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 2022, U.S. Border Patrol detected 1.9 million got aways at the Southwest Border, or an average of 208,000 per year. In 2022, U.S. Border Patrol detected 599,000 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]

* A comprehensive analysis of federal taxes by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the average effective federal tax burdens increase with income as follows:

Average Effective Federal Tax Rates by Income of Household

[842] [843] [844]

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.”[845] This allows workers and employers to avoid paying income taxes and social insurance taxes.[846] [847] [848] [849] [850]

* 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.[851] [852]

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.[853] This disparity between taxes and benefits is because:

  • federal law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security benefits, although some receive them through fraud.[854]
  • 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).[855] [856] [857] This relative scarcity of older illegal immigrants is because:
    • the 1986 amnesty transformed most illegal immigrants from that era into legal immigrants.[858]
    • 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).[859]

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.[860] [861] 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.[862] [863]
  • the entire group paid a total of $0.9 billion in income taxes and received total cash payments of $4.9 billion.[864]

* 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.[865]

* 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%

[866]

* 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%

[867]

* The last four nations listed above are the homelands of roughly 73% of the illegal immigrants living in the U.S. in 2012.[868]

* 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.[869]

* 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.[870] [871]
  • 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.[872] [873] [874] [875]
  • Federally funded programs provide job training, adult education, clinic-based healthcare, emergency rent assistance, and emergency food assistance to immigrants.[876]
  • States cannot deny a free public education to anyone based on their immigration status.[877]
  • Everyone who is eligible for free public education is also eligible for the national school lunch and school breakfast programs.[878]
  • Immigrants can enroll their children in federally funded childcare and preschool programs.[879] [880]
  • The federal government grants automatic citizenship to all children born in the United States, whether their parents are illegal immigrants, visitors, or tourists.[881] [882] 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.[883] [884] [885] [886] [887] [888] [889]

* Due to birthright citizenship, about 88% of the children of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.[890]

* 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.[891] [892] [893] [894] [895]

* 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)[896] [897]

* 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.[898] [899]

* Refugees and asylees are generally eligible for all federal welfare programs and for other programs specifically for refugees and asylees.[900] [901]

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%

[902]

* In 2019, 1.1 million or 3% of all food stamps recipients were non-citizens.[903]

* In 2019, 2.5 million or 7% of all food stamps recipients were U.S. citizen children who were living with non-citizens.[904]

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.[905] [906] [907]

* Social Security’s formula for old-age benefits is structured to provide people with lower incomes higher ratios of annual benefits to taxes.[908] 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

[909]

* Longer lifespans increase the financial strains on the Social Security program.[910] Workers who are currently 40 years old will receive full Social Security retirement benefits when they turn 67 years old.[911] 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

[912] [913]

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.[914]
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.[915]

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.”[916]

* In 2022, ICE employed more than 20,000 people and spent about $8 billion, or about 0.1% of total federal spending.[917] [918]

* 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.[919] [920]

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.[925] [926] [927]
  • federal, state, and local governments differ in how they define and record the immigration status of people who pass through the criminal justice system.[928]
  • illegal immigrant crime victims may not report crimes committed against them due to fear of deportation.[929]
  • millions of immigrants use fraudulent Social Security numbers, fake birth certificates, or other forms of identity fraud to mask their immigration status.[930] [931] [932]
  • 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.[933]
  • 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.[934] In the United States:

  • one person is arrested for every 2.6 aggravated assaults that are committed.[935] [936] [937] [938]
  • 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.[939] [940] [941]
  • murders committed by racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to be solved than other murders.[942]

* 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.[943] [944] This is 14 times the number of non-citizens in U.S. adult correctional facilities at the end of this period (108,008).[945] [946]
  • convicts released from state prisons have an average of about 4.4 prior convictions in addition to those that led to their imprisonment.[947] [948]
  • 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.[949] [950] [951]

* 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.”[952]

* In 2018, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a study of non-citizens in U.S. prisons and jails during 2010–2016.[953] 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.”[954]

* 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.[955]

* 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.[956] [957]

* 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.[958] [959]

* 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%

[960] [961]


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.[962] [963]

* 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.”[964]

* 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.”[965] [966] The Attorney General is under the authority of the president.[967]


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.”[968] PolitiFact, a group with a mission to “help you find the truth in politics,”[969] reported that this statement is “mostly true.”[970]

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.[971] [972]

* 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.[973] [974] [975] [976] [977]

