| Shorttitle: | Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act |
| Longtitle: | An Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, to raise the per-country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes |
| Leghisturl: | https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1044/actions |
The Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act or 'Equal Access to Green cards for Legal Employment Act or Immigration Visa Efficiency and Security Act is proposed United States federal legislation that would reform U.S. immigration policy, primarily by removing per-country limitations on employment-based visas, increasing the per-country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes without increasing the number of visa. In 2020, for the first time it passed by House and Senate; however, the House and Senate versions were different and required reconciliation, and that reconciliation could not be carried out before the expiration of the 116th Congress. In order for the proposed legislation to further progress, it would have to be reintroduced into the 117th Congress and pass the House and Senate again. After the expiration of the 117th congress, the legislation is currently reintroduced into the 118th Congress.
The bill intends to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to: (1) eliminate the per country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, and (2) increase the per country numerical limitation for family based immigrants from 7% to 15% of the total number of family-sponsored visas.
The legislation to eliminate per country caps on employment based green cards was first introduced by Rep. Lofgren, Zoe and Bob Goodlatte in the 110th congress [2007-2008], which intended to eliminate the 7% annual numerical cap on applicants' birth country in the US Employment based immigration. It has been introduced by various law-makers with bi-partisan support in almost every congress since then, either as a stand-alone bill or as an amendment with other bill.
| Year | Congress | Bill no. | Sponsor / original sponsors | Co-sponsors | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-2008 | 110th | Web site: H.R.5921. 3 June 2008 . | 24 | Introduced in House | ||
| 2011-2012 | Web site: S.1983. 13 December 2011 . | Sen. Schumer [D-NY] and 5 others | 5 | Introduced in Senate | ||
| 2011-2012 | Web site: S.1857. 10 November 2011 . | 0 | Introduced in Senate | |||
| 2011-2012 | Web site: H.R.3012. 23 January 2012 . | 11 | Passed House | |||
| 2013-2014 | Web site: S.293. 13 February 2013 . | 0 | Introduced in Senate | |||
| 2013-2014 | Web site: H.R.633. 8 April 2013 . | Rep. Chaffetz [R-UT-3], Rep. Lofgren [D-CA-19] and 1 other | 14 | Introduced in House | ||
| 2015-2016 | Web site: H.R.213. 2 February 2015 . | Rep. Chaffetz [R-UT-3], Rep. Lofgren [D-CA-19] and 1 other | 147 | Introduced in House | ||
| 2017-2018 | Web site: H.R.670. 8 February 2017 . | 0 | Introduced in House | |||
| 2017-2018 | Web site: H.R.392. 11 July 2017 . | Rep. Chaffetz [R-UT-3], Rep. O'Rourke [D-TX-16] and 24 others | 329 | Introduced in House | ||
| 2017-2018 | Web site: S.281. 2 February 2017 . | 20 | Introduced in Senate | |||
| 2019-2020 | Web site: S.386. 9 July 2019 . | Sen. Lee [R-UT], Sen. Harris [D-CA] and 13 others | 35 | Introduced in Senate- House version of the bill passed senate unanimously with amendments | ||
| 2019-2020 | Web site: H.R.1044. 3 December 2020 . | Rep. Lofgren [D-CA-19], Rep. Buck [R-CO-4] and 115 others | 311 | Passed House and Senate | ||
| 2021-2022 | Web site: S.4567. 20 July 2022 . | Introduced in Senate | ||||
| 2021-2022 | Web site: H.R.3648. 7 June 2022 . | Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary |
The bill, H.R.392 was originally introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in January 2017 by Representative Chaffetz. On July 11, 2017, Representative Yoder assumed first sponsorship of H.R.392 with unanimous consent, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII, without objection. The bill got 329 cosponsors, which includes 25 original sponsors.
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to: (1) eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, and (2) increase the per-country numerical limitation for family-based immigrants from 7% to 15% of the total number of family-sponsored visas.The Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992 is amended to eliminate the provision requiring the reduction of annual Chinese immigrant visas to offset status adjustments under such Act.
The bill establishes a transition period during which a percentage of employment-based second and third preference (EB-2 and EB-3) immigrant visas are reserved as follows1. for FY2017, 15% of the annual employment based visas are reserved for non-backlogged countries2. for FY2018, 10% of the annual employment based visas are reserved for non-backlogged countries3. for FY2019. 10% of the annual employment based visas are reserved for non-backlogged countriesDuring the transition period, not more than 25% of the total number of the reserved EB-2 and EB-3 visas shall be allotted to natives of a single country.
The bill, H.R. 1044, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in February 2019 by Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Representative Ken Buck. It was considered and substantially amended in the U.S. Senate (S.386) which passed unanimously led by Senator Mike Lee . The two versions of the bill differed such that they had to be reconciled in conference committee prior to final passage and signature by the President.[1] Congressional proponents sought an alternative procedural approach to passage of the bill of placing key provision of the bill into an omnibus spending bill. However, on December 21, 2020, Congresswoman Lofgren issued a statement which indicates that Congress was not able to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill, nor attach key provisions to the omnibus spending bill prior to the end of the 2019-2020 congressional calendar.[2] This statement was an apparent concession that the bill had no realistic possibility of passage in its then-current form in the 116th Congress, but Lofgren's statement does seem to imply that she will reintroduce similar legislation in the future.
In the 1924, Congress imposed the first-ever quota on US immigration, but rather than just a worldwide limit, it also distributed the numbers between countries in order to give preference to immigrants from Eastern Hemisphere. In 1965, Congress repealed this system with one that allowed immigrants from any country to receive up to a maximum of seven percent of the green cards issued each year. Prospective employment-based Immigrants born in countries with large populations, have wait times from decades to over a century,[3] while the Immigrants born in lower population countries might wait as little as a year or less for their employment-based visas. The primary proposal of this bill is to eliminate the birth country reservation on employment-based visas to prioritize the immigrant petitions based on their application date in all employment-based immigration categories without increasing the annual limit of 1 million Green cards a year. If enacted, this bill would create equal wait time for immigrants in employment-based visas irrespective of where they were born.
Family-based visas allow for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, or "green card" holders, to assist family members from abroad in obtaining a lawful entry – U.S. citizens can bring more distant relatives.[4] Current U.S. immigration law limits family-based immigrant visas to 7% from any given country. But rather than eliminating this cap, the bill would increase it to 15% per country.[5]
The House and Senate versions of the bill both contain transition, or "phase-out" timelines that reserve a percentage of EB-2 and EB-3 green cards for immigrants of non-Chinese or Indian origin. The two versions differ substantially in the length of this transition period, with the House version being three years, and the Senate version being eleven years.
Support for the legislation primarily stems from U.S. science and technology firms, notably Silicon Valley, which recruit skilled immigrants from countries like India and China in STEM fields. These companies face frustrations due to bureaucratic hurdles for their prospective immigrant employees and their families for obtaining a green card. Advocates also argue from a humanitarian standpoint, emphasizing the disparity faced by highly skilled immigrants from India. While immigrants from nearly 200 other countries can obtain an employment-based green card within a year, those from India endure wait times exceeding a century.
[6] This delay not only surpasses their life expectancy but also undermines the Civil Rights Act's principles of protection against discrimination based on national origin in employment-related matters. To obtain a green card, the company must advertise and demonstrate that no qualified American worker was available for the job during the specified period, also known as labor certification. As the green card application is based on an individual's merit, it underscores that a worker's country of origin should not impact their eligibility. The humanitarian impact of immigrants stuck in the backlog is profound, as individuals with skills are hindered from contributing fully to society as their temporary visa restricts them from starting a business, change jobs or travel outside the country without a visa renewal. [7]
Opponents of the legislation argue that eliminating per-country employment-based limits without increasing visas would benefit Indian and Chinese immigrants at the expense of both immigrants from smaller countries, and thereby reduce diversity in employment based immigration. The left-leaning American Immigration Lawyer Association states that they are "long time, ardent supporter of the elimination of the per-country limitations for employment-based immigrants because individuals should become permanent residents based on the skills they bring to the United States and not their nationality.", but opposed it because it does not increases the total number of visas.[8] [9]