Comprehensive Immigration Reform The Senates Comprehensive - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Senate’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Proposal (S. 744): Outlook for Counties

WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013

Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Outlook for Counties

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Presentation Overview

About NACo Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties Immigration Reform in Context Outlook for Reform Legislation Key Provisions of the Senate Bill (S. 744)

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 3

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

About NACo

The National Association of Counties (NACo) is the only national

• rganization that represents county

governments in the United States. Founded in 1935, NACo assists America's 3,069 counties in pursuing excellence in public service to produce healthy, vibrant, safe and resilient

• counties. NACo promotes sound public

policies, fosters county solutions and innovation, promotes intergovernmental and public-private collaboration, and provides value-added services to save counties and taxpayers money.

Healthy, vibrant, safe and resilient counties across America

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 4

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Why Counties Matter

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 5

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Counties are often the health care providers of last resort for the uninsured and underinsured

 There are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., roughly seven million of whom have no health insurance

Counties provide for the public safety of all individuals, including undocumented immigrants

 Border counties are often involved in the apprehension and detention

• f undocumented immigrants

Counties provide free elementary and secondary education without regard to immigration status

 Immigration reform would increase demand for adult education, at a time when states have reduced funding for such programs

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 6

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Healthcare Education Public Safety

Counties must provide emergency health care to all, including undocumented immigrants Counties must provide elementary and secondary education to all, including undocumented immigrants Counties provide for the public safety of all individuals, including undocumented immigrants Some counties provide health care to immigrants who are not yet eligible for federal means-tested benefits Counties spend more than $60 billion per year on the provision of education to residents 2,865 of the nation’s 3,069 counties own jails or participate in the operation of regional jails Counties operate 964 hospitals nationwide, and spend roughly $68 billion annually on health care services for the public Counties will be affected by increased demand for English language classes as undocumented immigrants integrate into society Counties rely on the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program for reimbursements related to the incarceration of undocumented immigrants

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 7

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Lawful Permanent Residents (aged 18+)* Lawful Permanent Residents (under 18)* Lawful Permanent Residents (pregnant women)* Refugees, Asylees, Victims of Trafficking, Others** Lawfully Present Individuals*** Unauthorized Individuals (including children and pregnant women) Affordable Care Act subsidies, premium tax credits and cost- sharing reductions Eligible Eligible Eligible Eligible Eligible Not Eligible (also not eligible for full- priced health insurance under the exchanges) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Not eligible until after 5 year waiting period or credit for 40 quarters of work Eligible Not eligible until after 5 year waiting period or credit 40 quarters of work Eligible Not eligible Not eligible Medicaid Not eligible until after 5 year waiting period State option to provide without 5 year waiting period ^ State option to provide without 5 year waiting period Eligible State option for children under 21 and pregnant women Eligible only for emergency Medicaid Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Not eligible until after 5 year waiting period State option to provide without 5 year waiting period State option to provide without 5 year waiting period Eligible State option for children under 21 and pregnant women Not eligible Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Not eligible until after 5 year waiting period Not eligible until after 5 year waiting period Not eligible until after 5 year waiting period Eligible Not eligible Not eligible Social Security’s Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI) Not eligible until after 5 year waiting period and have credit for 40 quarters of work or meet another exception ^^ Not eligible until after 5 year waiting period and have credit for 40 quarters of work or meet another exception Not eligible until after 5 year waiting period and have credit for 40 quarters of work Only eligible during first 7 years after status is granted Not eligible Not eligible Chart Notes * If the individual entered the U.S. on or after 8/22/1996 ** Includes individuals granted withholding of deportation or removal *** Includes groups granted Temporary Protected Status ^ Eligible regardless

• f state option if

receiving federal foster care ^^ A quarter of work is equivalent to three months

• f employment

Immigrants are Eligible for Some Means-Tested Programs under Current Law

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Source: National Immigration Law Center

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 8

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Some States Extend Medicaid/CHIP to New Immigrant Children & Pregnant Women

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Source: Urban Institute

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 9

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Source: Migration Policy Institute, May 2013

Share of Undocumented Adults Age 19 and Older Without Health Insurance, by State of Residence, 2011

Note: states that are not shaded had samples that were too small to support reliable insurance coverage estimates.

