| Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act | |
| Fullname: | To provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes. |
| Nickname: | The "immigration bill", the "Gang of Eight Bill" |
| Introduced In The: | 113th |
| Sponsored By: | Chuck Schumer (D-NY) |
| Acts Affected: | Immigration and Nationality Act, Social Security Act, Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007 and others. |
| Sections Affected: | ,,,,, and others. |
| Authorizationsofappropriations: | At least $1,970,500,000 with an additional unlimited amount |
| Appropriations: | At least $62,020,000,000 with an additional unlimited amount |
| Leghisturl: | https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/actions |
| Introducedin: | Senate |
| Introducedbill: | S.744 |
| Introducedby: | Chuck Schumer (D-NY) |
| Introduceddate: | April 16, 2013 |
| Committees: | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary |
| Passedbody1: | Senate |
| Passeddate1: | June 27, 2013 |
| Passedvote1: | 68–32 [1] |
The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (Bill S.744)[2] was a proposed immigration reform bill introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) in the United States Senate.[3] The bill was co-sponsored by the other seven members of the "Gang of Eight", a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators who wrote and negotiated the bill. It was introduced in the Senate on April 16, 2013, during the 113th United States Congress.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the bill in April 2013.[4] The bill was voted out of Committee on May 21, 2013, and was placed on the Senate calendar.[5] On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed the bill on 68-32 margin. The bill was not considered by the Republican-controlled United States House of Representatives and died in the 113th Congress.
If enacted, the bill would have made it possible for many undocumented immigrants to gain legal status and eventually citizenship. It would have increased border security by adding up to 40,000 border patrol agents. It also would have advanced talent-based immigration through a points-based immigration system. New visas were proposed in this legislation, including a visa for entrepreneurs and a W visa for lower skilled workers.[6] It also proposed new restrictions on H1B visa program to prevent its abuse and additional visas/green-cards for students with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees from U.S. institutions. The bill also included a $1.5 billion youth jobs program and repealed the Diversity Visa Lottery in favor of prospective legal immigrants who are already in the United States.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that this bill would have reduced the U.S. fiscal deficit by US$197 billion over 10 years and by $700 billion by 2033.[7] The Social Security Administration said that it would help add $276 billion in revenue over the next 10 years while costing only $33 billion.[8]
The legislation would have made deep and broad changes to existing U.S. immigration law, affecting almost every U.S. government agency. Bill S.744 would have created a program to allow an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States gain legal status in conjunction with efforts to secure the border.[9]
The bill would have provided a pathway to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants who had resided in the U.S. before December 31, 2011. Illegal immigrants would have been required to apply for a newly created Registered Provisional Immigrant status. To do so, immigrants would have had to pay a fine, fees, and any back taxes owed; pass a background check; and not have a disqualifying criminal record. The bill also included the DREAM Act and the AgJOBS Act. Immigrants who received Registered Provisional Immigrant status would have been able to apply for legal permanent resident status (in other words, a green card) as long as strict border security provisions were met (including increasing the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents and officers, constructing a double layer fence along certain parts of the Mexico–United States border, and meeting a target of stopping 90% of illegal border crossings. The bill would also have drastically altered the methods of visa allocation under current family-based and employment-based categories, and would have introduced a "merit-based" visa based on points accrued for educational achievements, employment history, and other contributions to society.[2]
The bill contained many other provisions, including:
The proposed congressional findings contained in the bill included the following:
The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act was created by a group of eight United States Senators: Four Republicans and four Democrats[15] - nicknamed the "Gang of Eight:"[15] Michael Bennet (D-CO), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY). S. 744 was introduced into the Senate by Senator Schumer on April 16, 2013, with the other seven members of the Gang of Eight serving as co-sponsors.[16]
The bill was referred to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which held hearings and markups about the bill.[17] The Judiciary Committee held hearings about the bill on April 19, April 22, and April 23, 2013.[18] On May 9, May 14, May 16, and May 20, 2013, the committee held consideration and mark up sessions.[18] On May 21, the committee ordered the bill to be reported, with amendments, favorably.[18]
Several other committees also held hearings about the bill. The United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held hearings on May 7.[18] The United States Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held hearings about the bill on May 16 and May 22.[18]
On June 7, 2013, Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, filed Report 113–40 to accompany S.744. The report included the views of the majority of the committee in favor of the bill, as well as minority views and opinions. The 187-page report includes information about why the new immigration legislation is needed, the history of the bill's consideration by the committee, a section by section summary of the bill, a copy of the Congressional Budget Office's report on the bill, some conclusions, and the minority views on the bill.[19]
On June 11, 2013, the Senate voted 84-15 (all 52 Democrats, both Independents, and 30 Republicans voting in the affirmative) to proceed with debate.[20] The Senate considered the bill on the floor on June 12–13, June 17–21, June 24–26, 2013.[18] During this time, it was recommitted to the Senate Judiciary committee twice to make amendments.[18]
On June 24, 2013, the Senate passed an amendment providing for high-tech surveillance equipment and doubling the number of border agents to about 40,000.[21]
On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 68 to 32. All 52 Democrats, both Independents, and 14 Republicans voted in favor of the bill.[22]
See also: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
The House of Representatives did not act on this bill.[23] [24] Conservative Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives were opposed to it. House Republicans and Speaker John Boehner said that this bill would not receive a floor vote. Boehner stated that the House Republicans favored a piece-meal approach on immigration reform (i.e. several different bills instead of one comprehensive reform bill). Instead of putting the existing Senate bill up for vote and making necessary modifications, he asserted that the House GOP would draft another bill of its own without any path to citizenship and without some other changes (such as introducing a visa for entrepreneurs and delimiting the use of H1B visas to prevent their abuse) that the Senate bill offered.[25] A statement of principles on immigration, released by congressional Republicans on January 30, 2014, said: “We will not go to a conference with the Senate’s immigration bill” and that “border security and interior enforcement must come first.”[26]
Senator Chuck Schumer argued that the strategy of passing smaller-scale bills would not work and that Democrats would not support an enforcement bill without the promise of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.[27] Former Florida governor Jeb Bush called on the GOP-led House to pass a comprehensive immigration bill and asked his party to quit being "the obstacle" on the divisive issue.[28]
In the absence of a “comprehensive fix” from Congress, U.S. President Barack Obama announced on November 20, 2014 executive actions to “make our immigration system more fair and more just.” These actions included a long-contemplated program[29] of "deferred action" which would allow an estimated 45% of unauthorized immigrants to legally stay and work in the United States.[30] [31] These executive actions were challenged in court.[32]
Title I, which begins on page 33, covers changes being made to border security in the United States.http://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/s744/113s744is.pdf Some of the goals mentioned below are also addressed in the preceding sectorOne of the major provisions of S. 744 is a focus on increased border security, primarily dealt with in Title I. The bill establishes a goal of achieving a 90% success rate (Section 3(a)(3)) of intercepting and deporting illegal immigrants who attempt to cross the border in one of the "High Risk Border Sectors" - places where more than 30,000 people cross per year (Section 3(a)(5)). In order to accomplish this, the bill would increase the number of CBP officers by 3,500 people by 2017, authorize the National Guard to participate in missions related to border security, fund additional surveillance and surveillance technology, and provide funding to build a border fence.
After the enactment of the bill (should it be enacted), the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has 180 days to write and submit two reports. First, the "Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy", which is a strategy meant to explain their plans for achieving and maintaining effective control in all high risk border sectors along the Southern border (established in Section 5(a)). The "Southern Border" refers to the international border between the United States and Mexico. The report will be submitted to several committees in Congress for review. Section 5(a)(2) explains the elements that should be included in the report, namely criteria for measuring success, capabilities that need to be obtained for the success of the strategy (equipment, personnel, etc.), and the infrastructure and technology required.pg 19-20 Congress grants the Department of Homeland Security $3,000,000,000 in order to pursue this strategy (Section 6(a)(3)(A)(i)).
