Blog/News/Immigration/Legal Avenues

Expanding Future Immigration
7 Proposals for Congress

Improving future immigration avenues will protect America’s competitive advantage and build a more prosperous economy
"Improving the immigration system and increasing future immigration...would grow this advantage and help secure America’s economic future..."

New FWD.us projections1 indicate that the United States will need to significantly grow its working-age population to maintain its global competitive advantage and preserve critical government programs like Social Security. This research suggests that immigration will be a critical component of population and economic growth, helping to expand the working-age population and maintain the U.S. economic leadership—but only if Congress acts to increase future immigration levels to meet our needs.

Immigration has long been a valuable American advantage, shaping our communities and boosting U.S. global competitiveness. Improving the immigration system and increasing future immigration—ideally doubling the number of immigrants admitted each year—would strengthen this advantage and help secure America’s economic future by further growing the working-age population and shifting the course of current demographic trends.

Below are some straightforward proposals, many with demonstrated bipartisan support, for Congress to consider as starting points to improve and expand the immigration system to the levels needed.2

1| Immigration levels should grow as the country grows

In 1990, Congress set a fixed ceiling on the number of immigrants allowed to receive green cards each year on the basis of employment (140,000), family reunification (480,000)3, and diversity (40,000).

These numerical limits are not tied to the performance of the economy, employment levels, the size of the population, or anything else that immigration policy could be designed to support. And the limits have not changed in 30 years, even though the population and economy have grown significantly since then. That has lead to relative immigration levels that grow smaller every year, as a share of the population and the economy.4

For example, if family-based immigration caps in 2019 represented the same share of the U.S. population as in 1990, around 630,000 green cards would be available for family-based immigrants, a 150,000 increase over the current limit of 480,000. Similarly, if the Diversity Visa program tracked with population growth, it would have grown from 50,000 to about 70,000 green cards in 2019. If employment-based immigration caps were tracked to changes in the size of the economy (a clearer proxy for economic-based visas than overall population size), the cap in 2019 would have grown to allow more than 280,000 employment-based green cards, double the current cap.5

Congress should abandon the arbitrary caps and design a policy that is responsive to the country’s evolving needs. Allowing annual numerical limits to track with changes in the population and the economy could be an effective approach; as our need and ability to welcome more immigrants increases, the annual limits would increase as well. Ultimately, there should be intention and purpose behind the number with a goal of growing the U.S. population

“Exempting derivatives from annual limits on immigration would not only ensure the employment-based category is used for its intended purpose, but would also double the number of workers admitted each year...”

2| Employment-based green cards should go to employees

Congress can directly increase employment-based immigration by making sure that employment-based green cards actually go to employees, and are not counted against their dependents (spouses and children who join the principal applicant). Under the current system, these dependents are considered to be in the same categories as the person they are accompanying, and are counted against that category’s numerical limits.

This process means that every spouse or child who accompanies an employment-based immigrant results in one fewer employment-based immigrant who will be admitted that year.6 According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), roughly 56% of employment-based green cards issued in FY 2019 were for dependent children or spouses (77,927 of 139,458).

Family unity has long been a central principle in immigration policy, and employment-based immigrants should be allowed to bring their families with them, many of whom are highly skilled and educated7 in their own right. But counting these family members against employment-based caps forces an unnecessary trade-off, limiting the ability of U.S. employers to hire the workers they need.

Exempting derivatives from annual limits on immigration would not only ensure that the employment-based category is used for its intended purpose, but would also double the number of workers admitted each year.8

“The U.S. should lead the world in welcoming refugees and providing humanitarian relief.”

3| The U.S. should reclaim its role as the global leader in welcoming those fleeing persecution

For decades the United States has proudly embraced its role as a refuge for the persecuted. After the end of World War II, the U.S. established more programs to welcome people fleeing dictatorial regimes. From the adoption of the U.S. Refugee Act in 1980 until 2017, the U.S. welcomed more refugees than the rest of the world combined each year.

In recent years, political, humanitarian, and climate crises have forced increasing numbers of people to leave their home countries and seek humanitarian relief in countries like the U.S. But while the need for refuge has grown, the U.S. has shrunk the size and scope of its response. The U.S. has resettled only a small fraction of refugees and asylum-seekers in recent years. This is in part because refugee programs have been diminished9 and the asylum system dismantled.