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

[978]

* 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.[979]

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.[980] [981]

* The Census does specify citizenship status,[982] and all immigrants who have become U.S. citizens are, by definition, legally present in the United States.[983] 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.[984] [985]

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.”[986] Just Facts repeatedly requested data to verify this claim from the American Immigration Council, and they did not provide it.[987]

* 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.”[988]

* 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.[989] [990] [991] [992]

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.[993] [994]

* 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.[995]
    • In 2009, 65% of male prison inmates did not have a high school diploma, as compared to 19% of adults in the general population.[996]
  • 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.[997] [998] This was 10 times the number of non-citizens in U.S. adult correctional facilities at the end of this period (151,324).[999] [1000]
    • 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.[1001] [1002] [1003]
  • age:
    • In 2016, people aged 17–34 comprised 24% of the U.S. population and committed about 67% of the murders.[1004] [1005]
    • In 2016, non-citizens comprised about 7.2% of the U.S. population and about 10.2% of the population aged 17–34.[1006] [1007]

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.[1008] [1009]

* 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.[1010]

* 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.”[1011] [1012] 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.[1013]
  • 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.[1014] [1015] [1016] [1017] [1018]

Statistical Strategies

* Bersani’s paper does not provide a straightforward accounting of crimes committed by Mexican immigrants.[1019] [1020] 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….”[1021]

* 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.[1022]

* In 2018, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a study of non-citizens in U.S. prisons and jails during 2010–2016.[1023] 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.[1024]

* 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.[1025]

* 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%

[1026] [1027]

* 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.”[1028]
  • “Manipulation of data involves subjecting data to multiple statistical techniques until one achieves the desired outcome.”[1029]
  • “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.”[1030] [1031]
  • 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….”[1032]

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[1033]
  • “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[1034]
  • 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[1035]

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.[1036] [1037]

* 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.[1038] [1039]

* 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.[1040] [1041]

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.[1042] [1043] [1044] [1045] [1046]
  • “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.”[1047] [1048]

* The Republicans didn’t adopt a new platform in 2020.[1049]

* 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.[1050]

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.[1051] The Attorney General is under the authority of the president,[1052] 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.[1053] [1054]

* 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.[1055] 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.[1056]

* 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.[1057]

* 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.[1058] [1059]

* In 2014, the Obama administration “released from its custody 30,558 criminal aliens with a total of 79,059 convictions instead of deporting them.”[1060] [1061]

* 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.[1062] [1063] [1064]

* 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.”[1065] [1066]

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.”[1067] [1068] [1069]

* Obama’s policy officially became effective on January 5, 2015 with “training and guidance … provided to the workforce prior to the effective date.”[1070]

* In the federal government’s 2015 and 2016 fiscal years (October 2014 through September 2016[1071]), ICE removed 21% fewer convicted criminals per year than in its 2014 fiscal year:

Convicted Criminal Immigrants Removed From the United States

[1072]

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.[1073] [1074]

* 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

[1075]

* From 2012 to 2015, the Obama administration deported less than half of the people that ICE took into custody under immigration detainers.[1076]

* 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.”[1077] 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.[1078]

* 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.”[1079]

* 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.[1080]


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.[1081] [1082]

* 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.[1083] [1084] [1085] [1086] [1087] [1088]
  • 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.[1089] [1090] [1091]
  • 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.[1092] [1093] [1094] [1095] [1096]
  • Sanctuary jurisdictions often flout these detainers and release the illegal immigrants before ICE can detain them.[1097] [1098]

* 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.[1099] [1100]
  • 19,162 detainers from October 2014 to September 2017.[1101]

* 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.[1102]

* 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.[1103]

* 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.”[1104] [1105] [1106] [1107]
  • 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.[1108] [1109] [1110] [1111] [1112]
  • 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.[1113] [1114]
  • 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.[1115] [1116] [1117]
  • Ever Valles fatally shot 32-year-old Tim Cruz during a robbery. Valles was a known gang member.[1118] [1119]
  • 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.[1120] [1121]
  • Kendel Anthony Felix kidnapped and murdered New York real estate developer Menachem Stark. Felix was previously arrested and released on six occasions.[1122] [1123] [1124]

* 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.”[1125] [1126] [1127] [1128] [1129]
  • 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.[1130] [1131] [1132]
  • 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.[1133] [1134] [1135]
  • Luis Rodrigo Perez allegedly 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.[1136] [1137] [1138] [1139]