The second report that the DHS is required to write and submit in 180 days is the "Southern Border Fencing Strategy" to identify where fencing, including double-layer fencing, infrastructure, and technology should be deployed along the Southern border (Section 5(b)). Congress grants the Department of Homeland Security $1,500,000,000 in order to pursue this strategy (Section 6(a)(3)(A)(iii)).
The bill would focus on three particular high risk sectors - the Tucson sector in Arizona and the Rio Grande and Laredo sectors in Texas.[9] Title I focuses on preventing additional illegal immigration into the United States.
Title I includes a number of provisions which are explained more explicitly in the bill's text. This is a short list of some of them:
(1) to construct fencing, including double-layer and triple-layer fencing;
(2) to increase ground-based mobile surveillance systems;
(3) to deploy additional unarmed, unmanned aerial systems and manned aircraft sufficient to maintain continuous surveillance of the Southern Border;
(4) to deploy and provide capability for radio communications interoperability between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies;
(5) to construct checkpoints along the Southern border to bridge the gap to long-term permanent checkpoints; and
(6) to provide assistance to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, particularly in rural, high-trafficked areas, as designated by the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The bill contains many border security measures, some of which must be implemented before illegal immigrants can adjust from the provisional status to full green card status. However, the DHS Secretary simply must submit a plan for border security within the first six months of the bill in order to initiate the provisional legal status for illegal immigrants.[33] Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) explained that whether or not the border is secure will have no impact on the advancement of the legalization of illegal immigrants, saying, "We're not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship. [The Gang of Eight] wants to make sure the border is secure, but not to use it as a barrier to prevent the 11 million from eventually gaining a path to citizenship".[34] The bill provides resources for additional CBP officers, improvements in the border security infrastructure, and increasing the number of immigration prosecutions. It also provides resources for and requires additional training for CBP officers.
The bill sets a goal of achieving a 90% success rate (Section 3(a)(3)) of intercepting and deporting illegal immigrants who attempt to cross the border in one of the "High Risk Border Sectors" - places where more than 30,000 people cross per year (Section 3(a)(5)). In order to accomplish this, the bill would increase the number of border security personnel by 3,500 people by 2017, authorize the National Guard to participate in missions related to border security, fund additional surveillance and surveillance technology, and provide funding to build a border fence. If the bill is enacted, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has 180 days to write and submit two reports. First, the "Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy", which is a strategy meant to explain their plans for achieving and maintaining effective control in all high risk border sectors along the international border between the United States and Mexico. Congress grants the Department of Homeland Security $3,000,000,000 in order to pursue this strategy (Section 6(a)(3)(A)(i)). The second report that the DHS is required to write and submit in 180 days is the "Southern Border Fencing Strategy" to identify where fencing, including double-layer fencing, infrastructure, and technology should be deployed along the Southern border (Section 5(b)). Congress grants the Department of Homeland Security $1,500,000,000 in order to pursue this strategy (Section 6(a)(3)(A)(iii)).
Subtitle A--Registration and Adjustment of Registered Provisional Immigrants
The focus of Subtitle A is changing the status of illegal immigrants already present in the United States. The section creates the category of "registered provisional immigrant" (RPI) and outlines the steps necessary to obtain this status, as well as what qualities or characteristics of an illegal immigrant will prohibit them from obtaining it. Immigrants must apply to have their status changed. In order to be eligible, they must have started residing in the United States prior to December 31, 2011, and have been physically present since then. They must then pay a $500 penalty fee, are assessed taxes, and must pay application fees to cover the cost of their application.
Illegal immigrants are ineligible to change their status if they:
Additional provisions:
is not entitled to the premium tax credit authorized under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
shall be subject to the rules applicable to individuals not lawfully present that are set forth in section 1402(e) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act .
Section 2103, the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2013) focuses on adjusting the immigration status of illegal immigrants who entered the United States as minor children. The Department of Homeland Security can change the immigration status of immigrants who arrived in the United States before turning 16, have been registered provisional immigrants for at least five years, and has earned an education in the United States (by graduating high school, getting a GED, attending 2 or more years of college education at a bachelor's degree level or higher) or spend four or more years in the Uniformed Services (with an honorable discharge). DREAM Act kids can get their green cards in five years and will be eligible for citizenship immediately after that.