The U.S. should lead the world in welcoming refugees and providing humanitarian relief. A functioning humanitarian system is necessary to deliver on the American promise of freedom and opportunity, and in turn to undermine the power of oppressive regimes that seek to control their citizens by limiting freedom. There is no evidence that welcoming refugees presents any threats to our national security or the economy; in fact, refugees contribute tremendously to American communities and the economy, particularly in recovering and growing regions.10

Congress should reject the baseless notion that humanitarian relief needs to be limited or restricted, and instead restore the multitudinous benefits we have long enjoyed from a robust and expansive refugee and asylum system by increasing resettlement targets and expanding opportunities to apply for legal asylum in the U.S.

“Creating a direct pathway to permanent residency for international graduates...would allow them to enter the workforce and begin contributing immediately.”

4| Let international graduates of U.S. schools contribute their skills here

More than one million international students attend U.S. colleges and universities each year, contributing millions of dollars to local economies, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and boosting critical research. Unfortunately, the current immigration system offers international graduates very few options for staying and working in the U.S.; if these students are not fortunate enough to secure an H-1B visa, many will have no choice but to leave the U.S. and contribute their skills elsewhere.

It is senseless, self-imposed harm for the U.S. to send away skilled graduates who are already here, especially after investing heavily in their education and training. Not all international graduates will want to stay, but many will; as a starting point, consider that more than 220,000 international graduates were employed through Optional Practical Training in 2019, most of them after graduating. Additionally, more than 95,000 of roughly 190,000 H-1B petitions submitted in FY 2018 were for individuals with advanced degrees from U.S. colleges or universities.

Creating a direct pathway to permanent residency for international graduates of U.S. colleges and universities, particularly those with advanced degrees, would allow them to enter the workforce and begin contributing immediately.11 This is particularly important for retaining graduates with science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degrees and building a skilled workforce for industries of the future, like A.I. and quantum computing. Using the H-1B exemption numbers as a starting point, an allocation of at least 100,000 green cards for graduates each year would significantly improve the U.S.’ ability to retain this critical talent.12

5| Give green cards to entrepreneurs and job creators

Despite the fact that immigrants are highly entrepreneurial and have founded some of the most successful U.S. businesses small and large, the U.S. does not have a visa option for entrepreneurs.13 Aspiring founders have to qualify for a green card through some other means, and are often forced to try to start their companies while working full time under another employer-sponsored visa. Meanwhile, other countries have launched generous, expansive startup visa programs to attract these entrepreneurs to their shores.14

To fully capitalize on global entrepreneurial potential, Congress must open the door to aspiring founders who are not already in the U.S., or who are working here on temporary visas. A “Startup Visa” would provide a merit-based avenue for founders to immigrate for the sake of building their business in the U.S.15 A study by the Kauffman Foundation estimated that, if 75,000 visas were made available (the number proposed in S. 310, the Startup Act 3.0), all would likely be used, and would drive the creation of more than 1.6 million American jobs over a decade.

6| Allow states and regions to manage their own immigration programs and priorities

Immigration policy is a national, federal issue; however, not all areas of the country enjoy equal access to the benefits of immigration. While immigrants contribute significantly in all states and communities across the country, major metros and coastal states have much higher immigrant populations.

To ensure that the benefits of future immigration are equally distributed across the country, Congress should also explore the creation of “place-based” visas, like the State-Sponsored Visa Pilot Program proposed by Representative John Curtis (R-UT) or the Heartland Visa proposal, developed by the Economic Innovation Group.16

These programs would allocate a certain number of visas to states, regions, or cities, and allow them to create a process to award the visas. This would afford states and regions the independent authority to prioritize immigration based on their economic and demographic needs, and ensure that the benefits of immigration are better distributed throughout the country.17

The proposed State-Sponsored Visa Pilot Program began with 5,000 visas for all states that participated, with escalators and de-escalators based on economic growth and compliance. Even if only 20 states participated, this would be a baseline of 100,000 additional visas that would contribute to economic and community development.

“...Research shows that skewing the mix of immigrants heavily from family-sponsored to highly-skilled would actually sacrifice national economic growth...”

