---

This Ballotpedia article is in need of updates. Please email us if you would like to suggest a revision. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

---

Immigration in the U.S.
DACA and DAPA
Admission of refugees
Birthright citizenship

Immigration policy determines who may become a new citizen of the United States or enter the country as a temporary worker, student, refugee, or permanent resident. Immigration can impact a variety of public policy areas, including national security, criminal justice, budgets, education, healthcare, and elections. The federal government is responsible for setting and enforcing most immigration policy. Meanwhile, states assume a largely supportive role, enacting their own supplementary laws and setting policies that may, for example, determine which public services immigrants can access, establish employee screening requirements, or guide the interaction between related state agencies and their federal counterparts. Some jurisdictions, including some states, cities, and counties, have adopted policies of not cooperating with federal immigration enforcement; these jurisdictions have become known as "sanctuary jurisdictions."

Major issues[edit]

ON THIS TAB: Refugees Sanctuary jurisdictions Border fencing Public services E-Verify Crime Fiscal impact

Immigration in the United States

Overview

Total population: 314,107,084

Percent foreign-born: 13.1%

Median income: $53,482

Unemployment rate: 5.8%

Issues driver's licenses to residents residing in the country without legal permission? 12 states

In-state tuition for residents residing in the country without legal permission? 20 states

Office of Foreign Labor Certification U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Refugees[edit]

See also: Admission of refugees

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 65.3 million people worldwide were displaced or fled their homes during 2015, primarily due to war and persecution. This was the highest number of displaced people and refugees that the organization had recorded in its history. An October 2015 article in The New York Times labeled the situation a mass migration crisis, which led to calls for the United States and Europe to help the refugees find homes in more stable societies. This prompted debate about whether states can reject resettlement of refugees once the federal government agrees to allow the refugees to come to the United States.^[2][3]

The Refugee Act of 1980 authorized the president to admit refugees who face "persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion," especially if it involves an "unforeseen emergency refugee situation." Federal authority over immigration law was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2012 decision, Arizona v. United States.^[4][5]

The state officials responsible for refugee resettlement may attempt to slow the process or make their state unattractive for refugees. According to Kathleen Newland, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, "States do have a role in the refugee resettlement process post admission, and it would certainly be possible for them to obstruct the resettlement process." Jack Chin, a professor at the University of California Davis School of Law, agrees:^[6]

“	My suspicion is that if a state was firmly opposed to having Syrian refugees in their borders then as an initial matter, the government might choose to put them somewhere else.[7]	”
—Prof. Jack Chin, UC Davis School of Law[8]

Syrian refugees[edit]

See also: U.S. governors and their responses to Syrian refugees

Between 2011, when armed conflict in the Syrian civil war began, and 2016, the United Nations estimated that more than 12 million people (including more than 5 million children) within the country were displaced. At least four million of those individuals left Syria to seek refuge in the Middle East and Europe. Prior to September 2015, fewer than 2,000 Syrians had been accepted for resettlement in the United States since 2011. In September 2015, the Obama administration offered to take in as many as 10,000 Syrian refugees over the following year. In November 2015, governors in 31 states released statements opposing refugee resettlement in their states. Governors in 15 other states released statements of support for refugee resettlement.^{[2][9][10][11]}

Sanctuary jurisdictions[edit]

While certain cities, counties, and states carry the label of sanctuary jurisdiction, its definition and which factors prompt the designation are disputed:

“	A number of states and municipalities have adopted formal or informal policies which prohibit or substantially restrict police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Entities that have adopted such policies are sometimes referred to as "sanctuary" jurisdictions, though there is not necessarily a consensus as to the meaning of this term.[7]	”
—Congressional Research Service[12]

According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a self-described low-immigration, pro-immigrant 501(c)(3) nonprofit advocacy group, as of September 2015, around 300 jurisdictions had been identified by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as having sanctuary policies. Examples of such policies include restricting local law enforcement from arresting individuals who violate federal immigration law, limiting the information that can be shared with federal immigration authorities, or prohibiting law enforcement inquiries into a person's immigration status.^[12][13][14]

