< back
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
The two most important news items on the legislative front this month are the markup of HR 2202, the Smith Bill, in the US House of Representatives and the release of a "working draft" of Senator Simpson's legal immigration reform bill in the US Senate. The Smith and the Simpson bills are intended to reform nearly every aspect of the US immigration system. 
On the House side, the news is not good. On September 19th, the House Judiciary Committee began markup on the Smith Bill. The Judiciary Committee continued its markup on the 20th, 21st and 27th of September and has taken a break until it continues hearings again on October 11th. Pro-immigration advocates have so far failed in their efforts to separate the legal and illegal immigration sections of the bill. The rationale behind this separation is that many Congressman are more likely to vote against (or at least soften) a bill regulating just legal immigration than a bill which fights illegal immigration. According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the following Republican Congressman have not firmly made up their mind on this issue: Chabot (OH), Barr (GA), Bono (CA), Heineman (NC), Gekas (PA) and Hyde (IL). If one of these Congressman represent you, please consider contacting their office to let them know your feelings on this issue as well as immigration reform in general. Sample letters to Congress on this bill are included in our web site's documents collection. 
Efforts to remove employment-verification portions of the bill were voted down by the Judiciary Committee as well as amendments to restore the adult children categories (except for a narrow exception explained below) and delete new experience requirements for employment-based immigration applicants. 
At least a few victories have been won, however. The most important one to many readers of this newsletter will surely be the restoration of the national interest waiver (albeit in a narrower version) and the outstanding researcher/professor categories, both of which were eliminated under previous versions of the Smith Bill. Also on the employment immigration front, the requirement that professional workers have five years experience and skilled workers have seven years experience in order to apply to immigrate to the US has been reduced. Congressman Smith defeated a proposal that would have eliminated the new experience requirements altogether by substituting a provision that would reduce the experience requirement to two years/four years and would allow experience gained in H, E and L visa status to be counted toward the requirement. 
On the family side, the requirement that 50% or more of a parent's children must reside in the US in order for a citizen child to sponsor the parent for immigration has been eliminated. Also, a narrow exception to the total elimination of the adult children immigration categories has been added. 5,000 adult children of US citizens will be allowed to immigrate each year if the child is between twenty-one and twenty-five years of age, the child has never been married, the child does not have any of his or her own children and the child remains a dependent on the parent's Federal Income Tax returns. 
On the deportation and exclusion front, the draconian proposed 10 year ba to admissibility for those out of status for a total of more than twelve months has been softened a bit. Family Unity beneficiaries (those who have approved immigration applications on the basis of an I-130 family petition) and persons with work authorization would not accrue time toward the twelve month limit. Judges would have the discretion to waive the bar for spouses and children of US citizens and lawful permanent residents and for the parents of US citizens. Also, the suspension of deportation remedy (which allows judges the discretion to grant permanent residency to certain persons who have resided continuously in the US for seven or more years, who have been of good moral character and whose departure would create a hardship to a US citizen or permanent resident spouse, child and/or parent) has been restored. The remedy has however, been narrowed since the seven year period of continuous residency will now stop on the day an Order to Show Cause is issued and the relief will limited to no more than 4,000 per year. Finally, the INA Section 212(I) waiver which permits judges to waive the requirement that persons who, by fraud or willful misrepresentation, sought to procure a visa or other immigration benefit. Currently, the remedy is only open to=20 applicants with a US citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent or child and where the instance of fraud or misrepresentation occurred more than ten years ago. The restored remedy now requires a showing that the alien's departure would result in extreme hardship to the US citizen or permanent resident family members. 
On the Senate side, the Subcommittee on Immigration, chaired by Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), held a hearing on September 13th to discuss changes to the legal immigration system. The Subcommittee has already held hearings on illegal immigration. Senator Simpson has begun circulating an "incomplete discussion draft" of a bill entitled the Immigration Reform Act of 1995. With respect to family immigration, the bill bears considerable resemblance to the Smith Bill. Key differences include the retention of the requirement that the majority of the parent's children must reside in the US as citizens or permanent residents. The bill would also allow for the immigration of certain disabled children of permanent residents and citizens. Parents would be required to demonstrate that adequate health insurance to cover the child has been secured. 
On the employment side, the bill is actually more restrictive than the Smith Bill. Employment immigration would be reduced from 140,000 to 75,000. Employment immigration preferences would be simplified to include just two categories - those subject to a labor certification and those exempt. The following categories would be exempt: 1) aliens of "extraordinary ability", 2) multinational executives and managers, 3) alien investors and 4) special immigrants (the same as currently available under the EB-4 category). Glaringly absent are provisions for national interest waivers. 
On the labor certification side, the requirements are considerably toughened under the draft bill. First, employers would have to pay a fee equal to 30% of the value of the alien's pay into a private sector retraining fund for US workers. Penalties would be imposed on employers who passed the fee off to the alien worker. Employers would be required to pay 110% of the prevailing wage. And labor certification-based immigrants would be granted conditional permanent residency which would require the alien to demonstrate at the end of two years that he or she is still employed by the petitioning employer and has been paid the prevailing wage. Waivers could only be obtained in cases such as where the worker has been laid off or the business has failed. Advanced degree professionals would have to have three years experience. Professionals with bachelors degrees and skilled workers would need five years experience in the appropriate field. 
According to AILA, hearings and markup on the Simpson bill may not actually begin until as late as early 1996.