Transcript Comprehensive Immigration Reform:

TheComprehensive
Senate’s Comprehensive
Immigration
Reform
Immigration
Reform
Proposal
(S.Outlook
744): Outlook
for Counties
and the
for Counties
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013
Why Immigration Reform
Matters to Counties
Presentation
Overview
About NACo
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
Immigration Reform in Context
Outlook for Legislation in the House and Senate
Key Provisions of the Senate Bill (S. 744)
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 1
Why Immigration
About
NACo Reform Matters to Counties
The National Association of Counties (NACo) assists America's
counties in pursuing excellence in public service by advancing
sound public policies, promoting county solutions and innovations,
fostering intergovernmental and public-private collaboration, and
providing value-added services to save counties and taxpayers money
Founded in 1935, NACo provides the elected and appointed leaders
from the nation's 3,069 counties with the knowledge, skills and
tools necessary to provide fiscally-responsible, quality-driven, and
results-oriented policies and services for healthy, vibrant, safe and
resilient counties
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 2
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 3
Why Immigration
Reform
Matters to Counties
Why
Counties
Matter
NACo recently produced Why Counties Matter to show how
COUNTY GOVERNMENTS PLAY A KEY ROLE IN AMERICA’S SYSTEM
OF FEDERALISM AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COLLABORATION
Download the video from the NACo website and show it to community groups, in
schools and to business leaders. Use the video to talk about the national role of
counties, plus discuss the specific roles and services of your county. Take this
opportunity and spread the word and show Why Counties Matter!
http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/Why-Counties-Matter.aspx
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 4

Why Immigration Reform
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
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
of 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 | JUNE 2013 5
NACo Immigration Reform
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
Task Force
Co-Chairs
J. Walter Tejada
Supervisor, Chair
Arlington County (VA)
Mary Rose Wilcox
Supervisor
Maricopa County (AZ)
Vice Chair
Angel G. Estrada
Freeholder
Union County (NJ)
Members
Elizabeth Archuleta
Supervisor, Chair
Coconino County (AZ)
Lindora Baker
Commissioner
Caddo Parish (LA)
Kimbrough L. Ballard
Chairman and Probate Judge
Dallas County (AL)
Richard Bengtsson
Director, Human Services
El Paso County (CO)
Salud Carbajal
Supervisor, Chair
Santa Barbara County (CA)
Efren Carrillo
Supervisor
Sonoma County (CA)
Toni Carter
Commissioner
Ramsey County (MN)
Kenneth A. Dahlstedt
Commissioner, Chair
Skagit County (WA)
Audrey Edmonson
Commissioner, Vice Chair
Miami-Dade County (FL)
Elba Garcia
Commissioner
Dallas County (TX)
Terry Edward Garrison
Commissioner
Vance County (NC)
Gregg Goslin
Commissioner
Cook County (IL)
Paul Gutierrez
Executive Director
New Mexico Association of Counties
G. Riki Hokama
Council Member
Maui County (HI)
Chester E. Pintarelli
Administrator, Medical Care
Iron County (MI)
Paula Prentice
Council Member
Summit County (OH)
Dave Roberts
Supervisor
San Diego County (CA)
Manuel Ruiz
Supervisor
Santa Cruz County (AZ)
William J. Ryan
County Legislator
Westchester County (NY)
L. Arnoldo Saenz
County Judge
Jim Wells County (TX)
Sue Tuffin
Director, Workforce Center
Mesa County (CO)
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 6
Why Immigration Reform
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
Matters to Counties
Public Safety
Healthcare
Education
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
Counties rely on the State
Criminal Alien Assistance
Program for
reimbursements related to
the incarceration
WWW.NACO.ORGof
| JUNE 2013
7
Why Immigration Reform
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
Matters to Counties
Immigrants are Eligible for Some Means-Tested Programs under Current Law
Lawful Permanent
Residents (aged 18+)*
Lawful Permanent
Residents
(under 18)*
Lawful Permanent
Residents
(pregnant
women)*
Refugees,
Asylees,
Victims of
Trafficking,
Others**
Eligible
Lawfully Present
Individuals***
Unauthorized Individuals
(including children and
pregnant women)
Affordable Care Act
subsidies, premium
tax credits and costsharing reductions
Eligible
Eligible
Eligible
Eligible
Not Eligible
(also not eligible for fullpriced 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 ^^
* If the individual entered the
U.S. on or after 8/22/1996
Not eligible until
after 5 year waiting
period and have
credit for 40
quarters of work
*** Includes groups
granted Temporary
Protected Status
Only eligible
Not eligible
during first 7
years after
status is
granted
^ Eligible regardless
of state option if
receiving federal foster care
Not eligible
Chart Notes
Not eligible until after 5
year waiting period and
have credit for 40
quarters of work or
meet another exception
** Includes individuals
granted withholding of
deportation or removal
Source: National Immigration Law Center
^^ A quarter of work is
equivalent to three months
of employment
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 8
Why Immigration Reform
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
Matters to Counties
Some States Extend Medicaid/CHIP to
New Immigrant Children & Pregnant Women
Source: Urban Institute
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 9
Why Immigration Reform
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
Matters to Counties
Share of Undocumented Adults Age 19 and Older Without Health Insurance,
by State of Residence, 2011
Source: Migration Policy Institute, May 2013
Note: states that are not shaded had samples that
were too small to support reliable insurance
coverage estimates.