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 10

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Immigration Reform in Context

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 11

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

The Foreign Born Population in the United States Continues to Increase

Immigration Reform in Context

Source: Congressional Budget Office

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 12

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Share of States’ Population that is Foreign-Born, 2012

20% and Higher 14% to 20% 9% to 14% Less than 9%

Immigration Reform in Context

Source: Congressional Budget Office

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 13

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

States with the Highest Concentration of Foreign-Born Populations

Immigration Reform in Context

Source: Pew Hispanic Center

California 10.2 Million 27.1% New York 4.3 Million 22.2% New Jersey 1.9 Million 21.3% Texas 4.2 Million 16.5% Florida 3.7 Million 19.4%

Number of Immigrants and Percentage of State Population

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 14

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Number of Undocumented Immigrants in the United States, by Birthplace, 2000 and 2011

Immigration Reform in Context

2011 2000 Mexico El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras Other Countries Total 8.5 Total 11.5 6.8 1.6 3.2 4.7 0.9 2.9 Millions

Source: Congressional Budget Office

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 15

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Country of Birth of the Undocumented Immigrant Population

Immigration Reform in Context

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 16

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

States of Residence of the Undocumented Immigrant Population

Immigration Reform in Context

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 17

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Age Range of the Undocumented Immigrant Population

Immigration Reform in Context

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 18

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

The Share of Minorities among the Voting Population is Increasing

Immigration Reform in Context

Source: National Journal

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 19

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Recent polls show that a large majority of Americans support immigration reform that would give legal status to undocumented

• immigrants. This poll,

conducted by the Pew Research Center, shows that 73 percent of those surveyed felt that undocumented immigrants should be given some path to legal status.

Undocumented immigrants should have some way to stay in the U.S. legally 73% Should have a path to citizenship Should have a path to permanent residency only Don’t know which path 4% Should not be allowed to stay legally Don’t know 4%

Immigration Reform in Context

Source: Pew Research Center, via National Journal

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 20

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Outlook for Reform Legislation

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 21

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties Outlook for Reform Legislation

Past Immigration Proposals

Source: National Journal

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 22

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties Timing of Immigration Reform is Uncertain

 With large populations of undocumented immigrants and foreign-born voters who consider immigration reform a major priority in the U.S., there is growing pressure on Congressional leadership to enact reform during the 113th Congress  The Senate passed its version of a comprehensive measure (S. 744) on June 27 in a 68- 32 vote  The House has passed five incremental measures (slide 26), and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has released principles for reform that encompass those measures and would add a path to legalization for undocumented individuals and a path to citizenship for individuals who were brought into the country as children  A comprehensive measure (H.R. 15) largely based on S. 744 has been introduced in the House and has 194 cosponsors, including three Republicans  If and when both chambers pass reform legislation, a Senate and House conference will be held to reconcile the differences between the bills

Outlook for Reform Legislation

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 23

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Status of Current Immigration Reform Proposals

Proposal or Legislation Sponsors Status

White House Immigration Reform Proposal President Obama

• A draft of the president’s immigration

reform proposal was leaked to the press Feb. 16, 2013

• Unlikely to become a bill unless

Congress becomes gridlocked Senate Measure: Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744) “Senate Gang of Eight”

• Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)
• Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
• Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
• Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
• Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)
• Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
• Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
• Introduced on April 17, 2013
• On May 21, 2013, the Senate

Judiciary Committee voted to move legislation onto Senate floor for consideration

• Passed on June 27, 2013 by a 68-32

vote House Immigration Reform Proposal Unknown at this time

• It was reported on May 16, 2013 that

key House Members have reached an agreement on comprehensive reform principles, but few details are

• available. The House Judiciary

Committee has approved four incremental measures

Source: National Journal

Outlook for Reform Legislation

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 24

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Incremental House Immigration Reform Legislation

Should House negotiators fail to reach a compromise on a comprehensive immigration reform proposal, the House Republican leadership may move a series of smaller bills instead; some have already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee:

Legislation Sponsor(s) Summary NACo Policy

Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 1772) Approved by House Judiciary Committee on June 26, 2013

• Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
• Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)

Mandates that local and state governments verify the immigration status of current employees who have not gone through the E- Verify system; mandates implementation

• f E-Verify within 12-24 months

NACo opposes unfunded mandates imposed on state and local governments, and has voiced its opposition to similar E- Verify bills in the past SKILLS Visa Act (H.R. 2131) Approved by House Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2013

• Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)
• Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)

Increases H-1B employment visas to 155,000 a year, from the current level of 65,000 NACo does not have policy on the numerical caps for H-1B employment visas The Agricultural Guest Worker Act (H.R. 1773) Approved by House Judiciary Committee on June 19, 2013

• Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)

Establishes a new H-2C visa program for all aspects of the agriculture industry; initial length of stay of 18 months for seasonal workers and 36 months for permanent workers; no path to citizenship NACo does not have policy on this particular bill, but in general supports the establishment of an

• rderly temporary worker

program Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act (SAFE) (H.R. 2278) Approved by House Judiciary Committee on June 18, 2013

• Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)

Compels state and local government to enforce all immigration laws by changing unlawful presence from a civil to a criminal violation NACo opposes unfunded mandates requiring that counties enforce civil immigration laws such as those included in H.R. 2278 Border Security Results Act (H.R. 1417) Approved by House Homeland Security Committee on May 15, 2013

• Rep. Michael McCaul (R-

Texas) Requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a plan for a verifiable 90% apprehension rate on the southwest border within 5 years NACo does not have policy on this particular bill

Outlook for Reform Legislation

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 25

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Committees with Jurisdiction over Immigration Reform

House Committee on the Judiciary Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Majority Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) Howard Coble (R-N.C.) Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) Lamar Smith (R-Texas) Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)

• J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)

Steve King (R-Iowa) Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) Ted Poe (R-Texas) Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) Tom Marino (R-Pa.) Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) Raul R. Labrador (R-Idaho) Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) George Holding (R-N.C.) Doug Collins (R-Ga.) Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) Minority John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) Ranking Member Jerrod Nadler (D-N.Y.) Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) Melvin Watt (D-N.C.) Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) Pedro Pierluisi (D-P.R.) Judy Chu (D-Calif.) Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) Karen Bass (D-Calif.) Cedric Richmond (D-La.) Suzan DelBene (D-Wash). Joe Garcia (D-Fla.) Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) Majority Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) Al Franken (D-Minn.) Chris Coons (D-Del.) Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) Minority Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) Jeff Sessions (R-Ark.) Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) John Cornyn (R-Texas) Mike Lee (R-Utah) Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)

Outlook for Reform Legislation

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 26

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Key Provisions of the U.S. Senate’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill (S. 744)

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 27

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Key Provisions of S. 744

Enhanced border security initiatives

Securing the border would serve as a prerequisite to the path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants

Earned pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who meet eligibility requirements Major reforms to legal immigration and family and employment visa programs Allocation of over $8 billion in fees and penalties generated from the bill to deficit reduction

The fees and penalties would be paid by undocumented immigrants as they move through the path to citizenship

Major Themes in the Senate’s Immigration Reform Proposal

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 28

$20M $50M $80M $80M $250M $250M $250M $500M $500M $500M $1B $1B $6.5B Establish Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research Fund Office of Citizenship and New Americans Finance campaigns to introduce and explain employment… Protect against discrimination based on citizenship status Increase border crossing prosecutions Enhance law enforcement preparedness along borders Fund states that share driver's license information for… Fund organizations providing legal assistance to immigrants Fund programs supporting immigrant integration Reimburse carrier implementation of identity-theft resistent… Limit expenses related to increasing integrity of Social… Support enforcement of employment verification system Increase border security

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Key Provisions of S. 744

Funding Allocations in the Senate Immigration Reform Bill

Source: National Journal

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 29

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Key Provisions of S. 744

Breakdown of Funding for Border Security Initiatives in S. 744

Source: National Journal

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 30

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Enforcement of Border and Ports of Entry

NACo Policy

• S. 744

President’s Proposal

• NACo supports the

enhancement of U.S. border security

• Before previously undocumented immigrants can

adjust to legal permanent resident status, border enforcement initiatives must be completed, and the E- Verify and entry-exit tracking systems must be in place

• Would mandate 24-hour surveillance of the southwest

border, including unmanned aircraft, upgrades to helicopter fleets and mobile communications systems

• Would call for an entry-exit tracking system to

determine whether persons entering on temporary visas have left the country as required

• Adds 20,000 border patrol agents to the southern

border

• Would call for the improvement
• f infrastructure at ports of entry

and for technology to control land and maritime borders

Key Provisions of S. 744

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 31

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Enforcement of Border and Ports of Entry, cont.