The effect of sanctuary policies on communities is debated. CIS has called sanctuary jurisdictions "a significant public safety problem throughout the country." On the other hand, Michael Pearson, writing for CNN.com in July 2016, argued in favor of sanctuary jurisdictions, contending that they encourage "members of immigrant communities to work with police without fear of deportation." Pearson also claimed that "such policies help authorities improve public safety by helping authorities identify and arrest dangerous criminals who might otherwise go undetected."^[14][15]

Border fencing[edit]

The partial fence that exists as a physical barrier along the border between the United States and Mexico, which Donald Trump (R) argued should be a high wall during his 2016 presidential campaign, is a contentious policy question. Supporters of border fencing argue that it helps deter those who seek to enter the United States unlawfully, including terrorists, drug smugglers, and those engaged in human trafficking. Those opposed to the fence question its efficacy as a deterrent, arguing that individuals may still cross over the fence, cut through, or cross in a different location.^[16]

Public services[edit]

The extent to which non-citizen immigrants ought to be able to access public services, including healthcare programs, in-state tuition at state universities, and driver's licenses, is debated. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) argues that due to lower levels of education, both naturalized and non-citizen immigrants cost more in public services than they pay in taxes, "creating a net fiscal deficit" on federal, state, and local government budgets. On the other hand, the Cato Institute argues that, partially due to eligibility barriers, both naturalized and non-citizen immigrants use fewer public services than native residents; when immigrants do use services, Cato found, it is at a lower average cost than native residents.^[17][18]

According to the Medicaid website, 32 states allowed lawfully residing immigrant children or pregnant women to enroll in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as of October 2016. While those services are unavailable to individuals residing in the country without legal permission, many receive care at emergency rooms and federally qualified health centers that receive government funding and do not check citizenship status.^[19][20][21]

As of October 2016, 20 states offered in-state tuition to individuals residing in the country without legal permission. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, these states "typically require attendance and graduation at state high schools, acceptance at a state college or university, and promising to apply for legal status as soon as eligible." Six states explicitly barred non-citizens or individuals residing in the country without legal permission from accessing in-state tuition, and the remainder of states had no official policy on the matter.^[22]

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of July 2015, "twelve states and the District of Columbia [had] enacted laws to allow unauthorized immigrants to obtain driver's licenses." Some, like The Boston Globe editorial board and Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (D), have argued that allowing these individuals to obtain driver's licenses enhances public safety by making sure that they know the rules of the road and are driving insured vehicles. Others, like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) and CIS, have argued that the practice legitimizes illegal immigration and jeopardizes public safety and national security by providing individuals residing in the country without legal permission with "the single most important piece of homeland security information." Beyond allowing one to drive legally in a state, a driver's license serves as a primary form of identification and can facilitate business transactions (e.g., opening bank accounts) for individuals residing in the country without legal permission.^[23][24]

E-Verify[edit]

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) oversees the E-Verify program for the United States. According to the USCIS website, "E-Verify is an Internet-based system that compares information from an employee's Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records to confirm employment eligibility." The internet-based system is designed to determine quickly whether new workers are eligible to work in the United States.^[25]

Some have criticized the E-Verify system as a breach of privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a white paper arguing that E-Verify created "a whole new level of intrusive government oversight of daily life" that would "hurt ordinary people." Moreover, according to the ACLU, the system "could mean undue obstacles to employment for hundreds of thousands of citizens" and "the scope of private information housed in the system will create enormous privacy and security risks." On the other side, NumbersUSA, a self-described immigration-reduction organization, wrote in favor of E-Verify that the system protects employers from liability for employing individuals residing in the country without legal permission and that requiring all businesses to use the system would "create a level playing field" and reduce competition workers face from those from other countries.^[26][27][28]

Crime[edit]