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 10
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
Immigration Reform in Context
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 11
Why Immigration
Reform
Matters to Counties
Immigration
Reform
in Context
The Foreign Born Population in the United States
Continues to Increase
Source: Congressional Budget Office
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 12
Why Immigration
Reform
Matters to Counties
Immigration
Reform
in Context
Share of States’ Population that is Foreign-Born, 2012
20% and Higher
Source: Congressional Budget Office
14% to 20%
9% to 14%
Less than 9%
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 13
Why Immigration
Reform
Matters to Counties
Immigration
Reform
in Context
States with the Highest Concentration of Foreign-Born Populations
Number of Immigrants and Percentage of State Population
California
10.2 Million
27.1%
New York
4.3 Million
22.2%
New Jersey
1.9 Million
21.3%
Florida
3.7 Million
19.4%
Texas
4.2 Million
16.5%
Source: Pew Hispanic Center
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 14
Why Immigration
Reform
Matters to Counties
Immigration
Reform
in Context
Number of Undocumented Immigrants in the
United States, by Birthplace, 2000 and 2011
Mexico
2011
El Salvador,
Guatemala,
and Honduras
Other
Countries
1.6
3.2
6.8
Total
11.5
Millions
2000
Source: Congressional Budget Office
4.7
0.9
2.9
Total
8.5
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 15
Why Immigration
Reform
Matters to Counties
Immigration
Reform
in Context
Country of Birth of the Undocumented Immigrant Population
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 16
Why Immigration
Reform
Matters to Counties
Immigration
Reform
in Context
States of Residence of the Undocumented Immigrant Population
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 17
Why Immigration
Reform
Matters to Counties
Immigration
Reform
in Context
Age Range of the Undocumented Immigrant Population
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 18
Why Immigration
Reform
Matters to Counties
Immigration
Reform
in Context
The Share of Minorities among the Voting Population is Increasing
Source: National Journal
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 19
Why Immigration
Reform
Matters to Counties
Immigration
Reform
in Context
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.
Should have a path to citizenship
Should have a path to
permanent residency only
Undocumented immigrants
should have some way to
stay in the U.S. legally
73%
Don’t know which path 4%
Should not be allowed to stay
legally
Don’t know 4%
Source: Pew Research Center, via National Journal
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 20
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
Outlook for Legislation
in the House and Senate
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 21
Outlook for Legislation in
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
the House and Senate
Past Immigration Proposals
Source: National Journal
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 22
Outlook for Legislation in
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
the House and Senate
Timing of Immigration Reform is Uncertain
 President Obama has publicly stated that he wants an immigration reform bill on his
desk by the August recess
 With large populations of undocumented immigrants, as well as foreign-born voters
who consider immigration reform a major priority, there is growing pressure on
Congressional leadership to enact reform this year
 The Senate Judiciary Committee has introduced and marked up its version of a
comprehensive reform bill (S. 744), and the measure will be considered on the
Senate floor in the coming weeks (Mid-June, 2013)
 The House has yet to introduce a comprehensive bill, but key Members of a
bipartisan group have reportedly reached tentative agreement on reform principles
 If and when both chambers pass reform legislation, a Senate and House conference
will be held, but it is unlikely that this will occur before the August recess
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 23
Outlook for Legislation in
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
the House and Senate
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
• Floor consideration is likely to take
place beginning on June 10, 2013,
until the Fourth of July recess
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
House Immigration Reform Proposal
Source: National Journal
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 24
Outlook for Legislation in
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
the House and Senate
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 introduced:
Legislation
Sponsor(s)
Summary
NACo Policy
Legal Workforce Act
(H.R. 1772)
Introduced: April 26, 2013
Rep. Lamar Smith (RTexas)
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (RVa.)
Mandates that local and state
governments verify the
immigration status of current
employees who have not gone
through the E-Verify system;
mandates implementation of
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)
Introduced: May 23, 2013
Rep. Darrell Issa (RCalif.)
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (RVa.)