* 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.[1140]

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.”[1141]

* In May 2019:

  • U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D–NV) sponsored a bill to rescind Trump’s executive order.[1142] During that congressional session:
    • 23 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 0 Republicans cosponsored this bill.[1143]
    • the full Senate never voted on it.[1144]
  • U.S. Congressman Tom McClintock (R–CA) sponsored a bill that would limit federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions.[1145] U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R–PA) sponsored the same bill in the Senate.[1146] During that congressional session:
    • 60 Republicans and 0 Democrats cosponsored these bills.[1147]
    • neither the full House nor full Senate voted on them.[1148] [1149]

* 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.[1150]

Joseph Biden

* On his first day in office in January 2021,[1151] Democratic President Joseph Biden issued an executive order that rescinded Trump’s order.[1152]


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.[1153] [1154]

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

  • 108,886 people were killed by drug overdoses.[1155]
  • 99,086 people were killed by accidental drug overdoses.[1156]
  • 91,246 people were killed by illicit drug overdoses.[1157]
  • 83,034 people were killed by accidental overdoses from illicit drugs.[1158]

* Mexico is the primary source of fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine in the United States.[1159] [1160] [1161]

* The chemicals used to manufacture fentanyl in Mexico mainly come from China.[1162] [1163]

* 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

[1164]

* 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.[1165]

* 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

[1166]

* 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

[1167]


Identity, Document & Tax Fraud

* Federal law generally prohibits illegal immigrants from earning income in the United States.[1168] [1169]

* According to the Social Security Administration, roughly 7.0 million or 65% of illegal immigrants worked for income during 2010.[1170]

* According to Pew Research, roughly 8.1 million or 72% of illegal immigrants worked for income or looked for such work during 2012.[1171]

* 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.”[1172] [1173]

* 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.”[1174]

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.[1175] [1176]

* 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.[1177]

* 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.[1178] [1179] [1180] [1181] The resulting bill was approved by 58% of the House and 72% of the Senate, and Republican President Ronald Reagan signed it into law.[1182] [1183] 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.[1184] [1185] [1186]
  • made verification of immigration status a “lasting requirement for all new hires.”[1187] [1188] [1189]
  • “was meant as a one-time resolution of a longstanding problem.”[1190]

* 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.”[1191]

* 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.[1192]

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.”[1193]

* 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.”[1194]

* In 2017, the IRS identified about 556,000 taxpayers who were victims of employment-related identity theft.[1195]

* In 2020, a U.S. Treasury review of tax returns identified 883,000 victims of employment-related identity theft.[1196]

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.[1197]

* 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.[1198]

* 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.[1199] [1200]

* 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%.[1201]

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.[1202] [1203] [1204] Per the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration, “the risk of fraud for these types of claims is significant.”[1205]

* 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.[1206]

* 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.[1207] [1208]

* 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.”[1209]

* 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.”[1210]

* 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).[1211] 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).[1212]
  • The IRS had mailed 23,994 ITIN refunds totaling $46,378,040 to a single address in Atlanta, Georgia (more examples in footnote).[1213]
  • The IRS had deposited 2,706 ITIN refunds totaling $7,319,518 into a single bank account (more examples in footnote).[1214]
  • In 2010, the IRS eliminated a process used to detect fraud in ITIN applications.[1215]
  • “The environment created by [IRS] management discourages tax examiners from identifying questionable ITIN applications.”[1216]

* 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.”[1217]

* 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.[1218] [1219] The bill passed the House of Representatives with 90% of Republicans voting for it and 96% of Democrats voting against it.[1220] The Senate never voted on it.[1221]
  • In 2013, Republican Congressman Sam Johnson sponsored a bill that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1222] [1223] The bill was cosponsored by 67 Republicans and no Democrats. It was never voted upon.[1224] [1225]
  • In 2015, Republican Congressman Larry Bucshon sponsored a bill that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1226] [1227] The bill was cosponsored by four Republicans and no Democrats.[1228] The House never voted on it.[1229]
  • In 2017, Republican Congressman Gus Bilirakis sponsored a bill that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1230] [1231] The bill was cosponsored by two Republicans and no Democrats.[1232] The House never voted on it.[1233]
  • In 2019, Republican Congressman Bill Posey sponsored a bill that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1234] [1235] The bill was cosponsored by ten Republicans and no Democrats.[1236] The House never voted on it.[1237]
  • In 2020, Republican Senator Rand Paul proposed an amendment that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1238] [1239] [1240] The amendment failed to pass the Senate with 91% of Republicans, 100% of Democrats, and 100% of Independents voting against it.[1241]
  • In 2021, Republican Congressman Bill Posey sponsored a bill that would restrict illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1242] [1243] As of October 2022, the House has not voted on it.[1244]

* 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.[1245] Due to birthright citizenship, about 88% of the children of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.[1246]

* President Trump’s 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 budget proposals called for restricting illegal immigrants from obtaining refundable child tax credits.[1247] [1248] [1249] [1250]

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.[1251] [1252]

* 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.[1253]

* 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.[1254]

* Based on estimates from Pew Research:

  • 76% of unauthorized immigrants in 2009 were Latinos.[1255]
  • 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.[1256]
  • 71% of Latinos voted for Barack Obama in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, as compared to 27% for Mitt Romney.[1257]

* Eliseo Medina, a former executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, led “the union’s efforts to achieve comprehensive immigration reform….”[1258] 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.”[1259]

* Illegal immigrants typically live in areas of the U.S. where Democrats have greater political power.[1260]

* 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.”[1261]

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.[1262] [1263]

* 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.[1264]
  • illegal voting include a fine and up to one year in prison.[1265]

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.[1266] [1267]

* 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.[1268]

* 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.”[1269]

* Voter registration requirements vary by state, but they generally require some form of identification.[1270] [1271]

* 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.[1272] [1273]

* 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.[1274]

* 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.”[1275]

* 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.[1276] In 2020, a federal appeals court panel upheld a permanent injunction against such laws.[1277]

* In 2020, the state of Kansas petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the federal appeals court decision.[1278] The petition was denied.[1279]

* 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.”[1280]


2013 McLaughlin Survey

* In 2013, McLaughlin & Associates conducted a scientific bilingual poll of 800 Hispanic adults living in the U.S.[1281] [1282] [1283] [1284] In this survey, 13% of self-declared non-citizens stated they were registered to vote.[1285] Based on:

  • the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1286] the margin of sampling error is ± 6 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1287] [1288] [1289]
  • 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.[1290]

* 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.[1291] [1292] [1293] [1294]
  • 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.[1295] [1296]
  • Certain groups of immigrants often misrepresent themselves as citizens in Census surveys.[1297]

* 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.[1298] 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.[1299] 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.[1300]

* Based on:

  • the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1301] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared voter registration is ± 5 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1302] [1303] [1304]
  • the number of non-citizens in this poll who were in the database,[1305] the margin of sampling error for their undeclared voter registration is ± 8 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1306] [1307] [1308]
  • these study results and Census Bureau population estimates, 2.8 million to 7.9 million non-citizens were registered to vote in 2008.[1309]

* 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.[1310]

* Based on:

  • the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1311] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared voting is ± 5 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1312] [1313] [1314]
  • the number of non-citizens in this poll who were in the database,[1315] the margin of sampling error for their undeclared voting is ± 8 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1316] [1317] [1318]
  • these study results and Census Bureau population estimates, 594,000 to 5.7 million non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 election.[1319] [1320]

* 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,[1321] which are generally unreliable because they do not collect a random sample of respondents.[1322] 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.[1323]
  • The Harvard study matched the YouGov polling data to the characteristics of U.S. citizens,[1324] 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.[1325] [1326] [1327]

* 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.[1328] However, other data from this study suggests that such errors did not materially affect the results of this survey.[1329]
  • 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.”[1330]
    • non-citizens commonly use false identifications and Social Security numbers,[1331] 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.[1332] [1333]
  • 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.[1334] [1335]
  • Certain groups of immigrants often misrepresent themselves as citizens in Census surveys.[1336]
  • This survey does not account for any non-citizens who denied being registered/voting and did so using a false identity.[1337]

* 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.[1338]

* Based on:

  • the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1339] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared registration and voting is about ± 5 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1340] [1341] [1342]
  • 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.[1343]

* 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.[1344]

* Based on:

  • the number of non-citizens in this poll,[1345] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared registration and voting is about ± 4 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1346] [1347] [1348]
  • the number of non-citizens in this poll who were in the database,[1349] the margin of sampling error for their self-declared registration and voting is about ± 6 percentage points with at least 95% confidence.[1350] [1351] [1352]
  • 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.[1353]
  • 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.[1354]

* 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

[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.

[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.

[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;