7| Eliminate bureaucracy and outdated policies that bog the system down

In order for these proposals to successfully increase future immigration while benefiting Americans, Congress will also have to address inefficiencies that have hampered legal immigration for years, including the massive backlogs18 that have formed in the family– and employer-sponsored immigration systems, forcing immigrants to wait years, even decades, to receive green cards for which they have already qualified.19

Congress should prioritize eliminating outdated country-specific caps and clearing extensive green card backlogs.20 Further, Congress should require the government to issue all available green cards each year and recapture green cards that go unused because of bureaucratic delays and errors, helping to reduce the current backlogs and prevent them from forming again in the future.21 Congress should also provide a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, including Dreamers and essential workers, who have lived and contributed in the U.S. for many years.

Finally, we want to note that Congress’ decision to prioritize family unification has provided opportunity and garnered success among immigrant families for years. And research shows that skewing the mix of immigrants heavily from family-sponsored to highly skilled would actually sacrifice national economic growth, in addition to losing the less-quantifiable benefits of family unity. To this end, we strongly recommend that Congress expand the family-sponsored immigration system as it is, preserve the importance of family unity in future immigration programs, and use these proposals as ways to build on that success.

Get in touch with us:

Andrew Moriarty

Deputy Director of Federal Policy

@a_moriarty
amoriarty@fwd.us
  1. Research team included Justin Gest (George Mason University), Jack A. Goldstone (George Mason University), Annie Hines (University of California Davis), Erin Hofmann (Utah State University), and Guizhen Ma (Utah State University). Their complete study can be found here. The study was reviewed by an expert panel: Bryan Caplan (George Mason University), John S. Earle (George Mason University), Dowell Myers (University of Southern California), John May (George Mason University), Alexander Nowrasteh (CATO Institute), Kevin Y. Shih (City University of New York ), Sita N Slavov (George Mason University), and Chad Sparber (Colgate University). The report linked here was written by FWD.us staff.
  2. The report referenced above includes temporary immigrants in its overall immigration levels; however, we believe the immigration system should prioritize permanent immigration, ensuring that the benefits immigrants bring are maximized over time and allowing immigrants to settle permanently with their families in the U.S. For this reason, we have focused our proposals here on expanding pathways to permanent residency and increasing the number of green cards awarded each year. While increases in temporary immigration programs are also needed, we believe these programs should ultimately allow individuals to pursue permanent residency, if they desire.
  3. The 480,000 cap is for the Family Preference categories, which include children and siblings of U.S. citizens, and spouses and unmarried children, of green card holders; this does not include Immediate Relatives (spouses, unmarried children and parents of U.S. citizens), which are uncapped. In practice, these limits are calculated again each year, based on the number of green cards issued the previous year in other categories; and as described below, the number of immediate relatives who are admitted does have a direct, negative impact on the number of other Family Preference immigrants who can get a green card.
  4. In fact, the U.S. admits relatively fewer immigrants than many other countries. In 2017, immigrants made up only 14% of the U.S. population, compared with Australia (29%), New Zealand (23%), Canada (21%), Switzerland (30%), Austria (19%), and Sweden (18%), among others.
  5. According to the World Bank, in 1990 (when the green card caps were created), the U.S. population was about 250 million, and GDP was approximately $9 trillion, By 2019, the population had grown to about 328 million and GDP was approximately $18.3 trillion.
  6. There is a similar challenge with family-based green cards. Not only are many family-based green cards awarded to derivatives, but the total number of family-based green cards is further reduced by admissions in a different category (Immediate Relatives). The number of family-based green cards available each year (480,000) is reduced by the number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who were admitted the previous year. That means that an increase in the number of immediate relatives admitted directly reduces the number of other family-based immigrants who can come the following year, effectively and consistently cutting the family-based cap to its floor of 226,000.
  7. For example, consider the spouses of high-skilled H-1B visa holders, many of whom have been able to work using H-4 employment authorization. H-4 visa holders are highly educated (one survey found that more than half had at least a master’s degree), are prime working age, and work in occupations with significant labor shortages.
  8. A number of legislative proposals, including the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, ( S. 348), and the bipartisan comprehensive Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization (BSEOIM) Act (S. 744) passed by the Senate in 2013, exempted dependents from caps.
  9. For example, the U.S. has accepted an average of 90,000 refugees each year since the Refugee Act was passed in 1980; however, the cap has been repeatedly slashed in recent years, dropping to only 15,000 for 2021. President Biden has increased the cap to 125,000; however, the U.S. continues to >struggle to actually resettle refugees to meet its goals.
  10. A study by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2017 found that refugees added $63 billion more to federal, state, and local governments in tax revenue than the costs of resettling them. The Trump Administration rejected the prepared report because it did not support its goal of reducing refugee levels, and the report was not ultimately published, though a draft was published by The New York Times.
  11. The Stopping Trained in America Ph.D.s From Leaving the Economy (STAPLE) Act (H.R. 1791) was first introduced in 2009, and was reintroduced in subsequent sessions of Congress, but has never passed. Language establishing a direct green card pathway for STEM graduates was included in the BSEOIM Act, as well as various other pieces of legislation, like the Startup Act (S. 328).
  12. The expanded avenues would relieve pressure on overburdened temporary visa programs like H-1B, which is currently the primary immigration avenue for many international graduates. In turn, better retaining these graduates would strengthen America’s global competitiveness.
  13. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security finalized the International Entrepreneur Rule, which allowed qualified entrepreneurs to receive “parole,” allowing them to stay in the country and build their companies. Unfortunately, the program was never fully implemented or advertised, so enrollment has been low. Nevertheless, this program provides a strong foundation and example of the potential job-creating effects of allowing immigrant entrepreneurs to stay and build companies in the U.S.
  14. Other countries have successful startup visa programs that offer helpful models. Some more heavily regulated startup schemes use evaluative measures like business proposals and panel interviews to select the businesses and founders most likely to succeed, while also offering support like public funding or consulting services, while “lean” startup programs focus on growing the pool of highly skilled individuals who could potentially launch or join new businesses, prioritized by human capital factors like education, work experience, and existing support networks. Either of these models, or some combination, could be used to increase the number of entrepreneurs admitted each year.
  15. Bipartisan leaders in Congress have been pushing startup visa legislation for a decade, first led by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) in 2010, then succeeded by Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), who has introduced his bipartisan Startup Act in each Congress since 2011. Expanded options for investors and entrepreneurs were also included in the BSEOIM Act as well. Responding to Congressional inaction, President Obama created the International Entrepreneur Rule, a limited temporary program to allow foreign-born founders to stay in the country while they grow their companies, though the program does not provide its own path to permanent residency.
  16. Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), chair of the House Judiciary subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, expressed support for the “Heartland Visa” proposal during a recent House Judiciary hearing on immigration. John Lettieri, president and CEO of the Economic Innovation Group, raised the proposal as an example of how immigration is "an incredible national advantage” and “a way of really bolstering our economy on a broad basis and improving life for a broad array of American workers and communities." The Heartland Visa concept was also included in Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign platform.
  17. Other countries have piloted place-based immigration programs that can be examined as examples. See for instance Australia’s Regional Work Visa program for people who want to live and work in “regional Australia,” outside of major cities; or Canada’s Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot, where smaller communities establish their own eligibility and application processes for employment-based immigration.
  18. The Congressional Research Service has a helpful background report on country caps and green card backlogs in the employment-based immigration system. The Cato Institute has done extensive reporting on projected wait times for immigrants stuck in the backlogs.
  19. The harms caused by such delay are real; families may remain separated and/or be prohibited from working, and employment-based immigrants are limited from changing employers. Those immigrants seeking a green card who are already living and working in the U.S. on an employment-based visa also face dire consequences for their children who are at risk of “aging out” of their legal status upon turning 21 while waiting in the backlog.
  21. Visa recapture has been done before as part of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (S. 2045), to recapture unused visa numbers from FY99 and FY00, and then again as part of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418) to recapture unused visas from FY01-04. It has also been proposed in legislation like the Health Care Workforce Resilience Act (S. 3599) to address doctor shortages, and was included in the Senate-passed BSEOIM Act. The number of visas recaptured would depend on the period of time considered and any limits set by Congress; analysis from the Cato Institute shows that more than 4.5 million green cards that have gone unused over the last century could be recaptured; S. 3599, which limited its recapture to unused visas from 1992, aimed to recapture up to 40,000 visas.
Tell the world; share this article via...
Read related articles:
  • Report
  • Immigration
  • News

Increasing Future Immigration Grows the U.S.’ Competitive Advantage

  • Blog
  • Legal Avenues
  • News

How are immigration and GDP growth connected?

  • Blog
  • Immigration
  • News

Per-Country Cap Reform - Priority Bill Spotlight

See All the News
Act Now

Get Involved

We need your help to move America forward. Learn what you can do.