Whether non-citizens affect the crime rate of a state has been studied, but the findings have been inconclusive so far. According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), "there is very little conclusive data to inform the well-entrenched views on both sides of the debate" over whether immigrants commit more or less crime than native-born citizens. A CIS report published in 2009 "reviewed the major academic and government reports on the topic and found that these studies lead to contrary conclusions about immigration and crime." Some show that immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born citizens and others show the reverse. More data and more sophisticated methodology might shed more light on the subject in coming years.^[29]

Fiscal impact[edit]

Government budgets[edit]

In 2013, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a nonprofit whose stated aim is to "reduce overall immigration," published a report examining the fiscal impact of illegal immigration on federal, state, and local budgets. According to the FAIR report, the federal government spent $29 billion providing various services for individuals residing in the country without legal permission in 2010, while state and local governments spent $84 billion. The services included in the analysis ranged from K-12 education to university education, criminal justice services, and Medicaid. The FAIR report concluded that the tax receipts collected from individuals residing in the country without legal permission did not reach the level of state expenditures.^[30][31]

Conversely, the Cato Institute published a working paper discussing the fiscal impact of immigration in 2014. The paper concluded that it is "difficult to predict the impact of immigration on government budgets currently or in the future." However, based on its research, the Cato Institute found "a very small net fiscal impact clustered around zero." The paper suggested that while the fiscal impact of immigration could be negative, the overall economic benefits are unambiguous and large.^[32][33]

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, research organization that focuses on tax policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels. ITEP published a report in February 2016 describing the tax situation of individuals residing in the country without legal permission across the United States. The report stated that "undocumented immigrants living in the United States pay billions of dollars each year in state and local taxes" and that "these tax contributions would increase significantly if all undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States were granted a pathway to citizenship."^[34][35]

Economy[edit]

The impact immigration has on the national and state economies is also debated by policy analysts and scholars. Some, like Shikha Dalmia of the Reason Foundation, argue that "open immigration would be a huge economic boon for immigrants in relatively less well-off countries" and "open borders would double world GDP [gross domestic product] in a few decades, virtually eliminating global poverty." Others, like George Borjas of Harvard University, say that immigration has a mixed impact on the American economy. Borjas states that "the influx of immigrants can potentially be a net good for the nation, increasing the total wealth of the population," but that "not everyone benefits when immigrants arrive" and immigrants "receive government assistance at higher rates than the native-born."^[36][37]

Demographics[edit]

ON THIS TAB: Number of immigrants Race and ethnicity Age and sex

See also: State demographics by citizenship status

Number of immigrants[edit]

In 2014, the population of the United States amounted to over 314.1 million individuals. Native-born citizens comprised nearly 87 percent of the population, while 6 percent of residents were naturalized citizens. Approximately 7.1 percent were non-citizens. For added context, these figures are compared with those in California and West Virginia, the states with the highest and lowest percentages of foreign-born individuals, respectively.^[38]

Hover over the bars to view the data points. Click [show] on the teal bar below to view the corresponding table.

Citizenship status of residents, 2014
State	Total population	Native	Naturalized	Non-citizen
United States	314,107,084	273,050,199	18,800,048	22,256,837
	100.0%	86.9%	6.0%	7.1%
California	38,066,920	27,776,284	4,911,899	5,378,737
	100.0%	73.0%	12.9%	14.1%
West Virginia	1,853,881	1,826,341	12,969	14,571
	100.0%	98.5%	0.7%	0.8%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations"

Race and ethnicity[edit]

The United States Census Bureau treats Hispanic ethnicity and racial identity as distinct categories that can overlap. Its definition of Hispanic ethnicity comes from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, which "defines 'Hispanic or Latino' as a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race." Meanwhile, "[a]n individual's response to the race question is based upon self-identification," according to the United States Census Bureau.^[39][40]

