits of your Social Security Number. If you do not have either form of ID, please write “NONE” in the box.

Rhode Island

The applicant shall be required to provide their Rhode Island driver’s license or State ID number if the applicant has been issued a current and valid Rhode Island driver’s license or State ID. In the case of an applicant who has not been issued a current and valid driver’s license or State ID, they must provide the last four (4) digits of their social security number. An applicant, who has neither, will be assigned a unique identifying number by the State of Rhode Island.

South Carolina

You must provide at least the last four digits of your social security number. You may provide your full social security number on a voluntary basis. Social security number does not appear on any report produced by the State Election Commission nor is it released to any unauthorized individual. (South Carolina Title 7-5-170)

South Dakota

Any person registering to vote shall provide the person’s valid South Dakota driver license number or a South Dakota nondriver identification number on the voter registration form. If a person does not have a valid South Dakota driver license or a South Dakota nondriver identification

number, the person shall provide the last four digits of the person’s social security number on the voter registration form. If a person does not have a valid South Dakota driver license, a South Dakota nondriver identification number, or a social security number, the person may only register at the county auditor’s office and shall sign a statement verifying the fact that the

person does not have a valid South Dakota driver license, a South Dakota nondriver identification number, or a social security number.

Tennessee

Your full social security number is required. Social security number, if any, is required for purposes of identification and to avoid duplicate registration (TCA 2.2.116).

Texas

You must provide your driver’s license number to register to vote. If you do not have a driver’s license then you will have to provide at least the last four digits of your social security number. If you have neither, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will instead be assigned to you by your State.

Utah

Your completed voter registration form must contain your state issued driver’s license number or nonoperating identification number. If you do not have a driver’s license or nonoperating identification, you must include the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license or a nonoperating identification or a social security number, please write “NONE” on the form. A unique identifying number will be assigned by the State.

Vermont

You must provide your Vermont Driver’s license number, or if none, the last 4 digits of your Social Security number. If you do not have a Vermont Driver’s license or a Social Security number, please write “NONE” on the form. The Secretary of State’s office will assign you a unique identifying number.

Virginia

Your full social security number is required.

Washington

You must provide your Washington driver’s license or ID card number. If you do not have a Washington driver’s license or ID card, you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number.

West Virginia

Enter your driver’s license number. If you do not have a driver’s license number, enter the last four numbers of your social security number. If you do not have a driver’s license number or a social security number, an identification number will be assigned to you.

Wisconsin

Provide your unexpired Wisconsin driver license or DOT-issued ID card number. If you do not have a current and valid DOT-issued driver license or ID card, provide the last four digits of your social security number.

[1280] Article: “Senate Leader: ‘Half Of My Family’ Eligible For Deportation Under Trump Order.” CBS Los Angeles, February 6, 2017. <losangeles.cbslocal.com>

A Los Angeles lawmaker leading the fight to make California a so-called “sanctuary state” has suggested half of his family would be deported for using falsified Social Security cards and other fake identification.

California Senate Leader Kevin de Leon made the claims during testimony before the Senate’s Public Safety Committee for SB54, a bill introduced by De Leon that would create a statewide sanctuary for immigrants living in the country illegally.

[1281] Hearing on Senate Bill 54: “Law Enforcement: Sharing Data.” California Senate, Public Safety Committee, January 31, 2017. <youtu.be>

Time marker 1:26:40:

Kevin De Leon:

Immigrants who come to this country, the vast majority, irrespective of their legal status, are very hard-working, law-abiding residents who pay their taxes every year. And the reality is with the [Trump’s] executive order and the criteria that has been developed—any individual—I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under the executive order, because if they got a false social security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB 60, if they got a false green card—and anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.

[1282] Article: “Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions.” By Eduardo Porter. New York Times, April 5, 2005. <www.nytimes.com>

It is impossible to know exactly how many illegal immigrant workers pay taxes. But according to specialists, most of them do. Since 1986, when the Immigration Reform and Control Act set penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, most such workers have been forced to buy fake ID’s to get a job.

Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card. It provides cover for employers, who, if asked, can plausibly assert that they believe all their workers are legal. It also means that workers must be paid by the book—with payroll tax deductions.

[1283] Report: “Identity Fraud, Prevalence and Links to Alien Illegal Activities.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, June 25, 2002. <www.gao.gov>

Pages 1–2:

According to Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials, the use of fraudulent documents by aliens is extensive. At ports of entry, INS inspectors have intercepted tens of thousands of fraudulent documents in each of the last few years. These documents were presented by aliens attempting to enter the United States to seek employment or obtain other immigration benefits, such as naturalization or permanent residency status. The types of false documents most frequently intercepted by INS inspectors include border crossing cards, alien registration cards, nonimmigrant visas, and passports and citizenship documents (both U.S. and foreign). Also, INS has reported that large-scale counterfeiting has made fraudulent employment eligibility documents (such as Social Security cards) widely available.

Federal investigations have shown that some aliens use fraudulent documents in connection with more serious illegal activities, such as narcotics trafficking and terrorism. This is a cause for greater concern.

Page 8:

Significant numbers of aliens unauthorized to work in the United States have used fraudulent documents to circumvent the employment verification process designed to prevent employers from hiring them. For example, INS data showed that about 50,000 unauthorized aliens were found to have used 78,000 fraudulent documents to obtain employment over the 20-month period from October 1996 through May 1998. About 60 percent of the fraudulent documents used were INS documents; 36 percent were Social Security cards, and 4 percent were other documents, such as driver’s licenses. Also, we noted that counterfeit employment eligibility documents were widely available. For instance, in November 1998 in Los Angeles, INS seized nearly 2 million counterfeit documents, such as INS permanent resident cards and Social Security cards, which were headed for distribution points around the country.

Page 9:

Aliens have also attempted to use fraudulent documents or other illegal means to obtain other immigration benefits, such as naturalization or permanent residency. Document fraud encompasses the counterfeiting, sale, or use of false documents, such as birth certificates, passports, or visas, to circumvent U.S. immigration laws and may be part of some benefit application fraud cases. Such fraud threatens the integrity of the legal immigration system.

Although INS has not quantified the extent of immigration benefit fraud, agency officials told us that the problem was pervasive and would increase.6 In one case, for example, an immigration consulting business filed 22,000 applications for aliens to qualify under a legalization program. Nearly 5,500 of the aliens’ claims were fraudulent and 4,400 were suspected of being fraudulent. In another example, according to an INS Miami District Office official, during the month of January 2001 its investigative unit received 205 leads, of which 84 were facilitator cases (such as cases involving individuals or entities who prepare fraudulent benefit applications or who arrange marriages for a fee for the purpose of fraudulently enabling an alien to remain in the United States). In both of these examples, fraudulent documents played a role in the attempts to obtain immigration benefits.

Pages 9–11:

Identity Theft and Fraudulent Documents Can Be Components of Serious Crimes

Federal law enforcement officials have acknowledged that identity theft often is an essential component of many criminal activities, ranging from bank and credit card fraud to international terrorism. At a May 2, 2002, press conference to announce an initiative to crack down on identity theft, the Attorney General said that:

In addition to the credit card and financial fraud crimes often committed, identity theft is a major facilitator of international terrorism. Terrorists have used stolen identities in connection with planned terrorist attacks. An Algerian national facing U.S. charges of identity theft, for example, allegedly stole the identities of 21 members of a health club in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and transferred the identities to one of the individuals convicted in the failed 1999 plot to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport.

The events of September 11, 2001, have increased the urgency of being able to effectively authenticate the identity of individuals.

Alien Smugglers Use Fraudulent Documents

In addition to using identity theft or identity fraud to enter the United States illegally and seek job opportunities, some aliens have used fraudulent documents in connection with serious crimes, such as narcotics trafficking and terrorism. For instance, according to INS, although most aliens are smuggled into the United States to pursue employment opportunities, some are smuggled as part of a criminal or terrorist enterprise.

INS believes that its increased enforcement efforts along the southwest border have prompted greater reliance on alien smugglers and that alien smuggling is becoming more sophisticated, complex, organized, and flexible. In a fiscal year 2000 threat assessment, INS predicted that fraud in obtaining immigration benefits would continue to rise as the volume of petitions for benefits grows and as smugglers search for other methods to introduce illegal aliens into the United States. Also, INS believes organized crime groups will increasingly use smugglers to facilitate illegal entry of individuals into the United States to engage in criminal activities. Alien smugglers are expected to increasingly use fraudulent documents to introduce aliens into the United States.