The Agricultural Guest
Worker Act
(H.R. 1773)
Introduced: April 26, 2013
Source: National Journal
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (RVa.)
Increases H-1B employment
visas to 155,000 a year, from
the current level of 65,000
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
the numerical caps for H-1B
employment visas
NACo does not have policy on
this particular bill, but in general
supports the establishment of
an orderly temporary worker
program
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 25
Outlook for Legislation in
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
the House and Senate
Senators Playing Key Roles in Immigration Reform
(“Senate Gang of Eight”)
Democrats
Republicans
Marco Rubio
(R-Fla.)
John McCain
(R-Ariz.)
Lindsey Graham
(R-S.C.)
Jeff Flake
(R-Ariz.)
Orrin Hatch*
(R-Utah)
Dick Durbin
(D-Ill.)
Chuck Schumer
(D-N.Y.)
Michael Bennet
(D-Colo.)
Bob Menendez
(D-N.J.)
*Sen. Hatch is not a member of the “Senate Gang of Eight”, but his vote is considered crucial in deciding the fate of S. 744 .
Source: National Journal
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 26
Outlook for Legislation in
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
the House and Senate
House Members Playing Key Roles in Immigration Reform
(“House Gang of Eight”)
Democrats
Republicans
Mario Diaz-Balart
(R-Fla.)
Sam Johnson
(R-Texas)
John Carter
(R-Texas)
Raul Labrador*
(R-Idaho)
Bob Goodlatte**
(R-Va.)
Xavier Becerra
(D-Calif.)
Zoe Lofgren
(D-Calif.)
Luis Gutierrez
(D-Ill.)
John Yarmuth
(D-Ky.)
*On June 5, 2013, Rep. Labrador expressed his intent to leave the “House Gang of Eight,” reportedly because he felt that potential reform deals did not go
far enough in blocking undocumented immigrants from accessing health benefits
**Rep. Goodlatte is not a member of the “House Gang of Eight,” but chairs the committee of jurisdiction (House Judiciary Committee) and has been heavily
involved in immigration legislation in the House
Source: National Journal
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 27
Outlook for Legislation in
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
the House and Senate
Committees with Jurisdiction over Immigration Reform
House 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.)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
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.)
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 28
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Counties
Key Provisions of the U.S. Senate’s
Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Bill (S. 744)
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 29
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Major Themes in the Senate’s Immigration Reform Proposal
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
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 30
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Funding Allocations in the Senate Immigration Reform Bill
Increase border security
$6.5B
Support enforcement of employment verification system
Limit expenses related to increasing integrity of Social Security
cards
Reimburse carrier implementation of identity-theft resistent
exit systems
$1B
$1B
$500M
Fund programs supporting immigrant integration
$500M
Fund organizations providing legal assistance to immigrants
$500M
Fund states that share driver's license information for
employment verification system checks
$250M
Enhance law enforcement preparedness along borders
$250M
Increase border crossing prosecutions
$250M
Protect against discrimination based on citizenship status
$80M
Finance campaigns to introduce and explain employment
verification system
$80M
Fund Office of Citizenship and New Americans
$50M
Establish Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research
$20M
Source: National Journal
NACo has been working
with other state and local
government associations in
pursuit of floor
amendments to the
Senate’s comprehensive
reform bill that will increase
the funding for state and
local governments
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 31
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Breakdown of Funding for Border Security Initiatives in S. 744
Source: National Journal
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 32
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Enforcement of Border and Ports of Entry
NACo Policy
• NACo supports the
enhancement of U.S. border
security
S. 744
• Would call for the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security to craft a strategy that would
ultimately lead to the apprehension of 90 percent of
immigrants who attempt to cross U.S. borders
illegally, and would tie the status adjustment of
currently present undocumented immigrants to
successful implementation of this strategy
• Would mandate 24-hour surveillance of the southwest
border, including unmanned aircraft, upgrades to
helicopter fleets and mobile communications systems
President’s Proposal
• Would call for the improvement
of infrastructure at ports of entry
and for technology to control
land and maritime borders
• Would call for an entry-exit tracking system to
determine whether persons entering on temporary
visas have left the country as required
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 33
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Enforcement of Border and Ports of Entry, cont.
NACo Policy
S. 744
President’s
Proposal
• No unfunded mandates that require counties to enforce civil immigration laws
• NACo opposes
unfunded mandates
that would 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
• Would reauthorize SCAAP through FY2015 at a level of $950 million per year
• NACo supports the
full funding of the
State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program
(SCAAP), which is
currently funded at
only $240 million
• 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
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 34
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Enforcement Task Forces and Community Liaisons
NACo Policy
S. 744
• Would establish a 10-member Southwest Border
Commission of governors, attorneys general and
community leaders
• NACo supports the inclusion of
county elected officials in all
relevant task forces and
commissions
• 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
President’s Proposal
• Would call for the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
to establish community liaisons
along the northern and southern
borders
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 35
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Workplace Enforcement: E-Verify
NACo Policy
S. 744
President’s Proposal
• Would mandate E-Verify system for new hires,
but not for current workers
• Would mandate E-Verify for the public and
private sectors
• 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)
• 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 call for the phase-in of a
mandatory, electronic verification
system over five years, as well as
increasing penalties for hiring
unauthorized workers
• 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
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 36
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Pathway to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants
NACo Policy
• NACo supports an earned path
to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants that
includes registration
requirements, English and
civic competency, payment of
outstanding 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”
S. 744
President’s Proposal
• 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
• Would create a provisional legal
status for undocumented
immigrants, ultimately leading to
LPR status and citizenship
• Undocumented immigrants on the path to
citizenship would be considered “lawfully present”
for purposes other than those related to the
Affordable Care Act
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 37
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
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
• 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
• NACo supports
requirements similar
to those included in
S. 744 for RPI status
• 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
• Undocumented immigrants
wishing to adjust to
provisional status would be
required to come forward,
register, pass background
checks, and pay fees and
penalties
• 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
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 38
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Requirements for Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) Status
NACo Policy
S. 744
President’s Proposal
• Would require the Secretary of the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security to certify that border security
measures required under the bill are “substantially
operational,” as a “trigger” to adjustment of RPI to
LPR status
• NACo recognizes that counties
will be affected by requirements
for Legal Permanent Resident
(LPR) status that call for
English and civics competency
• 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 $1000 fee
when applying for LPR status; this is in addition to
the two $500 fees paid during RPI status
• 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
• Most individuals who achieve RPI, and then LPR
status, would be eligible to apply for citizenship
after three years as LPRs
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 39
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Expedited Paths to Citizenship
NACo Policy
S. 744
President’s Proposal
• 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
• NACo supports policies that
provide expedited paths to
citizenship for individuals who
were brought to the U.S. as
minors, and for agricultural
workers
• 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
• Individuals who were brought to
the country as children would
have an expedited path to
citizenship; the proposal is silent
on expedited paths for agricultural
workers
• 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
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 40
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Federal Benefit Programs
NACo Policy
• 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
S. 744
• 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
President’s Proposal
• Current restrictions against
receiving means-tested services
such as Medicaid (except in cases
of 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
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 41
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Reforming Legal Immigration - Changes to Visa Programs
NACo Policy
S. 744
President’s Proposal
• Would create a Merit Based Visa System, which
would award points to applicants based on a number
of 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
• 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 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
• The proposal would temporarily
increase annual visa numbers,
and would recapture unused
visas to eliminate visa backlogs
• 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” visas
for beneficiaries of family visa petitions to live and
work in the U.S. while waiting for their immigrant
visas to be approved
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 42
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Visas
NACo Policy
• NACo supports the STEM visa
program
S. 744
• 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
President’s Proposal
• 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
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 43
Why Provisions
Immigration of
Reform
Matters to Counties
Key
S. 744
New Work Visas and Economic Development Visa Changes
NACo Policy
S. 744
President’s Proposal
• Would establish a workable program to meet the
needs of the agricultural industry that covers all
aspects of the industry, not just seasonal workers
• NACo supports a temporary
worker visa program
• NACO supports the Job
Opportunities through Launching
Tourism Act (JOLT)
• 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 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
• Would make changes to JOLT, designed to attract
more tourism
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013 44
Questions?
Contact Us!
For questions or more information, feel free to contact us
Matthew Chase, NACo Executive Director
Deborah Cox: Legislative Director
[email protected] or 202.942.4286
Yejin Jang: Telecommunications and Technology
[email protected] or 202.942.4239
Paul Beddoe: Health
[email protected] or 202.942.4234
Marilina Sanz: Human Services and Education
[email protected] or 202.942.4260
Michael Belarmino: Finance & Intergovernmental Affairs
[email protected] or 202.942.4254
Julie Ufner: Environment, Energy & Land Use
[email protected] or 202.942.4269
Daria Daniel: Community and Economic Development
[email protected] or 202.942.4212
Ryan Yates: Public Lands
[email protected] or 202.942.4207
Bob Fogel: Transportation
[email protected] or 202.942.4217
Hadi Sedigh: Legislative Assistant
[email protected] or 202.942.4213
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
WWW.NACO.ORG | JUNE 2013
[email protected]
WWW.NACO.ORG
WWW.NACO.ORG
| JUNE
| JUNE
20132013