In 2014, about 73.8 percent of residents in the United States were white and nearly 17 percent identified as being of Hispanic descent. Among non-citizens, 49.8 percent were white and 58.1 percent identified as being of Hispanic descent. Just over 32 percent of naturalized citizens and 19.8 percent of non-citizens identified as Asian.^[38]

Race and ethnicity of United States residents, 2014
Category	White	Hispanic or Latino (of any race)	Black or African American	American Indian and Alaska Native	Asian	Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander	Other
Total	73.8%	16.9%	12.6%	0.8%	5.0%	0.2%	4.7%
Native	77.7%	12.5%	13.2%	0.9%	1.9%	0.2%	3.1%
Naturalized	45.5%	32.1%	9.8%	0.3%	32.1%	0.2%	9.5%
Non-citizen	49.8%	58.1%	7.4%	0.4%	19.8%	0.3%	20.0%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations" Note: Hispanic or Latino ethnicity includes individuals of any race; as such, percentages do not add up to 100 percent.

Age and sex[edit]

In 2014, about 24 percent of United States residents were children below the age of 18, while 63 percent were between the ages of 18 and 64. Roughly 84 percent of the United States' non-citizen population was between the ages of 18 and 64, nearly 25 percentage points higher than the share of the native-born population between those ages. Just 3 percent of naturalized citizens were under age 18. While most naturalized citizens were female, most non-citizens were male. Nearly equal percentages of native-born citizens were male and female.^[38]

Age and sex of United States residents, 2014
Category	Children 0-17	Adults 18-64	65+	Male	Female
Total	24%	63%	14%	49.2%	50.8%
Native	26%	60%	14%	49.2%	50.8%
Naturalized	3%	75%	21%	45.9%	54.1%
Non-citizen	9%	84%	7%	51.4%	48.6%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "Age and Sex"

Economic factors[edit]

ON THIS TAB: Poverty Employment

Poverty[edit]

See also: State poverty rates by citizenship status

In 2014, the poverty level was $11,670 for an individual and $23,850 for a family of four. The United States' poverty rate during 2014 was 15.6 percent. About 15.1 percent of native-born citizens lived below the poverty level, compared to about one-quarter of non-citizens. For added context, these figures are compared with those in California and West Virginia, the states with the highest and lowest percentages of foreign-born individuals, respectively.^[38][41]

Hover over the bars to view the data points. Click [show] on the teal bar below to view the corresponding table.

Poverty rates by citizenship status, 2014
State	Total	Native	Naturalized	Non-citizen
United States	15.6%	15.1%	11.4%	25.3%
California	12.3%	9.2%	9.4%	27.8%
West Virginia	13.1%	13.1%	7.9%	22.8%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations"

Employment[edit]

See also: State employment rates by citizenship status

The unemployment rate refers to the percentage of the population that is jobless but seeking a job; this figure excludes individuals who are not in the labor force or are not seeking work. The United States' unemployment rate during 2014 was 5.8 percent. Meanwhile, 57.7 percent of residents were employed and 36.1 percent were not in the labor force. The unemployment rate was lowest among naturalized citizens and highest among non-citizens. Meanwhile, a smaller percentage of non-citizens were not in the labor force than native-born citizens or naturalized citizens.^[38]

Employment status of United States residents, 2014
Category	Employed	Unemployed	Armed forces	Not in labor force
Total	57.7%	5.8%	0.4%	36.1%
Native	57.0%	5.9%	0.5%	36.7%
Naturalized	61.3%	4.6%	0.2%	33.8%
Non-citizen	61.1%	6.5%	0.0%	32.3%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations"

Social factors[edit]

ON THIS TAB: Marriage Education Language

Marriage[edit]

See also: State marriage rates by citizenship status

Zhenchao Qian, a sociology professor at Ohio State University, concluded in a paper from September 2013 that "immigrants regardless of educational attainment and race/ethnicity tend to be married at a higher percent, cohabit at a lower percent (except for Hispanic immigrants), divorce at a lower percent, and remarry at a lower percent compared with their U.S.-born counterparts."^[42]