Conspirator in World Trade Center Bombing Used Fraudulent Document to Enter United States

In February 1993, a massive explosion at the World Trade Center complex in New York City killed 6 people and injured approximately 1,000 others. According to a report by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General:

One of the conspirators in the World Trade Center bombing entered the country on a photo-substituted Swedish passport in September 1992. The suspect used a Swedish passport ‘expecting to pass unchallenged through the INS inspection area at New York’s Kennedy Airport-since an individual bearing a valid Swedish passport does not even need a visa to enter the United States.’ When the terrorist arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), an INS inspector suspected that the passport had been altered. A search of his luggage revealed instructional materials for making bombs; the subject was detained and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for passport fraud. In March 1994 he was convicted for his role in the World Trade Center bombing and sentenced to 240 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.17

Furthermore, regarding this terrorist incident, a United States Sentencing Commission report noted that, “The World Trade Center defendant used, and was in possession of, numerous false identification documents, such as photographs, bank documents, medical histories, and education records from which numerous false identities could have been created.”18

Page 12:

In the May 2002 report, the SSA [Social Security Administration] Inspector General noted that identity theft begins, in most cases, with the misuse of an SSN [Social Security number]. In this regard, the Inspector General emphasized the importance of protecting the integrity of the SSN, especially given that this “de facto” national identifier is the “key to social, legal, and financial assimilation in this country” and is a “link in our homeland security goal.”

[1284] Defendants’ response: League of Women Voters v. Newby. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, February 22, 2016. <lawyerscommittee.org>

Page 1:

The United States consents to plaintiff’s request for entry of a preliminary injunction. On January 29, 2016, the Executive Director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (“Commission”) approved the request of three states—Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas—to modify their state-specific instructions on the National Mail Voter Registration Form (“Federal Form”). However, in deciding to include the states’ documentary proof of citizenship requirements on the Federal Form, the Executive Director did not make the determination that this information was “necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.” … Because the National Voter Registration Act permits only information satisfying this “necessity” requirement to be included on the Federal Form, the Executive Director’s decisions are not consistent with the statute. While plaintiffs have made a number of other arguments, the Court need not reach them in order to issue an injunction. The United States requests that the decisions be enjoined on this narrow ground.

[1285] Ruling: Fish v. Schwab. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, April 29, 2020. Decided 2–0. Majority: Briscoe, Holmes. <casetext.com>

The late Honorable Monroe G. McKay was a member of the three-judge panel assigned to this case and heard the parties’ oral arguments, but he passed away on March 28, 2020. He took no part in the final disposition of this case, including the preparation of this opinion. …

In these two consolidated appeals, we must determine whether a Kansas law requiring documentary proof of citizenship (“DPOC”) for voter registration is preempted by section 5 of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) … or violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. …

After holding a joint bench trial, the district court entered a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the DPOC requirement under both section 5 of the NVRA and the Equal Protection Clause. The Secretary has appealed. …

Kansas adopted its DPOC requirement for voter registration on April 18, 2011. Secure and Fair Elections (“SAFE”) Act…. The SAFE Act requires that

(l) The county election officer or secretary of state’s office shall accept any completed application for registration, but an applicant shall not be registered until the applicant has provided satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship. Evidence of United States citizenship as required in this section will be satisfied by presenting one of the documents listed … in person at the time of filing the application for registration or by including a photocopy of one of the following documents with a mailed registration application. After a person has submitted satisfactory evidence of citizenship, the county election officer shall indicate this information in the person’s permanent voter file.

… The statute then lists thirteen forms of documentation acceptable to prove U.S. citizenship, including a birth certificate or passport. … For citizens unable to present DPOC, subsection (m) provides an alternate means to prove citizenship by the submission of evidence to the state election board followed by a hearing. …

Based primarily on the district court’s finding that 31,089 applicants were prevented from registering to vote because of the DPOC requirement, we conclude that the burden imposed on the right to vote by the DPOC requirement was significant and requires heightened scrutiny. …

The Secretary has failed to show that a substantial number of noncitizens have successfully registered in Kansas notwithstanding section 5 of the NVRA’s attestation requirement. Thus, the DPOC requirement necessarily requires more information than federal law presumes necessary for state officials to meet their eligibility-assessment and registration duties. And so we conclude that Kansas’s DPOC law is preempted by section 5 of the NVRA. We uphold the district court’s entry of a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the DPOC requirement as to the those voters who sought to register under section 5 of the NVRA.

[1286] Petition: Schwab v. Fish. U.S. Supreme Court, July 28, 2020. <www.supremecourt.gov>

“The State of Kansas respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rendered in two consolidated cases that “involve identical or closely related [federal] questions.’

[1287] Webpage: “Schwab v. Fish.” SCOTUSblog, U.S. Supreme Court, December 14, 2020. <www.scotusblog.com>

“Petition for certiorari denied on December 14, 2020”

[1288] “Gina Rodriguez Interviews President Obama.” Mitú, Nov 4, 2016. <www.youtube.com>

Time marker 3:20:

Rodriguez: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens—and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country—are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

Obama: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etcetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

Rodriguez: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.

Obama: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don’t want people voting. People are discouraged from voting, and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school.

Rodriguez: Your entire community.

Obama: Who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.

[1289] Poll: “National Hispanic Survey Results.” By John McLaughlin. McLaughlin & Associates, June 21, 2013. <mclaughlinonline.com>

Page 3:

This bi-lingual national survey of 800 Hispanics was conducted from June 5th through June 16th, 2013.

Interview selection was within predetermined census units of Hispanic adults. 560 interviews were conducted via landline telephone by professional interviewers. To increase coverage, this landline sample was supplemented with 240 interviews, 30%, conducted via internet of cellphone only users. 64% of all respondents use cell phones. 60% of all interviews were conducted in Spanish. 93% of all respondents speak at least some Spanish at home. These samples were then combined and structured to correlate with actual adult Hispanic census population.

Page 4:

The uniqueness of this poll is that it is very strong demographically and methodologically. 60% of the interviews were actually conducted in Spanish; 76% speak Spanish mostly or equally. 23% always speak Spanish; 93% speak at least some Spanish at home; 30% of the interviews were conducted among cell phone only users. 64% of Hispanic adults have cell phones.

NOTE: Credit for bringing this poll to attention belongs to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times [<www.washingtontimes.com>].

[1290] Executive summary: “National Survey of Hispanic Adults.” By John McLaughlin and Carlos Rodriguez. McLaughlin & Associates, July 8, 2013. <mclaughlinonline.com>

Page 1: “This survey was organized and funded by John Jordan, a Republican donor and activist.

NOTE: As detailed in the next two footnotes, Jordan is a supporter of amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion, and same-sex marriage.

[1291] Commentary: “Obama’s Immigration Amnesty: How GOP Can Reach Latino Voters.” By John Jordan. Fox News, November 28, 2014. <www.foxnews.com>

The deportation issue for Latinos is all about family in a culture that values family above all else. Millions of Latino voters have relatives that are here illegally and fear being torn from their loved ones. While one may lament the lawlessness involved in granting amnesty, their feelings are understandable; and Obama is setting the GOP up to make Hispanic voters choose between it and their families. …

2. Pass an immigration bill that makes law abiding Latinos and their families feel safe. They are here in the U.S. and unless the Republican Party is willing to stake the fate of the Republic on rounding up 11 million people they aren’t going anywhere. …

John Jordan is CEO of Jordan Winery….

[1292] Article: “GOP Mystery Donor in Mass. Senate Race.” By Neil King Jr. Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2013. <blogs.wsj.com>

The 41-year-old chief executive of the Jordan Vineyard and Winery has jumped into the race under the guise of a mysterious super PAC [political action committee] with a somewhat un-Republican name, Americans for Progressive Action. …

“I am pro-choice and in favor of gay marriage. I am a centrist,” he said, describing the November election as “an epiphany” that revealed to him how the GOP had to turn to “moderate centrist reasonable people who have the best interests of the country at heart.”

[1293] Poll: “National Hispanic Survey Results.” By John McLaughlin. McLaughlin & Associates, June 21, 2013. <mclaughlinonline.com>

Page 68: “Voter Profile … Non-Citizen … Registered [=] 13%”

[1294] Calculated with data from the executive summary: “National Survey of Hispanic Adults.” By John McLaughlin and Carlos Rodriguez. McLaughlin & Associates, July 8, 2013. <mclaughlinonline.com>

Page 1: “This bi-lingual national survey of 800 Hispanics was conducted from June 5th through June 16th, 2013.”

Page 4:

Where Born? … U.S. [=] 37% … Puerto Rico [=] 5% … Outside U.S. [=] 59%

Citizenship (asked only to those who were born outside the U.S.) … Yes [=] 43% … No [=] 56%

CALCULATION: 800 poll respondents × 59% born outside the U.S. × 56% noncitizens = 264 non-citizen poll respondents

[1295] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the textbook: Statistics: Concepts and Controversies (6th edition). By David S. Moore and William I. Notz. W. H. Freeman and Company, 2006.

Pages 42–43:

The variability of a statistic from a random sample does not depend on the size of the population as long as the population is at least 100 times larger than the sample.

Why does the size of the population have little influence on the behavior of statistics from random samples? Imagine sampling harvested corn by thrusting a scoop into a lot of corn kernels. The scoop doesn’t know whether it is surrounded by a bag of corn or by an entire truckload. As long as the corn is well mixed (so that the scoop selects a random sample), the variability of the result depends only on the size of the scoop.

Page 44:

News reports often only mention the margin of error. Most often this margin of error is for 95% confidence. That is, if we choose many samples, the truth about the population would be within the margin of error 95% of the time. We can estimate the margin of error for 95% confidence based on a simple random sample of size n by the formula 1/√n. As this formula suggests, only the size of the sample, not the size of the population matters. This is true as long as the population is much larger than the sample.