Section 2104 - Additional requirements creates rules about how the data immigrants submit as part of their application can be used, limiting it to immigration related purposes. It also establishes some procedures for reviewing immigration status decisions and challenging them in court. Section 2105 - Criminal penalty describes the penalties (a fine of up to $10,000) to anyone who deliberately misuses immigration data by using it, publishing it, or permitting it to be examined.
Title II of S. 744 focuses on three things: (1) creating the registered provisional immigrant (RPI) status, which illegal immigrants in the United States are eligible to apply for, (2) creating an Agricultural Workers Program, and (3) changing the existing rules governing the legal immigration process. This includes changing the requirements for family-based immigration, economic-based immigration, and merit-based immigration.
The bill creates a new immigration status, entitled Registered Provisional Immigrant status. Illegal immigrants who get adjusted under the bill would not be legal permanent residents yet, but they would be in a legal status and would no longer be considered to be present illegally. They would also be permitted to work lawfully. In order to receive this status, illegal immigrants would need to apply (which would have the effect of registering them with the U.S. government, hence the title of the status), pay both a fine and a fee, pay any owed back taxes to the IRS, learn English, and not have any disqualifying criminal history. Initially the status would be good for 6 years, with the possibility of having it extended for an additional 4 years. After a total of 10 years, then registered provisional immigrant would then have the opportunity to apply for legal permanent resident status, so long as the other triggers in the bill had taken place.
The triggers in the bill that would need to occur before registered provision immigrants could proceed to legal permanent resident status and ultimately to citizenship are related to 1) border security: there are several in this area but the key one requires that 90% of those attempting to cross the southwest border illegally be stopped; and 2) visa backlog reduction: other areas of the bill create changes in the visa allocation system intended to eliminate the visa backlog, and this must happen before adjustments from registered provision immigrant to legal permanent resident. This is the "back of the line" provision; the idea is that illegal immigrants who gain status from this bill should not be able to become legal permanent residents sooner than someone who had legally filed a visa petition earlier and had been waiting for the approved visa to become available.
Subtitle B--Agricultural Worker Program
Chapter 1--Program for Earned Status Adjustment of Agricultural Workers
subchapter a--blue card status
subchapter b--correction of social security recordsChapter 2--Nonimmigrant Agricultural Visa ProgramChapter 3--Other Provisions
Another key part of the bill is the agricultural worker program. The program consists of two subprograms, a so-called "Blue Card" status and a nonimmigrant agricultural visa program, or guest worker program.
The Blue Card program is a temporary legal status (similar to the Registered Provisional Immigrant status) that will be available to illegal immigrants who can demonstrate that they have been in the United States performing qualifying agricultural work for a certain amount of time. Workers who obtain this status will have the opportunity later to adjust to legal permanent resident status if they meet certain conditions.
Subtitle C--Future ImmigrationThis section begins on page 256.
Subtitle C focuses on reforming current legal immigration law. This includes provisions about family members of U.S. citizens immigrating into the country, merit-based systems of immigration, and immigration related to work visas.
The bill makes many changes to current immigration system designed to control future flows of immigration. These include repeal of the diversity visa program, changes in several family-based visa classifications (e.g. elimination of sibling petitions for U.S. citizens and conversion of a petition by a legal permanent resident for a spouse or child to an immediate relative petition rather than a preference petition), and the ability to adjust future levels of worker visas (both those created by this bill and under current programs) based on economic conditions.
The bill also creates "merit-based" visas, which immigrants will eventually be able to apply for on the basis of a point system which awards points for various criteria, including educational achievement, involvement in society, entrepreneurship, and other factors.
The combined effects of the changes are intended to be greater control over future amounts of immigration and also the type of immigrant; the changes also reduce the share of family-based visa overall in favor of a greater number of employment-based and merit-based visas.
Changes to family-based immigration:
Changes to employment-based immigration:
Merit-based visa system:
Title III of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act contains the following subtitles:
The bill contains provisions for enhancing interior enforcement of immigration laws, including requiring the implementation of E-Verify for verification of the status of employees and increased protections of U.S. workers.
Title IV of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act contains the following subtitles:
This program will be the new agricultural guest worker program, and will replace the current H-2A program which will be repealed by the bill. This program increases the number of workers available, and makes several key changes, such as allowing "permanent" guest workers (in the sense that the nonimmigrant agricultural visa would be portable from employer to employer as seasons change, rather than requiring a new visa for each season as the current H-2A program does) rather than only seasonal workers as the current H-2A program does. The bill also increases worker protections and raises minimum wages for agricultural workers.
Farm owners and farm workers have generally joined in support of these provisions of the bill.[38]
The bill makes numerous reforms to nonimmigrant visa programs, including the H-1B, L, student visa, visitor visa, and H-2B programs. The reforms are designed to in some cases make the programs easier to use, and also to enhance the systems used to monitor compliance by nonimmigrant visa holders with the visa requirements.
The annual cap on H-1B visas is increased substantially (from 85,000 to 205,000), but additional recruiting requirements are added that require positions first be posted on a government website for 30 days and offered first to qualified U.S. workers. The Department of Labor is given greater authority to review and challenge hiring decisions. Technology firms are lobbying against these provisions of the bill, arguing that it creates unwarranted governmental intrusion into internal hiring decisions and hampers the companies' ability to attract the most qualified employees from abroad.[39] Senator Hatch of Utah has introduced an amendment that would remove these requirements.[40]
E-Verify is an "Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States."[41] The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act would require all employers to use the E-Verify system, phasing employers in based on company size over five years. The E-Verify system would also be enhanced by various changes specified in the law. One of those changes is the development of a photo matching system. All people (U.S. citizens included) will be required to show their employers a photo ID, such as a driver's license, passport, or (in the case of legal immigrants) their "biometric work authorization card" or "biometric green card." Their potential employer is required to look up the potential employee in the E-Verify database and compare the two pictures. Provisions are also made so that employees can "lock" their Social Security numbers in order to prevent other people from illegally using their same number somewhere else. The United States Customs and Immigration Services will have access to this system in order to track Social Security numbers with suspicious usage and attempt to catch the perpetrators.
Title IV, Subtitle H of the bill creates the INVEST visa (Investing in New Venture, Entrepreneurial Startups, and Technologies) for immigrant entrepreneurs. This new visa program would allow immigrant entrepreneurs to come to the United States, start businesses, and create jobs in America. There would be two types of INVEST visas. A nonimmigrant INVEST visa would be renewable provided certain initial investment, annual revenue, and job creation criteria are met within an initial three-year period. The immigrant version of the INVEST visa would have basically the same criteria just at higher thresholds.[42]
The E-Verify system, which the bill would have required all employers to use, was controversial. The bill would have required that all employees receive government verification that they were permitted to work in the United States. This provision has been criticized by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union for changing the nature of the relationship between people and the government by creating a society based on receiving permission. In announcing their white paper on the subject, the ACLU wrote "In an attempt to stop the tiny percentage of those starting jobs in the United States each year who are unauthorized workers, E-Verify would force everyone to obtain affirmative permission from government bureaucracies before engaging in the core life functions of working and earning a living."[43] Concerns about E-Verify also included the potential for abuses and hacking of the databases used by the program, issues related to errors that wrongly prevent people from being hired, and concerns about bringing the United States closer to having a national ID card.[44]
A May 2013 study published by The Heritage Foundation claimed the bill would have resulted in a net cost of $6.3 trillion.[45] The study's methodology and findings were sharply criticized across the political spectrum.[46] Tim Kane, a scholar formerly with The Heritage Foundation, said that "[the] pileup of outlandish Heritage estimates presents a credibility hurdle."[47]
A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that, instead, the bill would have saved $175 billion over 10 years.[48]