In 2014, about 48.4 percent of United States residents were married, while 13.1 percent were separated or divorced. Those who had never been married comprised nearly one-third of the population. Marriage rates were highest among naturalized citizens and lowest among native-born citizens.^[38]

Marital status of United States residents, 2014
Category	Never married	Married	Separated or divorced	Widowed
Total	32.5%	48.4%	13.1%	5.9%
Native	33.9%	46.5%	13.5%	6.1%
Naturalized	16.7%	63.3%	12.6%	7.4%
Non-citizen	32.8%	54.5%	9.3%	3.4%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations," accessed September 8, 2016

Most United States residents lived in households composed of married couples and their children, while 38.8 percent lived in other household types. While these figures were roughly similar among native-born citizens and non-citizens, they were somewhat different among naturalized citizens. Over two-thirds of this population lived in married-couple families, while 32.4 percent lived in other household types. Average family sizes amounted to 3.11 individuals among native-born citizens and 4.01 individuals among non-citizens.^[38]

Household characteristics of United States residents, 2014
Category	Family with married couple	Other household type	Average household size	Average family size
Total	58.6%	38.8%	2.63	3.23
Native	58.0%	39.3%	2.51	3.11
Naturalized	66.4%	32.4%	3.17	3.69
Non-citizen	59.5%	38.5%	3.61	4.01
Source: United States Census Bureau, "Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations," accessed September 8, 2016

Educational attainment[edit]

See also: State educational attainment rates by citizenship status

According to an October 2015 report from the Pew Research Center (PRC), recent immigrants to the United States are the most highly educated in history. More immigrants coming to the United States in 2013 had completed bachelor's degrees than in 1970 (41 percent compared to 20 percent, respectively). PRC also noted that 23 percent of new immigrants in 2013 had not completed high school, while in 1970 half of new arrivals had not completed high school. The level of education immigrants have achieved before coming to the United States helps determine where they will fit into the labor force.^[43]

The bar graph and table below provide information on the highest level of education achieved by residents in the United States. In 2014 about 28 percent of United States residents had a high school diploma or equivalent and 18.3 percent had a bachelor's degree. Over one-third of naturalized citizens had a bachelor's or higher degree, a greater portion than native-born citizens and non-citizens who had reached a similar education level. Among non-citizens, 23.1 percent had a high school diploma and 12.5 percent had a bachelor's degree. About 40.4 percent of non-citizens had less than a high school education.^[38]

Hover over the bars to view the data points. Click [show] on the teal bar below to view the corresponding table.

Educational attainment of United States residents, 2014
Category	Less than high school	High school	Some college or associate's	Bachelor's degree	Graduate degree
Total	13.7%	28.0%	29.1%	18.3%	11.0%
Native	10.2%	29.1%	31.1%	18.7%	10.9%
Naturalized	20.9%	21.6%	23.5%	20.2%	13.9%
Non-citizen	40.4%	23.1%	14.5%	12.5%	9.6%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations," accessed September 8, 2016

Language[edit]

Conor Williams, founding director of New America's Dual Language Learners National Work Group, wrote in December 2015 that language barriers and education are major issues for immigration policy. Because many of the children of immigrants are citizens, "English language learners are one of the fastest growing groups in American schools" and "many schools are struggling to update their instructional models to support these students' linguistic and academic development." The traditional model of schooling—where everyone receives the same education—may be impacted when a substantial percentage of students speak a language other than English at home.^[44]

In 2014, just over 79 percent of United States residents spoke only English at home. Among native-born citizens, 89.3 percent spoke only English, compared to 11.1 percent of non-citizens. About one-fifth of naturalized citizens spoke only English at home. For added context, these figures are compared with those in California and West Virginia, the states with the highest and lowest percentages of foreign-born individuals, respectively.^[38]