CALCULATION: 1/√264 = 6.2%

[1296] Book: Statistics for K–8 Educators. By Robert Rosenfeld. Routledge, 2013.

Page 91:

Why 95%? Why not some other percentage? This value gives a level of confidence that has been found convenient and practical for summarizing survey results. There is nothing inherently special about it. If you are willing to change from 95% to some other level of confidence, and consequently change the chances that your poll results are off from the truth, you will therefore change the resulting margin of error. At present, 95% is just the level that is commonly used in a great variety of polls and research projects.

Page 93:

For the climate change example above we get margin of error = 1/√n = 1/√500 = .045 instead of .035 [using a more complex and precise formula]. This simplified formula is called “conservative” became it yields a larger margin of error. You take less risk of being wrong when you say your survey is probably within 4.5% of the truth than if you say it is probably within 3.5%.

[1297] Textbook: Mind on Statistics (4th edition). By Jessica M. Utts and Robert F. Heckard. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2012.

Page 389:

The margin of error usually reported in the news is a conservative approximation of the margin of error. It is an approximation that works best when the true population proportion p is close to .5. An important part of this story is that when you use any proportion other than .5 in the more precise formula, the answer is smaller than what you get when you use .5. This means that the conservative approximation will always be greater than or equal to the 95% margin of error.

[1298] Calculated with the dataset: “2008–2016 Population by Detailed Nativity, Hispanic Origin, and Age.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed May 19, 2017 at <www.census.gov>

“2013 … Age: 18 to 80+ years … Not a Citizen … Hispanic [=] 11,779,000”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 11,779,000 Hispanic non-citizen adults × (13% – 6%) = 824,530
  • 11,779,000 Hispanic non-citizen adults × (13% + 6%) = 2,238,010

[1299] Calculated with data from the paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 150: “Of 339 non-citizens identified in the 2008 survey, Catalist matched 140 to a commercial (e.g. credit card) and/or voter database.”

Page 151:

In 2008, 67 non-citizens (19.8%) either claimed they were registered, had their registration status verified, or both. Among the 337 [339†] immigrant non-citizens who responded to the CCES [Cooperative Congressional Election Study], 50 (14.8%) indicated in the survey that they were registered. An additional 17 non-citizens had their voter registration status verified through record matches even though they claimed not to be registered. Perhaps the legal risks of non-citizen registration led some of these individuals to claim not to be registered.

NOTE: † The 337 figure was a typo, and 339 is the correct figure. [Email from Jesse Richman to Just Facts, May 24, 2017.]

CALCULATIONS:

  • (339 non-citizen respondents – 50 non-citizens who said they were registered) / 339 non-citizen respondents = 85.3% non-citizens who said they were not registered
  • 17 non-citizens who said they were not registered but were found to be registered by Catalist / (140 non-citizens matched by Catalist × 85.3% non-citizens who said they were not registered) = 14.2%

[1300] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the textbook: Statistics: Concepts and Controversies (6th edition). By David S. Moore and William I. Notz. W. H. Freeman and Company, 2006.

Pages 42–43:

The variability of a statistic from a random sample does not depend on the size of the population as long as the population is at least 100 times larger than the sample.

Why does the size of the population have little influence on the behavior of statistics from random samples? Imagine sampling harvested corn by thrusting a scoop into a lot of corn kernels. The scoop doesn’t know whether it is surrounded by a bag of corn or by an entire truckload. As long as the corn is well mixed (so that the scoop selects a random sample), the variability of the result depends only on the size of the scoop.

Page 44:

News reports often only mention the margin of error. Most often this margin of error is for 95% confidence. That is, if we choose many samples, the truth about the population would be within the margin of error 95% of the time. We can estimate the margin of error for 95% confidence based on a simple random sample of size n by the formula 1/√n. As this formula suggests, only the size of the sample, not the size of the population matters. This is true as long as the population is much larger than the sample.

CALCULATIONS:

  • 140 Catalist-matched non-citizens × 85.3% who said they were not registered = 119 non-citizens who said they were not registered
  • 1/√119 = 9.2%

[1301] Book: Statistics for K–8 Educators. By Robert Rosenfeld. Routledge, 2013.

Page 91:

Why 95%? Why not some other percentage? This value gives a level of confidence that has been found convenient and practical for summarizing survey results. There is nothing inherently special about it. If you are willing to change from 95% to some other level of confidence, and consequently change the chances that your poll results are off from the truth, you will therefore change the resulting margin of error. At present, 95% is just the level that is commonly used in a great variety of polls and research projects.

Page 93:

For the climate change example above we get margin of error = 1/√n = 1/√500 = .045 instead of .035 [using a more complex and precise formula]. This simplified formula is called “conservative” became it yields a larger margin of error. You take less risk of being wrong when you say your survey is probably within 4.5% of the truth than if you say it is probably within 3.5%.

[1302] Textbook: Mind on Statistics (4th edition). By Jessica M. Utts and Robert F. Heckard. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2012.

Page 389:

The margin of error usually reported in the news is a conservative approximation of the margin of error. It is an approximation that works best when the true population proportion p is close to .5. An important part of this story is that when you use any proportion other than .5 in the more precise formula, the answer is smaller than what you get when you use .5. This means that the conservative approximation will always be greater than or equal to the 95% margin of error.

[1303] Book: American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2015.

Article: “Census, U.S.” By Susan Wierzbicki. Pages 69–72.

Page 71:

The biggest obstacle to collecting accurate data on immigrants is the difficulty of counting them. Immigrants may be isolated and suspicious of the government; illegal immigrants may fear deportation, despite laws ensuring the confidentiality of their responses. Many speak English poorly and may be illiterate as well, so they have trouble filling out the forms.

Because the census has been distributed by mail since 1960, it depends on accurate address lists. Yet postal lists may have trouble picking up immigrants, who may be more likely to be living with other family members, in makeshift apartments, or in other hard-to-find places. Migrant farmworkers, many of them from Mexico, are particularly hard to track. While enumerators follow up nonresponses with personal visits, the immigrant population remains hard to find. …

To overcome these difficulties, the Census Bureau has formed partnerships with many organizations and churches in the immigrant community to encourage responses to the census. In 2010, the Census Bureau offered forms in roughly fifty languages.

Page 72:

Because the census determines congressional representation and how resources are allocated, it is often the subject of political contention. One issue has to do with sampling, that is, using various statistical techniques to reduce the problem of undercounting those likely to be missed by census takers. Predominant among these are the homeless and, most significant, undocumented immigrants. Since such people tend to be located in primarily Democratic regions of the country—urban areas and states such as California and New York—sampling has been denounced by Republicans, who say it is unscientific and does not meet the constitutional mandate for a decadal “enumeration.” For these reasons, sampling has not been used to determine final census numbers for the purposes of congressional representation.

[1304] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page iii:

For estimating the size of the unauthorized population, the Department of Homeland Security has assumed that the ACS’s [Census Bureau’s American Community Survey] undercount rates range from 2.5 percent for noncitizens who are legal permanent residents, refugees, or have been granted asylum to 10 percent for noncitizens without authorization to be in the United States. Those estimates suggest that the ACS and CPS [Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey] undercount the overall foreign-born population by about 5 percent.

[1305] Paper: “How Well Does the American Community Survey Count Naturalized Citizens?” By Jennifer Van Hooka and James D. Bachmeierb. Demographic Research, July 2, 2013. <www.demographic-research.org>

Page 2: “In the United States, data on naturalization and citizenship largely come from Census Bureau surveys, such as the Current Population Survey (CPS), the long form of the decennial Census (2000 and earlier), and the American Community Survey (ACS).”

Page 3:

There are good reasons to suspect that citizenship is inaccurately estimated in Census data. During the late 1990s, Passel and Clark (1997) compared the number of persons that are reported as naturalized in the 1990 Census and the 1996 Current Population Survey (CPS) with the number of naturalized citizens based on administrative data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They found the Census/CPS estimates to be much higher than the INS-based estimates for two groups. Among new arrivals (those in the U.S. fewer than five years) from all national origins, about 75% of those who were reported as naturalized were probably not. Among longer-resident Mexican and Central American immigrants, about one-third of those who were reported as naturalized were probably not.

Page 5:

To assess the current level of citizenship reporting error, we estimated the number of naturalized citizens in mid-year 2010 by age group, sex, region of origin, and duration of residence based on the number of Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) naturalization records. We then compared the OIS-based estimates with the corresponding numbers in the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) (also a mid-year estimate). The difference between the two provides an indication of over- or under-representation of naturalized citizenship in the ACS.

Page 17:

Table 2 reports the naturalization estimates by sex, region of birth, and duration of U.S. residence. For both men and women from all origin regions, the estimated number of naturalized citizens in the ACS is substantially and significantly higher than the OIS-based estimates among immigrants with fewer than five years in the U.S. For example, the number of naturalized Mexican men with fewer than five years of U.S. residence is nearly 27 times higher (2587%) in the ACS than the OIS estimates. Another way to express this is that among the 16 thousand reporting as citizens in the ACS, only about 600 (or about 4 percent) are likely to actually be naturalized citizens. Among those in the U.S. for five or more years, the OIS-ACS gap is much lower in relative terms, and concentrated among Mexican men.

Page 19:

In Table 3, OIS and ACS estimates are presented for Mexican and non-Mexican men and women by age group by varying rates of emigration. We note that the OIS estimates do not always decline as emigration increases from the “low” to the “moderate” to the “high” series because of age crossovers in various emigration estimates. Regardless of assumptions about emigration, ACS estimates are especially high relative to the OIS-based estimates among Mexican men of all age groups and Mexican women aged 40 and older. The same pattern does not hold among non-Mexicans, among whom the discrepancy remains relatively low across all age groups.

[1306] Paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 150:

The data used for this paper is from the 2008 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, based on the files released by Stephen Ansolabehere, 2010 and Ansolabehere, 2011. The 2008 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) were conducted by YouGov/Polimetrix of Palo Alto, CA as an internet-based survey using a sample selected to mirror the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population. …

Four design characteristics make this survey uniquely valuable for our purposes. 1. It has an enormous sample size, which makes feasible sub-population analyses (n = 32,800 in 2008 and n = 55,400 in 2010).

[1307] Paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 151:

It is impossible to tell for certain whether the non-citizens who responded to the survey were representative of the broader population of non-citizens, but some clues can be gained by examining education levels. … We confront this issue primarily by weighting the data.

Throughout the analysis (with the exception of the appendix) we report results produced from weighted data. Weight construction began with CCES [Cooperative Congressional Election Study] case weights, but then adjusted these by race to match the racial demographic of the non-citizen population. Our concern with using regular CPS [Current Population Survey] case-weights was that weights were constructed based upon overall demographic characteristics without attention to the demographic character of the non-citizen population. … Weighting produces a non-citizen sample that appears to be a better match with Census estimates of the population. For instance, 32.5 percent of the weighted sample had no high school degree.

[1308] Calculated with data from the paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 150: “Of 339 non-citizens identified in the 2008 survey, Catalist matched 140 to a commercial (e.g. credit card) and/or voter database.”

Page 151:

In 2008, 67 non-citizens (19.8%) either claimed they were registered, had their registration status verified, or both. Among the 337 [339†] immigrant non-citizens who responded to the CCES [Cooperative Congressional Election Study], 50 (14.8%) indicated in the survey that they were registered. An additional 17 non-citizens had their voter registration status verified through record matches even though they claimed not to be registered. Perhaps the legal risks of non-citizen registration led some of these individuals to claim not to be registered.

NOTE: † The 337 figure was a typo, and 339 is the correct figure. [Email from Jesse Richman to Just Facts, May 24, 2017.]

CALCULATION: 17 non-citizens who said they were not registered but were found to be registered by Catalist / 140 non-citizens matched by Catalist = 12.1%

[1309] Paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 150: “Of 339 non-citizens identified in the 2008 survey, Catalist matched 140 to a commercial (e.g. credit card) and/or voter database.”

[1310] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the textbook: Statistics: Concepts and Controversies (6th edition). By David S. Moore and William I. Notz. W. H. Freeman and Company, 2006.

Pages 42–43:

The variability of a statistic from a random sample does not depend on the size of the population as long as the population is at least 100 times larger than the sample.

Why does the size of the population have little influence on the behavior of statistics from random samples? Imagine sampling harvested corn by thrusting a scoop into a lot of corn kernels. The scoop doesn’t know whether it is surrounded by a bag of corn or by an entire truckload. As long as the corn is well mixed (so that the scoop selects a random sample), the variability of the result depends only on the size of the scoop.

Page 44:

News reports often only mention the margin of error. Most often this margin of error is for 95% confidence. That is, if we choose many samples, the truth about the population would be within the margin of error 95% of the time. We can estimate the margin of error for 95% confidence based on a simple random sample of size n by the formula 1/√n. As this formula suggests, only the size of the sample, not the size of the population matters. This is true as long as the population is much larger than the sample.

CALCULATION: 1/√339 = 5.4%

[1311] Book: Statistics for K–8 Educators. By Robert Rosenfeld. Routledge, 2013.

Page 91:

Why 95%? Why not some other percentage? This value gives a level of confidence that has been found convenient and practical for summarizing survey results. There is nothing inherently special about it. If you are willing to change from 95% to some other level of confidence, and consequently change the chances that your poll results are off from the truth, you will therefore change the resulting margin of error. At present, 95% is just the level that is commonly used in a great variety of polls and research projects.

Page 93:

For the climate change example above we get margin of error = 1/√n = 1/√500 = .045 instead of .035 [using a more complex and precise formula]. This simplified formula is called “conservative” became it yields a larger margin of error. You take less risk of being wrong when you say your survey is probably within 4.5% of the truth than if you say it is probably within 3.5%.

[1312] Textbook: Mind on Statistics (4th edition). By Jessica M. Utts and Robert F. Heckard. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2012.

Page 389:

The margin of error usually reported in the news is a conservative approximation of the margin of error. It is an approximation that works best when the true population proportion p is close to .5. An important part of this story is that when you use any proportion other than .5 in the more precise formula, the answer is smaller than what you get when you use .5. This means that the conservative approximation will always be greater than or equal to the 95% margin of error.

[1313] Paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 150: “Of 339 non-citizens identified in the 2008 survey, Catalist matched 140 to a commercial (e.g. credit card) and/or voter database.”

[1314] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the textbook: Statistics: Concepts and Controversies (6th edition). By David S. Moore and William I. Notz. W. H. Freeman and Company, 2006.

Pages 42–43:

The variability of a statistic from a random sample does not depend on the size of the population as long as the population is at least 100 times larger than the sample.

Why does the size of the population have little influence on the behavior of statistics from random samples? Imagine sampling harvested corn by thrusting a scoop into a lot of corn kernels. The scoop doesn’t know whether it is surrounded by a bag of corn or by an entire truckload. As long as the corn is well mixed (so that the scoop selects a random sample), the variability of the result depends only on the size of the scoop.

Page 44:

News reports often only mention the margin of error. Most often this margin of error is for 95% confidence. That is, if we choose many samples, the truth about the population would be within the margin of error 95% of the time. We can estimate the margin of error for 95% confidence based on a simple random sample of size n by the formula 1/√n. As this formula suggests, only the size of the sample, not the size of the population matters. This is true as long as the population is much larger than the sample.

CALCULATION: 1/√140 = 8.5%

[1315] Book: Statistics for K–8 Educators. By Robert Rosenfeld. Routledge, 2013.

Page 91:

Why 95%? Why not some other percentage? This value gives a level of confidence that has been found convenient and practical for summarizing survey results. There is nothing inherently special about it. If you are willing to change from 95% to some other level of confidence, and consequently change the chances that your poll results are off from the truth, you will therefore change the resulting margin of error. At present, 95% is just the level that is commonly used in a great variety of polls and research projects.

Page 93:

For the climate change example above we get margin of error = 1/√n = 1/√500 = .045 instead of .035 [using a more complex and precise formula]. This simplified formula is called “conservative” became it yields a larger margin of error. You take less risk of being wrong when you say your survey is probably within 4.5% of the truth than if you say it is probably within 3.5%.

[1316] Textbook: Mind on Statistics (4th edition). By Jessica M. Utts and Robert F. Heckard. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2012.

Page 389:

The margin of error usually reported in the news is a conservative approximation of the margin of error. It is an approximation that works best when the true population proportion p is close to .5. An important part of this story is that when you use any proportion other than .5 in the more precise formula, the answer is smaller than what you get when you use .5. This means that the conservative approximation will always be greater than or equal to the 95% margin of error.

[1317] Calculated with data from the footnotes above and the dataset: “2008–2016 Population by Detailed Nativity, Hispanic Origin, and Age.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed May 19, 2017 at <www.census.gov>

“2008 … Age: 18 to 80+ years … Not a Citizen … [=] 19,805,000”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 19,805,000 non-citizen adults × ((15% self-declared registration – 5% margin of error) + (12% undeclared voter registration – 8% margin of error)) = 2,772,700
  • 19,805,000 non-citizen adults × ((15% self-declared registration + 5% margin of error) + (12% undeclared voter registration + 8% margin of error)) = 7,922,000

[1318] Calculated with data from the paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 150: “Of 339 non-citizens identified in the 2008 survey, Catalist matched 140 to a commercial (e.g. credit card) and/or voter database.”

Page 152:

In 2008, thirty eight (11.3%) reported that they voted, had their vote verified, or both. As with registration, claims of voting and validated voting did not intersect very often, in part because the voting question was not asked for all non-citizens who had verified voting, and voter file matches were not available for all non-citizens who claimed that they voted. Twenty seven indicated that “I definitely voted in the November General Election” and 16 had validated general election votes. Only five (1.5%) both claimed that they definitely voted and had a validated vote. In 2010 thirteen non-citizens (3.5% of respondents to the post-election survey) indicated that they voted. All 2008 and 2010 reported votes by non-citizens were in violation of state election law as no votes were cast by non-citizen respondents from the Maryland localities which allow non-citizen voting (Table 2).

Page 153: “In 2008 66.7 percent reported voting for the Democratic House candidate, while only 20.8 percent reported voting for the Republican candidate. 81.8 percent reported voting for Barack Obama compared to 17.5 percent for John McCain.”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 27 non-citizens said “I definitely voted” / 339 non-citizens = 8.0%
  • (16 validated general election votes – 5 who said they voted and had a validated vote) / 140 non-citizens matched by Catalist = 7.9%

[1319] Paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 150: “Of 339 non-citizens identified in the 2008 survey, Catalist matched 140 to a commercial (e.g. credit card) and/or voter database.”

[1320] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the textbook: Statistics: Concepts and Controversies (6th edition). By David S. Moore and William I. Notz. W. H. Freeman and Company, 2006.

Pages 42–43:

The variability of a statistic from a random sample does not depend on the size of the population as long as the population is at least 100 times larger than the sample.

Why does the size of the population have little influence on the behavior of statistics from random samples? Imagine sampling harvested corn by thrusting a scoop into a lot of corn kernels. The scoop doesn’t know whether it is surrounded by a bag of corn or by an entire truckload. As long as the corn is well mixed (so that the scoop selects a random sample), the variability of the result depends only on the size of the scoop.

Page 44:

News reports often only mention the margin of error. Most often this margin of error is for 95% confidence. That is, if we choose many samples, the truth about the population would be within the margin of error 95% of the time. We can estimate the margin of error for 95% confidence based on a simple random sample of size n by the formula 1/√n. As this formula suggests, only the size of the sample, not the size of the population matters. This is true as long as the population is much larger than the sample.

CALCULATION: 1/√339 = 5.4%

[1321] Book: Statistics for K–8 Educators. By Robert Rosenfeld. Routledge, 2013.

Page 91:

Why 95%? Why not some other percentage? This value gives a level of confidence that has been found convenient and practical for summarizing survey results. There is nothing inherently special about it. If you are willing to change from 95% to some other level of confidence, and consequently change the chances that your poll results are off from the truth, you will therefore change the resulting margin of error. At present, 95% is just the level that is commonly used in a great variety of polls and research projects.

Page 93:

For the climate change example above we get margin of error = 1/√n = 1/√500 = .045 instead of .035 [using a more complex and precise formula]. This simplified formula is called “conservative” became it yields a larger margin of error. You take less risk of being wrong when you say your survey is probably within 4.5% of the truth than if you say it is probably within 3.5%.

[1322] Textbook: Mind on Statistics (4th edition). By Jessica M. Utts and Robert F. Heckard. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2012.

Page 389:

The margin of error usually reported in the news is a conservative approximation of the margin of error. It is an approximation that works best when the true population proportion p is close to .5. An important part of this story is that when you use any proportion other than .5 in the more precise formula, the answer is smaller than what you get when you use .5. This means that the conservative approximation will always be greater than or equal to the 95% margin of error.

[1323] Paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 150: “Of 339 non-citizens identified in the 2008 survey, Catalist matched 140 to a commercial (e.g. credit card) and/or voter database.”

[1324] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the textbook: Statistics: Concepts and Controversies (6th edition). By David S. Moore and William I. Notz. W. H. Freeman and Company, 2006.

Pages 42–43:

The variability of a statistic from a random sample does not depend on the size of the population as long as the population is at least 100 times larger than the sample.

Why does the size of the population have little influence on the behavior of statistics from random samples? Imagine sampling harvested corn by thrusting a scoop into a lot of corn kernels. The scoop doesn’t know whether it is surrounded by a bag of corn or by an entire truckload. As long as the corn is well mixed (so that the scoop selects a random sample), the variability of the result depends only on the size of the scoop.

Page 44:

News reports often only mention the margin of error. Most often this margin of error is for 95% confidence. That is, if we choose many samples, the truth about the population would be within the margin of error 95% of the time. We can estimate the margin of error for 95% confidence based on a simple random sample of size n by the formula 1/√n. As this formula suggests, only the size of the sample, not the size of the population matters. This is true as long as the population is much larger than the sample.

CALCULATION: 1/√140 = 8.5%

[1325] Book: Statistics for K–8 Educators. By Robert Rosenfeld. Routledge, 2013.

Page 91:

Why 95%? Why not some other percentage? This value gives a level of confidence that has been found convenient and practical for summarizing survey results. There is nothing inherently special about it. If you are willing to change from 95% to some other level of confidence, and consequently change the chances that your poll results are off from the truth, you will therefore change the resulting margin of error. At present, 95% is just the level that is commonly used in a great variety of polls and research projects.

Page 93:

For the climate change example above we get margin of error = 1/√n = 1/√500 = .045 instead of .035 [using a more complex and precise formula]. This simplified formula is called “conservative” became it yields a larger margin of error. You take less risk of being wrong when you say your survey is probably within 4.5% of the truth than if you say it is probably within 3.5%.

[1326] Textbook: Mind on Statistics (4th edition). By Jessica M. Utts and Robert F. Heckard. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2012.

Page 389:

The margin of error usually reported in the news is a conservative approximation of the margin of error. It is an approximation that works best when the true population proportion p is close to .5. An important part of this story is that when you use any proportion other than .5 in the more precise formula, the answer is smaller than what you get when you use .5. This means that the conservative approximation will always be greater than or equal to the 95% margin of error.

[1327] Calculated with data from the footnotes above and the dataset: “2008–2016 Population by Detailed Nativity, Hispanic Origin, and Age.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed May 19, 2017 at <www.census.gov>

“2008 … Age: 18 to 80+ years … Not a Citizen … [=] 19,805,000”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 19,805,000 non-citizen adults × ((8% self-declared voting – 5% margin of error) + (8% undeclared voting – 8% margin of error)) = 594,150
  • 19,805,000 non-citizen adults × ((8% self-declared voting + 5% margin of error) + (8% undeclared voting + 8% margin of error)) = 5,743,450

[1328] Calculated with data from the paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 151: “Non-citizen voter registration is a violation of election law in almost all U.S. jurisdictions, the lone exceptions are for residents of a few localities in Maryland.”

Page 152: “All 2008 and 2010 reported votes by non-citizens were in violation of state election law as no votes were cast by non-citizen respondents from the Maryland localities which allow non-citizen voting (Table 2).”

[1329] “Guide to the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey (Data Release No. 4).” By Stephen Ansolabehere. Harvard University, July 15, 2011. <dataverse.harvard.edu>

Page 9: “The 2008 CCES [Cooperative Congressional Election Survey] survey was conducted over the Internet by YouGov/Polimetrix.”

[1330] Textbook: Mind on Statistics (4th edition). By Jessica M. Utts and Robert F. Heckard. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2012.

Pages 164–165:

Surveys that simply use those who respond voluntarily are sure to be biased in favor of those with strong opinions or with time on their hands. …

According to a poll taken among scientists and reported in the prestigious journal Science … scientists don’t have much faith in either the public or the media. … It isn’t until the end of the article that we learn who responded: “The study reported a 34% response rate among scientists, and the typical respondent was a white, male physical scientist over the age of 50 doing basic research.” … With only about a third of those contacted responding, it is inappropriate to generalize these findings and conclude that most scientists have so little faith in the public and the media.

[1331] “Guide to the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey (Data Release No. 4).” By Stephen Ansolabehere. Harvard University, July 15, 2011. <dataverse.harvard.edu>

Pages 9–11:

The sampling method uses YouGov/Polimetrix’s matched random sample methodology. …

Sample matching is a methodology for selection of “representative” samples from non-randomly selected pools of respondents. …

The purpose of matching is to find an available respondent who is as similar as possible to the selected member of the target sample. The result is a sample of respondents who have the same measured characteristics as the target sample. Under certain conditions, described below, the matched sample will have similar properties to a true random sample. That is, the matched sample mimics the characteristics of the target sample. It is, as far as we can tell, “representative” of the target population (because it is similar to the target sample).

When choosing the matched sample, it is necessary to find the closest matching respondent in the panel of opt-ins to each member of the target sample. Various types of matching could be employed: exact matching, propensity score matching, and proximity matching. Exact matching is impossible if the set of characteristics used for matching is large and, even for a small set of characteristics, requires a very large panel (to find an exact match). …

The intuition behind sample matching is analogous to stratified sampling: if respondents who are similar on a large number of characteristics tend to be similar on other items for which we lack data, then substituting one for the other should have little impact upon the sample. This intuition can be made rigorous under certain assumptions.

Assumption 1: Ignorability. Panel participation is assumed to be ignorable with respect to the variables measured by survey conditional upon the variables used for matching. What this means is that if we examined panel participants and non-participants who have exactly the same values of the matching variables, then on average there would be no difference between how these sets of respondents answered the survey. This does not imply that panel participants and non-participants are identical, but only that the differences are captured by the variables used for matching. Since the set of data used for matching is quite extensive, this is, in most cases, a plausible assumption. …

… Data on reported 2004 voter registration and turnout from the November 2004 Current Population Survey was matched to this frame using a weighted Euclidean distance metric. Data on religion, church attendance, born again or evangelical status, news interest, party identification and ideology was matched from the 2007 Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. The target sample was selected by stratification by age, race, gender, education, and by simple random sampling within strata.