NACo Policy

• S. 744

President’s Proposal

• NACo opposes

unfunded mandates that would require counties to enforce civil immigration laws

• No unfunded mandates that require counties to enforce civil immigration laws
• Would provide funding to federal, state and local law enforcement in the

southwest border to purchase and upgrade communications systems

• Would also establish a southwest border prosecution initiative to reimburse

state, county, tribal and municipal governments for prosecution and pre-trial detention costs of federally initiated cases declined by local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices

• Would provide $30 million a year for Operation Stonegarden, which provides

grants to southwestern states for costs related to illegal immigration and drug smuggling

• No unfunded

mandates that require counties to enforce civil immigration laws

• Would provide

additional funding for tribal governments along the southwest border

• NACo supports the

full funding of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which is currently funded at

• nly $240 million
• Would reauthorize SCAAP through FY2015 at a level of $950 million per year
• Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) sponsored an amendment to S.744 that

would allow reimbursements under SCAAP for the incarceration of individuals who have not been convicted of a crime, and would continue reimbursements for “unknown” individuals – those who do not appear in the Department of Homeland Security database because they have not previously come in contact with federal immigration authorities. The amendment, which NACo supported, was adopted by voice vote

• The President’s

FY2014 budget request proposes to eliminate SCAAP

Key Provisions of S. 744

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 32

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Enforcement Task Forces and Community Liaisons

NACo Policy

• S. 744

President’s Proposal

• NACo supports the inclusion of

county elected officials in all relevant task forces and commissions

• Would establish a 10-member Southwest Border

Commission of governors, attorneys general and community leaders

• Would establish a 26-member Homeland

Security Border Oversight Task Force appointed by the president, comprised of 11 members from the northern border region and 15 from the southern border region; includes local government elected officials

• Would call for the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security to establish community liaisons along the northern and southern borders

Key Provisions of S. 744

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 33

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Workplace Enforcement: E-Verify

NACo Policy

• S. 744

President’s Proposal

• NACo is concerned about the

costs of implementing the E-Verify system for current employees, especially if the public sector is required to implement the program sooner than the private sector (most counties have already implemented E-Verify for new hires)

• Would mandate E-Verify system for new hires,

but not for current workers

• Would mandate E-Verify for the public and

private sectors

• Employers with more than 5,000 employers

would be given two years to implement the system; those with more than 500 employees would be given three years; agricultural employers would be given four years

• Would prohibit national ID cards and list

documents, such as driver’s licenses, that can be used to meet REAL ID Act requirements

• Would provide $250 million in grants to states

that voluntarily submit state driver’s license photos to the E-Verify system

• Would call for the phase-in of a

mandatory, electronic verification system over five years, as well as increasing penalties for hiring unauthorized workers

Key Provisions of S. 744

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 34

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Pathway to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants

NACo Policy

• S. 744

President’s Proposal

• NACo supports an earned path

to citizenship for undocumented immigrants that includes registration requirements, English and civic competency, payment of

• utstanding taxes and fines,

and criminal background checks

• NACo recognizes that some

counties and states will be affected by the fact that S. 744 would consider individuals on its path to citizenship to be “lawfully present”

• Would create a path to citizenship for

undocumented immigrants who were physically present in the U.S. on or before December 31, 2011, and are not disqualified due to criminal backgrounds or other categories of inadmissibility

• Would require eligible undocumented immigrants

to come forward, register, and pay outstanding taxes and fees

• Would first grant Registered Provisional Immigrant

(RPI) status to undocumented immigrants, followed by Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status, and finally citizenship; reaching citizenship would take 13-15 years for most undocumented immigrants