Language spoken at home, 2014
State	Language	Total	Native	Naturalized	Non-citizen
United States	English only	79.1%	89.3%	20.9%	11.1%
	Other language	20.9%	10.7%	79.1%	88.9%
California	English only	56.2%	75.1%	13.0%	6.9%
	Other language	43.8%	24.9%	87.0%	93.1%
West Virginia	English only	97.6%	98.6%	42.8%	24.2%
	Other language	2.4%	1.4%	57.2%	75.8%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations," accessed September 8, 2016

Regulation[edit]

ON THIS TAB: Overview Federal agencies Recent legislation

Regulation[edit]

Overview[edit]

States do not have primary responsibility for immigration policy in the United States because the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization is granted to Congress in Article I of the United States Constitution.

Who enforces immigration laws?[edit]

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are the two primary federal agencies involved in the deportation process. They both fall under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ICE had a budget of about $6.15 billion in 2016, while USCIS had a budget of about $3.61 billion. The deportation process, now legally known as removal, can typically be initiated by an arrest by ICE, the U.S. Border Patrol, or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The process will also begin if USCIS denies an application for legal status. Local law enforcement agencies can be involved in immigration enforcement as well, primarily through requesting the immigration status of an individual from ICE or detaining an individual for ICE.^[45][46][47]

Enforcement of federal immigration law primarily comprises two separate processes: removals (or deportations) and returns. Removal is the legal process of moving someone who has broken federal immigration law out of the country, typically based on an order of removal from a federal immigration judge. Individuals who receive an order for removal are not allowed to return to the United States, even legally, for 10 years. The return process, on the other hand, does not involve legal proceedings and simply involves stopping someone at or near the border who is attempting to enter the United States without legal permission. This person is sent back to their home country after a short detention with no legal consequences.^[48][49]

Click [show] on the teal bar below to view a table that provides the total number of individuals removed or returned by DHS for each year between 2000 and 2015.

Number of returns and removals, 2000-2015
Year	Removals	Returns
2000	188,467	1,675,876
2001	189,026	1,349,371
2002	165,168	1,012,116
2003	211,098	945,294
2004	240,665	1,166,576
2005	246,431	1,096,920
2006	280,974	1,043,381
2007	319,382	891,390
2008	359,795	811,263
2009	391,341	582,596
2010	381,738	474,195
2011	386,020	322,098
2012	416,324	230,360
2013	434,015	178,691
2014	407,075	163,245
2015	333,341	129,122
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Table 39. Aliens Removed Or Returned: Fiscal Years 1892 To 2015"

How many individuals reside in the United States without legal permission?[edit]

Due to the nature of residing in the country without legal documentation, accurate statistics regarding illegal immigration are more difficult to gather than for other areas of immigration. As of January 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated that 11.4 million individuals were residing in the country without legal permission. The Pew Research Center estimated the number to be at 11.1 million in 2014. Pew also estimated that 8 million of these individuals were in the workforce, comprising about 5 percent of the total United States workforce.^[50][51]

How is the United States' southern border secured?[edit]

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the United States shares a 1,989-mile southern border with Mexico. As of December 2016, the border was lined with a partial fence that totals over 650 miles in length. The fence consisted of three different types: primary or pedestrian fencing totaling 352.8 miles, a second layer of fencing totaling 36 miles, and vehicle barrier fencing totaling 299.8 miles. In addition, as of November 2015, there were more than 17,700 Border Patrol agents stationed along the Southwest border. Agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection also worked along the Southwest border.^{[52][53][54][55]}

What is the legal immigration process?[edit]

Each year, the United States accepts 675,000 immigrants as permanent residents to live and work lawfully in the country. Others are also admitted on a temporary basis—there are over 20 different types of visa classifications for temporary workers and visitors. Legal permanent residents are typically accepted either due to family relation or employment in the country. Permanent residents receive documentation, commonly referred to as a Green Card, as proof of their status. After five years as a Green Card holder, a legal permanent resident may apply for United States citizenship, for which there are a number of requirements:

“	Applicants for U.S. citizenship must be at least 18-years-old, demonstrate continuous residency, demonstrate "good moral character," pass English and U.S. history and civics exams (with certain exceptions), and pay an application fee, among other requirements.[7]	”
—American Immigration Council[56]

How are visas regulated?[edit]

Visas can be approved for either immigrants or non-immigrant visitors. The five broad types of immigrant visas include the following:^[57]

1. For family members of U.S. citizens or permanent residents
2. For the purpose of adopting orphans from foreign countries
3. For permanent employment or entrepreneurial investment
4. For special categories of immigrants, such as translators
5. For immigrants from countries "with historically low rates of immigration to the United States"

The two primary laws that impact visa policy are the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act. The latter, enacted in 2002, made changes to the visa program by requiring the U.S. Department of State to issue only machine-readable, tamper-resistant visas and documents with biometric identifiers. The law also required the establishment of a terrorist lookout committee and required additional training for consular officers, who interview visa applicants.^[58]

What were the deferred action programs?[edit]

See also: Federal policy on DACA and DAPA, 2017-2020

During his administration, President Obama expanded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and proposed a new program called Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). DACA is a program that allows individuals who were brought to the United States as children to receive relief from being deported for a period of time if they meet certain criteria. DAPA proposed delaying the deportation of parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and providing them with work permits, as long as they were in the United States since January 1, 2010, and did not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Both programs relied on deferred action which is "[a] use of prosecutorial discretion to not remove an individual from the country for a set period of time, unless the deferred action is terminated for some reason. Deferred action is determined on a case-by-case basis and only establishes lawful presence but does not provide immigration status or benefits of any kind." Nearly 800,000 people were granted deferred action under DACA through fiscal year 2015, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.^[59][60]

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) originally applied to people who met the following criteria:^[61]

“

Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday; Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time; Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS; Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012; Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor,or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.[7]

”

DACA expansion and DAPA creation[edit]

In 2014, Obama expanded the DACA program to include individuals who had entered the United States before the year 2010, instead of the previous requirement of having entered before 2007. Applicants were also no longer required to be younger than 31 years old. Obama also proposed the creation of DAPA. DAPA was intended to apply to people who met the following criteria:^[62][63]

• Lived in the U.S. continuously since January 1, 2010
• Physically present in the U.S. to apply for DAPA
• Had no lawful status on November 20, 2014
• Had on November 20, 2014, a son or daughter of any age or marital status who was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident
• Had not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors
• Were not determined to pose a threat to national security and were not an enforcement priority for removal

Since DACA and DAPA were executive actions and not the result of new legislation from Congress, there was debate about whether such actions were permissible under the United States Constitution. On November 9, 2015, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of 26 states that had sought and won an injunction from a district court against the programs. The injunction halted implementation of DAPA and the expansion of DACA. The states had argued that the process used to implement the rules did not meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The 5th Circuit found that the states had standing to request an injunction and that they had "established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their procedural and substantive APA claims." This means implementation of the DAPA program and DACA expansion was blocked until a final ruling on the case.^[64]

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam ruling affirming the judgment of the 5th Circuit. A per curiam opinion is one without a specific justice named as the author of the opinion. The court was evenly divided on the question, which left the injunction in place. On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court rejected a request from the U.S. Department of Justice to rehear the case. These rulings were preliminary ones on the merits of the case; the full case was sent back to be considered by the lower courts with the possibility of working its way back to the Supreme Court.^{[65][66][67][68]}

Trump administration actions on DACA and DAPA[edit]

At a press briefing on September 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke had issued a memo rescinding DACA. The memo outlined a wind down of DACA taking place over several months. The administration heard and decided pending program applications and applications for renewal from those whose benefits expired by March 5, 2018. The department rejected all new applications. Current DACA holders whose benefits expired after March 5 will retain their benefits until they naturally expire. In his official statement, President Trump stated that benefits for some individuals could remain in effect for up to two years.^[69][70][71]