[1332] “Guide to the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey (Data Release No. 4).” By Stephen Ansolabehere. Harvard University, July 15, 2011. <dataverse.harvard.edu>

Page 11: “YouGov/Polimetrix constructed a sampling frame of U.S. Citizens from the 2006 American Community Survey, including data on age, race, gender, education, marital status, number of children under 18, family income, employment status, citizenship, state, and metropolitan area.”

[1333] Paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 151:

It is impossible to tell for certain whether the non-citizens who responded to the survey were representative of the broader population of non-citizens, but some clues can be gained by examining education levels. … We confront this issue primarily by weighting the data.

Throughout the analysis (with the exception of the appendix) we report results produced from weighted data. Weight construction began with CCES [Cooperative Congressional Election Study] case weights, but then adjusted these by race to match the racial demographic of the non-citizen population. Our concern with using regular CPS [Current Population Survey] case-weights was that weights were constructed based upon overall demographic characteristics without attention to the demographic character of the non-citizen population. … Weighting produces a non-citizen sample that appears to be a better match with Census estimates of the population. For instance, 32.5 percent of the weighted sample had no high school degree.

[1334] Book: Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide (4th edition). By Louis M. Rea and Richard A. Parker. Jossey-Bass, 2014.

Page 195:

In statistical primary data gathering, where people are involved in answering questions, the response rate to the process will rarely be 100 percent. There are almost always some members of the initial sample who cannot be contacted, refuse to participate, or for some other reason fail to complete the data collection process.

Nonresponse bias is the departure of the sample statistics from their true population values owing to the absence of responses front some portion of the population that differs systematically from those portions of the population that did respond.

To the extent that responses are not received from 100 percent of the sample, questions arise about using the results from the ultimate sample to provide a reliable estimate of the true population. This concern results from the fact that if the sampled cases from which data are not received are different in some important way from those who responded, then the estimates from the sample can be potentially biased. A low cooperation or response rate can do more damage in rendering a survey’s results questionable than does a small sample, because there may be no valid way to scientifically infer the characteristics of the population represented by the nonrespondents.2

Pages 196–197:

The existence of nonresponse bias in a sample is not necessarily indicative of the need to ignore the results from a survey with a lower response rate. It is, however, to be understood as cautionary and that to maintain the potential to be reliable, samples with low response rates must undertake additional steps. Because the issue of nonresponse infiltrates almost every survey research project that is undertaken, statisticians have developed ways to adjust for this effect….

During analysis, however, researchers can follow a number of best practices to help account for nonresponse and guard against nonresponse bias. These efforts will not improve the response rate, but they may help compensate for nonresponse and increase confidence in data quality:

2. Weight the survey data if possible. Statistical adjustment, or weighting by observable variables, is one of the most common approaches used to address survey nonresponse. Weighting the data can help the researcher present results that are representative of the target population, where it can be assumed that no or little nonresponse bias exists in variables other than those being weighted. With this method, demographic, socioeconomic, and other descriptive parameters of the survey sample are weighted to account for nonrespondents.

[1335] “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2015.” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 2016. <www.federalreserve.gov>

Page 70: “Although weights allow the sample population to match the U.S. population based on observable characteristics, similar to all survey methods, it remains possible that non-coverage or non-response results in differences between the sample population and the U.S. population that are not corrected using weights.”

[1336] Paper: “The Perils of Cherry Picking Low Frequency Events in Large Sample Surveys.” By Stephen Ansolabehere, Samantha Luks, and Brian F. Schaffner. Electoral Studies, December 2015. Pages 409–410. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Suppose that 99.9 percent of the time the survey question identifies correctly whether people have a given characteristic, and 0.1 percent of the time respondents who have a given characteristic incorrectly state that they do not have that characteristic. (That is, they check the wrong box by mistake.) That means, 99.9 percent of the time the question correctly classifies an individual as having a characteristic – such as being a citizen of the United States—and 0.1 percent of the time it classifies someone as not having a characteristic, when in fact they do. …

… The non-citizen voting example highlights a potential pitfall with very large databases in the study of low frequency categories. Continuing with the example of citizenship and voting, the problem is that the citizen group is very large compared to the non-citizen group in the survey. So even if the classification is extremely reliable, a small classification error rate will cause the bigger category to influence analysis of the low frequency category is substantial ways. Misclassification of 0.1 percent of 19,500 respondents leads us to expect that 19 respondents who are citizens will be classified as non-citizens and 1 non-citizen will be classified as a citizen.

[1337] Working paper: “A Valid Analysis of a Small Subsample: The Case of Non-Citizen Registration and Voting.” By Jesse Richman, David C. Earnest, and Gulshan Chattha. <fs.wp.odu.edu>

Page 1:

This study details strategies researchers may take to make inferences in the context of this subsample-response-error problem. In the non-citizen voting case, which recently has received substantial attention, we show that attention to any of these strategies—group-specific response error estimates, correlated higher-frequency events, test-retest validity, or analysis of associated hypotheses–produces significant evidence that non-citizens participated in recent US elections.

Page 8:

More to the point, if (as Ansolabehere and coauthors claim) all or nearly all voting non-citizens are citizens who misreported their citizenship status, then responses by non-citizens who voted would be quite different from those of other non-citizens—and these responses would be much more similar to responses by citizens. The data in Table 1 are not consistent with this pattern. In no case is there a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between the immigration attitudes of non-citizens who cast a validated vote and non-citizens who did not cast such a vote. Indeed, in only one of the seven cases is even the direction of the relationship consistent with the hypothesized pattern. And the only instance with a difference on the margins of statistical significance (p=0.061) has a sign directly opposite of the one Ansolabehere, Luks, and Shaffner’s argument would imply. By contrast, across all questions non-citizens who cast a validated vote had significantly more pro-immigrant attitudes than citizens.6 The pattern of responses reported in Table 1 is inconsistent with the claim that self-reported non-citizens who cast validated votes were in fact citizens who mistakenly self-identified as non-citizens. Instead, this is the sort of pattern we would expect if these individuals were all or almost all actually the non-citizens they claimed to be.7

6 There are still several statistically significant differences if the analysis is repeated with a focus on the small group of non-citizens who both cast a validated vote and said they voted.

7 These patterns are also inconsistent with the idea that self-reported non-citizen voters are individuals who are engaged in ‘click through’ without paying close attention to response categories. Click through ought to lead to a pattern of more random responses rather than responses that are systematically polarized. Furthermore, click through should generate lower levels of reliability in the immigration attitude scale among self-reported non-citizen voters. In fact the Crohnbach’s Alpha coefficient for all self-reported non-citizens of 0.748 is virtually identical to the Alpha for non-citizen validated voters of 0.734 and the Alpha for non-citizen validated voters who also self-reported voting 0.743 and the Alpha for non-citizen self-reported voters of 0.785.

[1338] Paper: “Measuring Voter Registration and Turnout in Surveys: Do Official Government Records Yield More Accurate Assessments?” By Matthew K. Berent, Jon A. Krosnick, and Arthur Lupia. Public Opinion Quarterly, August 2, 2016. Pages 597–621. <academic.oup.com>

Pages 597–598: We find that several apparently viable methods of matching survey respondents to government records severely underestimate the proportion of Americans who were registered to vote.”

Page 617:

Conclusion

Although many scholars attribute survey overestimation of turnout to respondent lying, we have reported evidence for a different explanation in the ANES [American National Election Studies] 2008–2009 Panel Study. Actual and self-reported turnout numbers were nearly identical among respondents for whom we could match to a government record, suggesting high accuracy of the self-reports. So whereas the ANES 2008–2009 Panel Study overestimated turnout by almost 30 percentage points, only 6 percent of matched respondents had government records contradicting their claims of having voted, and some of this discrepancy could be due to errors in government records. Hence, respondent lying apparently contributed less to turnout overestimation than is commonly presumed.

Moreover, the seeming superiority of TV [turnout validation] data over self-reports appears to have been an illusion caused by two biases. A downward bias comes from failures to match survey respondents to their government records. These failures generate implausibly low registration rate estimates. An upward bias comes from survey respondents turning out to vote at a higher rate than non-respondents (and telling the truth about their behavior when answering survey questions). The apparent accuracy of “validated” estimates is due to the downward bias being large and the upward bias being smaller.

This creates a dilemma for researchers hoping to identify and employ the most accurate measure of respondents’ turnout behaviors in their empirical investigations. On the one hand, self-reports lead a few respondents who did not vote to be erroneously coded as having turned out. On the other hand, government records lead many more respondents who did vote to be wrongly coded as not having turned out. The former inflates sample registration rates, and the latter attenuates those rates. We look forward to engaging with the research community to identify rigorous, transparent, and broadly applicable solutions to an important problem in the study of voting.

[1339] Click here for facts about non-citizens’ widespread usage of false identifications and Social Security numbers.

[1340] Calculated with data from the paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 150: “Of 339 non-citizens identified in the 2008 survey, Catalist matched 140 to a commercial (e.g. credit card) and/or voter database.”

CALCULATION: 140 / 339 = 41%

[1341] Paper: “The Perils of Cherry Picking Low Frequency Events in Large Sample Surveys.” By Stephen Ansolabehere, Samantha Luks, and Brian F. Schaffner. Electoral Studies, December 2015. Pages 409–410. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 410:

In May 2011, following the 2010 election, the CCES [Cooperative Congressional Election Study] data were matched to Catalist data on voter registration and vote history. May is the date for validation as that is when most states file their registration data with vote history for the previous year’s election. In the CCES panel, 90 percent of the respondents were successfully matched to the Catalist database in 2010.

[1342] Book: American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change (2nd edition, Volumes 1–4). Edited by James Ciment and John Radzilowski. Routledge, 2015.

Article: “Census, U.S.” By Susan Wierzbicki. Pages 69–72.

Page 71:

The biggest obstacle to collecting accurate data on immigrants is the difficulty of counting them. Immigrants may be isolated and suspicious of the government; illegal immigrants may fear deportation, despite laws ensuring the confidentiality of their responses. Many speak English poorly and may be illiterate as well, so they have trouble filling out the forms.

Because the census has been distributed by mail since 1960, it depends on accurate address lists. Yet postal lists may have trouble picking up immigrants, who may be more likely to be living with other family members, in makeshift apartments, or in other hard-to-find places. Migrant farmworkers, many of them from Mexico, are particularly hard to track. While enumerators follow up nonresponses with personal visits, the immigrant population remains hard to find. …

To overcome these difficulties, the Census Bureau has formed partnerships with many organizations and churches in the immigrant community to encourage responses to the census. In 2010, the Census Bureau offered forms in roughly fifty languages.

Page 72:

Because the census determines congressional representation and how resources are allocated, it is often the subject of political contention. One issue has to do with sampling, that is, using various statistical techniques to reduce the problem of undercounting those likely to be missed by census takers. Predominant among these are the homeless and, most significant, undocumented immigrants. Since such people tend to be located in primarily Democratic regions of the country—urban areas and states such as California and New York—sampling has been denounced by Republicans, who say it is unscientific and does not meet the constitutional mandate for a decadal “enumeration.” For these reasons, sampling has not been used to determine final census numbers for the purposes of congressional representation.

[1343] Report: “A Description of the Immigrant Population: An Update.” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011. <www.cbo.gov>

Page iii:

For estimating the size of the unauthorized population, the Department of Homeland Security has assumed that the ACS’s [Census Bureau’s American Community Survey] undercount rates range from 2.5 percent for noncitizens who are legal permanent residents, refugees, or have been granted asylum to 10 percent for noncitizens without authorization to be in the United States. Those estimates suggest that the ACS and CPS [Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey] undercount the overall foreign-born population by about 5 percent.

[1344] Paper: “How Well Does the American Community Survey Count Naturalized Citizens?” By Jennifer Van Hooka and James D. Bachmeierb. Demographic Research, July 2, 2013. <www.demographic-research.org>

Page 2: “In the United States, data on naturalization and citizenship largely come from Census Bureau surveys, such as the Current Population Survey (CPS), the long form of the decennial Census (2000 and earlier), and the American Community Survey (ACS).”

Page 3:

There are good reasons to suspect that citizenship is inaccurately estimated in Census data. During the late 1990s, Passel and Clark (1997) compared the number of persons that are reported as naturalized in the 1990 Census and the 1996 Current Population Survey (CPS) with the number of naturalized citizens based on administrative data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They found the Census/CPS estimates to be much higher than the INS-based estimates for two groups. Among new arrivals (those in the U.S. fewer than five years) from all national origins, about 75% of those who were reported as naturalized were probably not. Among longer-resident Mexican and Central American immigrants, about one-third of those who were reported as naturalized were probably not.

Page 5:

To assess the current level of citizenship reporting error, we estimated the number of naturalized citizens in mid-year 2010 by age group, sex, region of origin, and duration of residence based on the number of Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) naturalization records. We then compared the OIS-based estimates with the corresponding numbers in the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) (also a mid-year estimate). The difference between the two provides an indication of over- or under-representation of naturalized citizenship in the ACS.

Page 17:

Table 2 reports the naturalization estimates by sex, region of birth, and duration of U.S. residence. For both men and women from all origin regions, the estimated number of naturalized citizens in the ACS is substantially and significantly higher than the OIS-based estimates among immigrants with fewer than five years in the U.S. For example, the number of naturalized Mexican men with fewer than five years of U.S. residence is nearly 27 times higher (2587%) in the ACS than the OIS estimates. Another way to express this is that among the 16 thousand reporting as citizens in the ACS, only about 600 (or about 4 percent) are likely to actually be naturalized citizens. Among those in the U.S. for five or more years, the OIS-ACS gap is much lower in relative terms, and concentrated among Mexican men.

Page 19:

In Table 3, OIS and ACS estimates are presented for Mexican and non-Mexican men and women by age group by varying rates of emigration. We note that the OIS estimates do not always decline as emigration increases from the “low” to the “moderate” to the “high” series because of age crossovers in various emigration estimates. Regardless of assumptions about emigration, ACS estimates are especially high relative to the OIS-based estimates among Mexican men of all age groups and Mexican women aged 40 and older. The same pattern does not hold among non-Mexicans, among whom the discrepancy remains relatively low across all age groups.

[1345] Click here for facts about non-citizens’ usage of false identifications.

[1346] Paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 152:

Because most non-citizens who said they were registered were in fact registered, and quite a few who said they were not were actually registered, the adjusted estimate is the highest of the three estimates, indicating that roughly one quarter of non-citizens were likely registered to vote (Table 1).

Table 1. Estimated voter registration by non-citizens

2008

2010

Self reported and/or verified

67 (19.8%)

76 (15.6%)

Self reported and verified

11 (3.3%)

N.A.

Adjusted estimate

84 (25.1%)

124 (25.3%)

… In 2010 thirteen non-citizens (3.5% of respondents to the post-election survey) indicated that they voted. All 2008 and 2010 reported votes by non-citizens were in violation of state election law as no votes were cast by non-citizen respondents from the Maryland localities which allow non-citizen voting (Table 2). …

Table 2. Estimated voter turnout by non-citizens.

2008

2010

Self reported and/or verified

38 (11.3%)

13 (3.5%)

Self reported and verified

5 (1.5%)

N.A.

Adjusted estimate

21 (6.4%)

8 (2.2%)

[1347] Paper: “Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?” By Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest. Electoral Studies, December 2014. Pages 149–157. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 150: “About one percent of the respondents in each survey identified themselves as non-citizen immigrants (339 in 2008, 489 in 2010).”


NOTE: The sample size for the voting question is slightly smaller than the registration question. [Email from Jesse Richman to Just Facts, December 6, 2016. “The 3.5 percent figure has a denominator somewhat smaller than the full 489 as it is only ‘3.5% of respondents to the postelection survey.’ Not all individuals responded to the post-election survey.”

[1348] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the textbook: Statistics: Concepts and Controversies (6th edition). By David S. Moore and William I. Notz. W. H. Freeman and Company, 2006.

Pages 42–43:

The variability of a statistic from a random sample does not depend on the size of the population as long as the population is at least 100 times larger than the sample.

Why does the size of the population have little influence on the behavior of statistics from random samples? Imagine sampling harvested corn by thrusting a scoop into a lot of corn kernels. The scoop doesn’t know whether it is surrounded by a bag of corn or by an entire truckload. As long as the corn is well mixed (so that the scoop selects a random sample), the variability of the result depends only on the size of the scoop.

Page 44:

News reports often only mention the margin of error. Most often this margin of error is for 95% confidence. That is, if we choose many samples, the truth about the population would be within the margin of error 95% of the time. We can estimate the margin of error for 95% confidence based on a simple random sample of size n by the formula 1/√n. As this formula suggests, only the size of the sample, not the size of the population matters. This is true as long as the population is much larger than the sample.

CALCULATION: 1/√489 = 4.5%

[1349] Book: Statistics for K–8 Educators. By Robert Rosenfeld. Routledge, 2013.

Page 91:

Why 95%? Why not some other percentage? This value gives a level of confidence that has been found convenient and practical for summarizing survey results. There is nothing inherently special about it. If you are willing to change from 95% to some other level of confidence, and consequently change the chances that your poll results are off from the truth, you will therefore change the resulting margin of error. At present, 95% is just the level that is commonly used in a great variety of polls and research projects.

Page 93:

For the climate change example above we get margin of error = 1/√n = 1/√500 = .045 instead of .035 [using a more complex and precise formula]. This simplified formula is called “conservative” became it yields a larger margin of error. You take less risk of being wrong when you say your survey is probably within 4.5% of the truth than if you say it is probably within 3.5%.

[1350] Textbook: Mind on Statistics (4th edition). By Jessica M. Utts and Robert F. Heckard. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2012.

Page 389:

The margin of error usually reported in the news is a conservative approximation of the margin of error. It is an approximation that works best when the true population proportion p is close to .5. An important part of this story is that when you use any proportion other than .5 in the more precise formula, the answer is smaller than what you get when you use .5. This means that the conservative approximation will always be greater than or equal to the 95% margin of error.

[1351] Calculated with the dataset: “2008–2016 Population by Detailed Nativity, Hispanic Origin, and Age.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed May 19, 2017 at <www.census.gov>

“2010 … Age: 18 to 80+ years … Not a Citizen … [=] 19,376,000”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 19,376,000 non-citizen adults × (16% self-declared registration – 5% margin of error) = 1,937,600
  • 19,376,000 non-citizen adults × (16% self-declared registration + 5% margin of error) = 3,875,200
  • 19,376,000 non-citizen adults × (3.5% self-declared voting – 5% margin of error) = –290,640
  • 19,376,000 non-citizen adults × (3.5% self-declared voting + 5% margin of error) = 1,646,960

[1352] Working paper: “Learning From Small Subsamples Without Cherry Picking: The Case of Non-Citizen Registration and Voting.” By Jesse Richman, David C. Earnest, and Gulshan Chattha. <fs.wp.odu.edu>

Page 7:

Table 2. Estimated Registration by Non-Citizens

(Number of individuals registered divided by sample size in parentheses.)

(1)
2012 Cross-Section

(2)

2012 Panel (test-retest non-citizens)

(3)
2014 Panel (test-retest-retest non-citizens)

Self-reported registration as a percentage of all non-citizens.

14.5%
(100/692)**

14.2%
(12/85)**

13.0%
(3/23)**

Validated registration as a percentage of Catalist matched respondents.

22.0%
(65/295)*

10.6%
(5/47)**

6.3%
(1/16)**

** Binomial probability that this result could have been generated entirely by citizen response error <0.000001.

* Binomial probability result generated entirely by citizen response error <0.05.

Page 12:

Table 5. Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens in 2012 CCES [Cooperative Congressional Election Study] Cross-Section (Number of voters/total in sample in parentheses.)

Self-reported voting as a percentage of all non-citizens.

8.8%
(61/692)**

Validated voting as a percentage of Catalist matched respondents.

[10.8% †]
(32/295)*

NOTE: † The paper states that this figure is 12.2%, but 32/295 = 10.8%, and the lead author of the paper acknowledged to Just Facts that “this is an error,” and “it should read 10.8%.” [Email from Jesse Richman to Just Facts, December 6, 2016.]

[1353] Working paper: “Learning From Small Subsamples Without Cherry Picking: The Case of Non-Citizen Registration and Voting.” By Jesse Richman, David C. Earnest, and Gulshan Chattha. <fs.wp.odu.edu>

Page 7: “Table 2. Estimated Registration by Non-Citizens (Number of individuals registered divided by sample size in parentheses.) … 2012 Cross-Section … all non-citizens [=] 692”

[1354] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the textbook: Statistics: Concepts and Controversies (6th edition). By David S. Moore and William I. Notz. W. H. Freeman and Company, 2006.

Pages 42–43:

The variability of a statistic from a random sample does not depend on the size of the population as long as the population is at least 100 times larger than the sample.

Why does the size of the population have little influence on the behavior of statistics from random samples? Imagine sampling harvested corn by thrusting a scoop into a lot of corn kernels. The scoop doesn’t know whether it is surrounded by a bag of corn or by an entire truckload. As long as the corn is well mixed (so that the scoop selects a random sample), the variability of the result depends only on the size of the scoop.

Page 44:

News reports often only mention the margin of error. Most often this margin of error is for 95% confidence. That is, if we choose many samples, the truth about the population would be within the margin of error 95% of the time. We can estimate the margin of error for 95% confidence based on a simple random sample of size n by the formula 1/√n. As this formula suggests, only the size of the sample, not the size of the population matters. This is true as long as the population is much larger than the sample.

CALCULATION: 1/√692 = 3.8%

[1355] Book: Statistics for K–8 Educators. By Robert Rosenfeld. Routledge, 2013.

Page 91:

Why 95%? Why not some other percentage? This value gives a level of confidence that has been found convenient and practical for summarizing survey results. There is nothing inherently special about it. If you are willing to change from 95% to some other level of confidence, and consequently change the chances that your poll results are off from the truth, you will therefore change the resulting margin of error. At present, 95% is just the level that is commonly used in a great variety of polls and research projects.

Page 93:

For the climate change example above we get margin of error = 1/√n = 1/√500 = .045 instead of .035 [using a more complex and precise formula]. This simplified formula is called “conservative” became it yields a larger margin of error. You take less risk of being wrong when you say your survey is probably within 4.5% of the truth than if you say it is probably within 3.5%.

[1356] Textbook: Mind on Statistics (4th edition). By Jessica M. Utts and Robert F. Heckard. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2012.

Page 389:

The margin of error usually reported in the news is a conservative approximation of the margin of error. It is an approximation that works best when the true population proportion p is close to .5. An important part of this story is that when you use any proportion other than .5 in the more precise formula, the answer is smaller than what you get when you use .5. This means that the conservative approximation will always be greater than or equal to the 95% margin of error.

[1357] Working paper: “Learning from Small Subsamples without Cherry Picking: The Case of Non-Citizen Registration and Voting.” By Jesse Richman, David C. Earnest, and Gulshan Chattha. <fs.wp.odu.edu>

Page 12: “Table 5. Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens in 2012 CCES Cross-Section (Number of voters/total in sample in parentheses.) … Catalist matched respondents [=] 295”

[1358] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the textbook: Statistics: Concepts and Controversies (6th edition). By David S. Moore and William I. Notz. W. H. Freeman and Company, 2006.

Pages 42–43:

The variability of a statistic from a random sample does not depend on the size of the population as long as the population is at least 100 times larger than the sample.

Why does the size of the population have little influence on the behavior of statistics from random samples? Imagine sampling harvested corn by thrusting a scoop into a lot of corn kernels. The scoop doesn’t know whether it is surrounded by a bag of corn or by an entire truckload. As long as the corn is well mixed (so that the scoop selects a random sample), the variability of the result depends only on the size of the scoop.

Page 44:

News reports often only mention the margin of error. Most often this margin of error is for 95% confidence. That is, if we choose many samples, the truth about the population would be within the margin of error 95% of the time. We can estimate the margin of error for 95% confidence based on a simple random sample of size n by the formula 1/√n. As this formula suggests, only the size of the sample, not the size of the population matters. This is true as long as the population is much larger than the sample.

CALCULATION: 1/√295 = 5.8%

[1359] Book: Statistics for K–8 Educators. By Robert Rosenfeld. Routledge, 2013.

Page 91:

Why 95%? Why not some other percentage? This value gives a level of confidence that has been found convenient and practical for summarizing survey results. There is nothing inherently special about it. If you are willing to change from 95% to some other level of confidence, and consequently change the chances that your poll results are off from the truth, you will therefore change the resulting margin of error. At present, 95% is just the level that is commonly used in a great variety of polls and research projects.

Page 93:

For the climate change example above we get margin of error = 1/√n = 1/√500 = .045 instead of .035 [using a more complex and precise formula]. This simplified formula is called “conservative” became it yields a larger margin of error. You take less risk of being wrong when you say your survey is probably within 4.5% of the truth than if you say it is probably within 3.5%.

[1360] Textbook: Mind on Statistics (4th edition). By Jessica M. Utts and Robert F. Heckard. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2012.

Page 389:

The margin of error usually reported in the news is a conservative approximation of the margin of error. It is an approximation that works best when the true population proportion p is close to .5. An important part of this story is that when you use any proportion other than .5 in the more precise formula, the answer is smaller than what you get when you use .5. This means that the conservative approximation will always be greater than or equal to the 95% margin of error.

[1361] Calculated with the dataset: “2008–2016 Population by Detailed Nativity, Hispanic Origin, and Age.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed May 19, 2017 at <www.census.gov>

“2012 … Age: 18 to 80+ years … Not a Citizen … [=] 20,057,000”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 20,057,000 non-citizen adults × (14% self-declared registration – 4% margin of error) = 2,005,700
  • 20,057,000 non-citizen adults × (14% self-declared registration + 4% margin of error) = 3,610,260
  • 20,057,000 non-citizen adults × (9% self-declared voting – 4% margin of error) = 1,002,850
  • 20,057,000 non-citizen adults × (9% self-declared voting + 4% margin of error) = 2,607,410

[1362] Calculated with the dataset: “2008–2016 Population by Detailed Nativity, Hispanic Origin, and Age.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed May 19, 2017 at <www.census.gov>

“2012 … Age: 18 to 80+ years … Not a Citizen … [=] 20,057,000”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 20,057,000 non-citizen adults × (22% undeclared registration – 6%) = 3,209,120
  • 20,057,000 non-citizen adults × (22% undeclared registration + 6%) = 5,615,960
  • 20,057,000 non-citizen adults × (12% undeclared voting – 6%) = 1,203,420
  • 20,057,000 non-citizen adults × (12% undeclared voting + 6%) = 3,610,260

Just Facts | 3600 FM 1488 Rd. | Suite 120 #248 | Conroe, TX 77384 | Contact Us | Careers

Copyright © Just Facts. All rights reserved.
Just Facts is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization.
Information provided by Just Facts is not legal, tax, or investment advice.
justfacts.com | justfactsdaily.com