• Undocumented immigrants on the path to

citizenship would be considered “lawfully present” for purposes other than those related to the Affordable Care Act

• Would create a provisional legal

status for undocumented immigrants, ultimately leading to LPR status and citizenship

Key Provisions of S. 744

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 35

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Requirements for Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) Status

Under the Senate’s comprehensive reform proposal, RPI status is the first step on the path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, followed by Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status, and citizenship, respectively NACo Policy

• S. 744

President’s Proposal

• NACo supports

requirements similar to those included in

• S. 744 for RPI status
• Would require the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security to certify that border security measures required under the bill have begun, as a “trigger” to RPI status adjustments

• Undocumented immigrants who were physically present in the

U.S. on or before December 31, 2011 would be eligible for RPI status

• Individuals with serious criminal backgrounds or who pose a

threat to national security would not be eligible for RPI status

• Eligible applicants would be required to pay assessed taxes and

application fees

• RPI status would initially last for six years, but would be

renewable as long as the individual has not become ineligible during that time; there is a $500 fee for initial application, and another $500 fee for renewal

• Undocumented immigrants

wishing to adjust to provisional status would be required to come forward, register, pass background checks, and pay fees and penalties

Key Provisions of S. 744

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 36

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Requirements for Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) Status

NACo Policy

• S. 744

President’s Proposal

• NACo recognizes that counties

will be affected by requirements for Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status that call for English and civics competency

• Would require the Secretary of the U.S. Department
• f Homeland Security to certify that border security

measures required under the bill are “substantially

• perational,” as a “trigger” to adjustment of RPI to

LPR status

• Most individuals in RPI status would be required to

wait 10 years before adjusting to Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status

• Individuals in RPI status would be required to pass

additional background checks, to demonstrate English and civics competency, and to show a history of employment in the U.S.

• Immigrants in RPI status would pay a $1,000 fee

when applying for LPR status; this is in addition to the two $500 fees paid during RPI status

• Most individuals who achieve RPI, and then LPR

status, would be eligible to apply for citizenship after three years as LPRs

• Immigrants in provisional status

would have to pass additional background checks, demonstrate English and civics competency, and register for Selective Service (“the draft”), where applicable

• As under current law, immigrants

who achieve LPR status would be eligible to apply for citizenship after five years

Key Provisions of S. 744

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 37

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Expedited Paths to Citizenship

NACo Policy

• S. 744

President’s Proposal

• NACo supports policies that

provide expedited paths to citizenship for individuals who were brought to the U.S. as minors, and for agricultural workers

• Undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S.

as children (commonly referred to as DREAMers), and those who have been working in the agricultural industry without authorization, would have an expedited path to Legal Permanent Residency and citizenship

• DREAMers would be able to adjust to LPR status

after five years in RPI status, and to apply for citizenship immediately after receiving LPR status; DREAMers are also exempt from the $1,000 fee for adjustment from RPI to LPR status

• Agricultural workers who worked 575 hours or 100

days during the two year period prior to December 31, 2012 would be eligible to apply, along with their dependents, for a “blue card,” which would in turn allow them to apply for LPR status after five years as “blue card” holders

• Individuals who were brought to

the country as children would have an expedited path to citizenship; the proposal is silent

• n expedited paths for agricultural

workers

Key Provisions of S. 744

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 38

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Federal Benefit Programs

NACo Policy

• S. 744

President’s Proposal

• NACo supports grants to states

and counties for health and education, funded by fees established in immigration reform legislation, and is working with members of Congress to establish such grants

• NACo has a long-standing policy

supporting the elimination of the five-year waiting period for access to means-tested services by legal permanent residents

• Current restrictions against receiving means-tested

services such as Medicaid (except in cases of emergency) would continue

• Individuals in RPI status would not be eligible for

Affordable Care Act tax credits or subsidies, but would be exempt from its individual mandates

• There would be no change to the current five-year

waiting period faced by Legal Permanent Residents for means-tested services

• Would address state and county foster care plans

for citizen children whose parents are in removal proceedings

• Current restrictions against

receiving means-tested services such as Medicaid (except in cases

• f emergency) would continue
• Individuals in provisional status

would be prohibited from receiving subsidies or tax credits under the Affordable Care Act

• There would be no change to the

five-year waiting period for access to means-tested services by legal permanent residents

Key Provisions of S. 744

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 39

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Reforming Legal Immigration - Changes to Visa Programs

NACo Policy

• S. 744

President’s Proposal

• NACo does not have policy on

family visa categories or methods of reducing the employment visa backlogs, but generally supports the streamlining of the immigration system

• Would create a Merit Based Visa System, which

would award points to applicants based on a number

• f factors, including education and employment

history, and would grant between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrant visas per year, depending on the U.S. unemployment rate

• Would eliminate the Diversity Visa program, which

currently awards 50,000 immigrant visas per year to individuals from underrepresented countries

• The numerical limit on visas issued to spouses and

minor children of LPRs would be eliminated

• Family-based immigrant visas for siblings of U.S.

citizens and for married children of U.S. citizens who are 30 or older would be eliminated, but such siblings and married children would receive a point boost in the Merit Based Visa system

• The bill would create a new nonimmigrant “V” visa for

beneficiaries of family visa petitions to live and work in the U.S. while waiting for their immigrant visas to be approved

• The proposal would temporarily

increase annual visa numbers, and would recapture unused visas to eliminate visa backlogs

Key Provisions of S. 744

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 40

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Visas

NACo Policy

• S. 744

President’s Proposal

• NACo supports the STEM visa

program

• Individuals who earn a Master’s or other

postgraduate degree in STEM fields from American universities would be eligible to apply for Legal Permanent Resident status, and thereafter, citizenship

• Spouses and minor children of such individuals

would also be eligible to apply for Legal Permanent Resident Status

• Individuals who earn a Master’s
• r other postgraduate degree in

STEM fields from American universities would be eligible to apply for Legal Permanent Resident status, and thereafter, citizenship

Key Provisions of S. 744

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 41

Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties

New Work Visas and Economic Development Visa Changes

NACo Policy

• S. 744

President’s Proposal

• NACo supports a temporary

worker visa program

• NACO supports the Job

Opportunities through Launching Tourism Act (JOLT)

• Would establish a workable program to meet the

needs of the agricultural industry that covers all aspects of the industry, not just seasonal workers

• Would establish a new W-visa program that would

allow more low-skilled immigrants to enter the U.S. when the economy is creating jobs, and less when the economy is not creating jobs

• Would create a new category of visas for

investors

• Would make changes to JOLT, designed to attract

more tourism

• Would create new visa categories

for highly-skilled immigrants

• Would create a new start-up

investor visa category, with incentives for those who invest in rural and economically depressed areas

Key Provisions of S. 744

WWW.NACO.ORG | FEBRUARY 2014 | 42

For more legislative presentations, visit www.naco.org

For questions or more information, feel free to contact us

Contact Us!

Paul Beddoe: Health, Deputy Legislative Director pbeddoe@naco.org or 202.942.4234 Michael Belarmino: Finance & Intergovernmental Affairs mbelarmino@naco.org or 202.942.4254 Daria Daniel: Community and Economic Development ddaniel@naco.org or 202.942.4212 Yejin Jang: Telecommunications and Technology, DHS/FEMA yjang@naco.org or 202.942.4239 Jessica Monahan: Transportation jmonohan@naco.org or 202.942.4217 Arlandis Rush: Justice, Public and Safety arush@naco.org or 202.942.4236 Marilina Sanz: Human Services and Education msanz@naco.org or 202.942.4260 Arthur Scott: Agriculture and Rural Affairs ascott@naco.org or 202.942.4230 Hadi Sedigh: Workforce and Pensions hsedigh@naco.org or 202.942.4213 Julie Ufner: Environment, Energy & Land Use jufner@naco.org or 202.942.4269

Matthew Chase, NACo Executive Director

NACo was named one of nine remarkable associations in the United States after a four-year study conducted by the American Society of Association Executives and The Center for Association Leadership because of its commitment to members and purpose

Questions?

Deborah Cox: Legislative Director dcox@naco.org or 202.942.4286