On June 15, 2017, then-U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly rescinded a policy enacted during the Obama administration that suspended the removal of individuals residing in the country without legal permission who were the parents of U.S. citizens. The policy was known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). The policy had been placed on hold by federal courts as part of a lawsuit by the state of Texas and was never implemented. June 15 was the deadline for both parties to decide how to move forward in the case; since the policy was rescinded, the case became moot.^[72]

Federal agencies[edit]

• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is a federal agency responsible for administering the legal immigration process. The USCIS is a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and works to administer benefit applications and aims to make the national immigration system more efficient.^[73]
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the agency prioritizes "immigration enforcement by targeting, first and foremost, criminal aliens and those who pose a threat to the nation."^[74]
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) screens the people and goods entering the country and patrols the border of the United States. CBP is a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.^[75]
• The Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) is a division of the Employment and Training Administration within the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The OFLC helps the secretary of labor carry out part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which requires that certain labor conditions exist before employers may hire foreign workers.^[76]

Recent legislation[edit]

The following is a list of recent immigration policy bills that have been introduced in or passed by the United States Congress. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, then no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Public opinion[edit]

Level of immigration[edit]

In January 2017, Gallup conducted a poll on Americans' satisfaction with the level of immigration in the United States at that time. The poll found that 41 percent of Americans were satisfied with the level of immigration, while 53 percent were dissatisfied. Satisfaction with the level of immigration was at its highest point since Gallup began tracking the issue in 2001. About 36 percent of Americans were dissatisfied and wanted less immigration, 5 percent were dissatisfied and wanted more, and 12 percent were dissatisfied but wanted no change.^[77]

Border wall[edit]

In January 2017, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll on Americans' view of the importance of various immigration policy issues, including constructing a wall along the United States-Mexico border. The poll found that 39 percent of Americans viewed building a border wall as somewhat or very important, while 59 percent viewed it as not too or not at all important.^[78]

Definitions[edit]

The following terms may be used in discussions of immigration policy:

• Native-born citizen refers to anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a United States territory or born abroad to citizen parents.^[79]
• The foreign-born population refers to "anyone who is not a U.S. citizen at birth," including naturalized citizens.^[79]
• Naturalized citizen refers to anyone born as a citizen of another country who fulfilled the requirements to become a United States citizen.^[80]
• Non-citizen refers to anyone residing in the United States who is not a citizen. According to the United States Census Bureau, "[n]oncitizens include legal permanent residents, temporary migrants, unauthorized immigrants and other resident statuses." The census bureau does not distinguish between the legal status of non-citizens.^[81]
• Permanent resident, or Green Card holder, refers to anyone who is not a citizen who is legally authorized to "live and work in the United States on a permanent basis." Permanent residents receive documentation, commonly referred to as a Green Card, as proof of their status.^[82]
• Visas may be obtained either by immigrants for permanent residence or employment or by nonimmigrants for business or tourism. Individuals immigrating to the United States generally must be sponsored by a U.S. citizen, permanent resident, or prospective employer to obtain a visa. Immigrants must first obtain a visa before being considered eligible for a Green Card and permanent resident status.^[83][84]
• Illegal immigration refers to the practice of entering the country in violation of federal law, including entering without legal permission or through the use of falsified or expired documents. Individuals considered to be residing in the country illegally can also include those whose paperwork has expired or who are in deportation proceedings.^[85]

Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms United States immigration. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

See also[edit]

• 

  Immigration policy under the Trump administration

• 

  U.S. Customs and Border Protection

• 

  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
• Office of Foreign Labor Certification

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Ballotpedia About Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker External Relations: Andrew Heath • Hannah Nelson Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch Policy: Jimmy McAllister • Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Annelise Reinwald • Emma Soukup Content Strategy: Josh Altic Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha Contributors: Scott Rasmussen Editorial Content Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Ethan Sorell • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora