Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
D
EX EC U T I V E S UMMARY
uring his presidential campaign, Donald demand. Indians averaged the longest wait because of
Trump repeatedly promised that al- quotas—over 8 years and 6 months.
though he would build a border wall, it Behind those immigrants who applied for green
would have a door open to those willing cards in 2018 stand nearly five million people waiting
to come to America legally. This policy in the applicant backlog. Without significant reforms,
analysis shows how badly America needs that new door wait times will become impossibly long for these im-
by providing the first calculation of how outdated quotas migrants. Altogether, about 675,000 would-be legal
have increased the average wait times for immigrants. immigrants—14 percent of those waiting in 2018—would
Since 1991, when the current quotas went into effect, die without seeing a green card if they refused to give up
time spent waiting to apply for a green card (i.e., legal and stayed in the line indefinitely. It will take decades
permanent residence) has doubled for applicants immi- and—in some categories—a half century or more to pro-
grating through the family-sponsored and employment- cess everyone else waiting now.
based quota categories—from an average of 2 years and 10 Long waits separate American families and artificially
months to 5 years and 8 months. suppress lawful migration to the United States of workers
More than 100,000 legal immigrants—28 percent of the whose skills contribute greatly to the U.S. economy. Near-
family-sponsored and employment-based lines with quo- ly three decades have passed since Congress last updated
tas—waited a decade or more to apply for a green card in the legal immigration system. During that time, the U.S.
2018, up from 3 percent in 1991. By contrast, 31 percent had economy has doubled, and its population has grown by
no wait at all from the quotas in 1991, while just 2 percent one-third. Entire new industries have formed that need
had no wait in 2018. The quota system also imposes limits workers. Congress should reform the antiquated quotas,
on the number of green cards for individual nationali- enact a limit on wait times, and keep these pathways vi-
ties, causing longer waits from countries with the highest able for legal immigrants in the 21st century.
David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
2
“
INTRODUCTION quotas and waiting lists are the “preference
Because Legal immigrants to the United States can categories.” The preference quota categories
Congress face two different types of waits. Every immi- account for a third of all permanent immigra-
grant must deal with the first type: the time it tion to the United States—about 366,000 slots
limited the takes for the government to process petitions annually.2 These immigration lines are known
number of and applications for green cards (i.e., legal as preference categories because the system
green cards, permanent residence). By itself, the adminis- prioritizes applicants according to different
family and employment “preferences.”3 Table 1
not everyone trative processing wait generally took more
than a year and a half in 2018—first to wait for lists each preference, along with its category
who receives an approval for the immigrant’s sponsor and limits. The law also limits the number of green
an approval then for an approval for the immigrant.1 But a cards that any single nationality may receive:
can apply for third of all legal immigrants face a second type no more than 7 percent of the total (25,620),
of wait between their sponsor’s petition and plus any unused green cards distributed to na-
a green card their own application: the time it takes for a tionals on a first-come, first-served basis in a
immediately. green card to become available under the im- given category.4
Like migration quotas. Because Congress limited These nationality-based quotas are known
customers at the number of green cards for certain types of as the country limits. The country limits re-
immigrants, not everyone who receives an ap- sult in each nationality waiting in lines that
a deli, they proval after the first wait can apply for a green move at different speeds within each cat-
wait for their card immediately. Like customers at a deli, egory. The wait time for Mexican siblings of
number to be they wait for their number to be called. U.S. citizens is different from that of Filipino
”
This policy analysis describes the second siblings of U.S. citizens, and both wait times
called. type of wait: the one caused by the unavailabil- differ from those of Mexican or Filipino
ity of green cards due to quotas, not bureau- spouses of legal permanent residents. For the
cratic delays. The immigration categories with most part, just four nationalities—Indians,
Table 1
Immigration preference categories and quotas
Preference categories Category limits (3) Country limits (3)
All family preferences 226,000 15,820
secnereferp ylimaF
“
Chinese, Filipinos, and Mexicans—reach the Glossary of key terms
country limits. When a nationality reaches The average
wait time to
Green card: confers legal permanent residence for immigrants
the country limit, nationals of other coun-
tries pass them in the line.
Each month, the State Department pub-
Preference category: green card sponsorship categories with
quotas
apply for a
lishes the Visa Bulletin, which informs immi- green card in
Category limits: annual quota on total immigrants in a
grants who entered the line before a certain category all preference
date that they may now apply for a green card.
Country limits: annual quota on total immigrants of any
categories has
For example, in October 2018, the date for
doubled since
”
nationality
Mexican-born siblings of U.S. citizens was
January 22, 1998, meaning that Mexican-born Wait times: time waited until green card becomes available 1991.
siblings had waited about two decades for the under quota
chance to apply for a green card. In October
Backlog: applicants waiting for a green card to become available
1991, the date for this category was January 1,
1979, meaning that immigrants applying for Visa Bulletin: publicizes when immigrants can apply for a green
green cards in that category had, at that time, card
waited only about 12 years.5 The average for
the entire year provides the basis for the esti- Preference category process
mates below. The current quotas went into ef-
fect in October 1991, so estimates for 1991 are 1. Employer or family sponsor files a petition for immigrant
based on October to December of that year. Average wait for processing for sponsor’s petition: 8–10 months
CURRENT WAIT TIMES Average wait until green card quota number is available: 5 years, 8
BY CATEGORY months
The average wait time to apply for a green
3. Quota number becomes available, and immigrant applies for
card in all preference categories has doubled
green card
since 1991. Although the waits vary across cate-
gories, Figure 1 shows the average wait time for Average wait for green card application processing: 9–11 months
all preference immigrants—family-sponsored
and employment-based—who applied for a Figure 1
green card in 1991 and 2018 (weighted based on Average years waited for preference
category and country of birth). From 1991 to immigrants to apply for green
2018, the average immigrant in the preference
cards, 1991–2018
categories waited 4 years and 10 months for a 6
green card. The average wait for all preference
immigrants grew from about 2 years and 10
months in 1991 to about 5 years and 8 months
4
detiaw sraeY
“
for a green card. By 2018, 28 percent waited a minor children of legal permanent residents
While the decade or more, and 41 percent waited at least (F2A) actually declined. The category for sib-
average wait five years. Applicants with exceptionally long lings of adult U.S. citizens (F4) had the longest
waits have become normal in America’s legal average wait in 2018: 14 years and 7 months.
for family- immigration system. The average wait time in the employment-
sponsored The variance in outcomes for individuals in based categories grew more than sevenfold—
immigrants the backlog stems from two sources: different from just 3 months in 1991 to 1 year and 9
nearly quotas for each category (“category limits”) and months in 2018 (Figure 4). Only the EB3O cat-
egory for workers without a college degree saw
identical quotas for each nationality in each cat-
doubled, egory (“country limits”). Both limitations fail to a decrease in the wait since 1991. The other five
the waits for align the supply of green cards with demand categories saw their wait times increase. Among
unmarried for them. This failure produces wildly differing the employment-based categories, bachelor’s
outcomes depending on what category the im- degree holders employed by U.S. businesses
adult children migrant is in (i.e., who is sponsoring them) and waited longest: 2 years and 4 months for a green
of citizens where the applicant was born. card in 2018. The next-longest average category
(F1) and those Figure 3 shows the average wait times for wait was in the EB5 category for investors cre-
for married family preference immigrants in 1991 and 2018. ating at least 10 jobs who had waited an average
of 1 year and 8 months in 2018.
The average time waited for all family prefer-
adult children ence immigrants in 2018 was about 8 years and 1
of citizens month, up from about 4 years and 3 months—an
(F3) increased 88 percent increase. While the average wait for CURRENT WAIT TIMES
family-sponsored immigrants nearly doubled, BY NATIONALITY
tenfold the waits for unmarried adult children of citi- The country limits—which cap the number
and sixfold, zens (F1) and those for married adult children of green cards for any particular nationality
respec of citizens (F3) increased tenfold and sixfold, at 7 percent of the total number—artificially
”
tively. respectively. In absolute terms, waits for F3 inflate the longest waits, while artificially de-
rose the most—by an additional 11 years and 5 flating the average wait. This deflation effect
months. Meanwhile, the waits for spouses and happens because, once a nationality bumps up
Figure 2
Years waited for preference immigrants to apply for green cards 1991 and 2018
No wait
Up to 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 19
20+
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Share of all green card recipients in year
1991 2018
Sources: U.S. Department of State, “Visa Bulletin”; U.S. Department of State, “Annual Report of the Visa Office.”
5
Figure 3
Years waited for family preference immigrants to apply for green cards 1991 and 2018
All family
F1 - All nationalities
F3 - All nationalities
F4 - All nationalities
0 5 10 15
Years waited by green card recipients
1991 2018
Sources: U.S. Department of State, “Visa Bulletin”; U.S. Department of State, “Annual Report of the Visa Office.”
Figure 4
Years waited for employment preference immigrants to apply for a green card, 1991 and 2018
All employment
0 1 2 3
Years waited by green card recipients
1991 2018
Sources: U.S. Department of State, “Visa Bulletin”; U.S. Department of State, “Annual Report of the Visa Office.”
6
“
against the country limit, nationals from other the nationality with the longest wait was previ-
In 2018, countries pass them in the line. For example, ously receiving. Thus, the share of applicants
Indians also because Indians have reached the country lim- with no wait time increases, while the share
its in the EB2/EB3 categories for employees of with the longest wait time decreases. The re-
waited the U.S. businesses with bachelor’s and master’s sult is a shorter average wait time for all appli-
longest: 8 degrees, the law requires them to wait about a cants but a much longer one for those with the
years and 6 decade, while applicants from all other coun- longest wait. From 2017 to 2018, for example,
months— tries except China may apply for their green the longest wait in the EB5 category for inves-
tors in U.S. businesses grew from 2 years and 6
cards almost immediately, cutting ahead of
nearly double Indians in the line. Under this inequitable sys- months to 3 years and 4 months, yet the aver-
the average tem, the longest wait can grow much longer, age wait fell from 1 year and 11 months to 1 year
wait of 4 but the average wait only increases slightly, and 7 months because the share of EB5 green
since 93 percent of the line may be unaffected cards for Chinese investors dropped from
years and 6 by the limits. Ever greater numbers of appli- 75 percent to 48 percent.6
months for all cants pile up in the line for the nationalities The country limits generally affect
nationalities at the country limit, while nationals of other only four nationalities: Chinese, Indians,
Mexicans, and Filipinos.7 Figure 5 highlights
not at the countries apply for green cards in roughly the
same amount of time. the disparity between the average wait times
country
”
Paradoxically, the longest waits in the for the top four nationalities and the waits for
limits. employment-based preferences can grow, even all other nationalities in 1991 and 2018. The
while the average wait time actually shortens. waits grew the most for Indians—4 years and
This can happen because the law allows nation- 6 months since 1991—followed by Mexicans,
alities in those categories to receive green cards whose waits increased by 3 years and 2
above their country limits if not all the green months. The average wait for all other na-
cards in the category would otherwise be used. tionalities increased by 2 years and 4 months
If a nationality goes above the country limit in since 1991. In 2018, Indians also waited the
one year and then more applicants apply from longest: 8 years and 6 months—nearly double
other countries in the next year, the new ap- the average wait of 4 years and 6 months for
plicants can cut into the greater numbers that all nationalities not at the country limits.
Figure 5
Years waited for preference immigrants to apply for green cards 1991 and 2018
0 2 4 6 8
Years waited by green card recipients
1991 2018
Sources: U.S. Department of State, “Visa Bulletin”; U.S. Department of State, “Annual Report of the Visa Office.”
7
“
The category limits and country limits increase—20 years and 7 months—occurred for
operate together to create even more widely F1 Mexican unmarried adult children of U.S. The lengthy
variant outcomes across the entire immigra- citizens, whose wait time rose from 4 months wait times
tion system. Figure 6 shows all preference in 1991 to 20 years and 11 months in 2018. In
immigrants in categories with waits longer the employment-based categories, EB3 Indian
cause many
than the average for all categories (5 years and employees of U.S. businesses saw their wait in- applicants
8 months). Filipino siblings of adult U.S. citi- crease more than any other EB category, from to pile up
zens (F4) who applied for green cards in 2018 no wait to 10 years and 6 months.
in a backlog
waited the longest—23 years. They originally
entered the line for green cards in 1995. Just awaiting
behind them were F3 Filipino and Mexican CURRENT BACKLOGS their chance
adult married children of U.S. citizens who The lengthy wait times cause many ap- to apply
each waited more than 22 years for their plicants to pile up in a backlog awaiting their
for green
”
green cards. The longest employment-based chance to apply for green cards. The most
line was for Chinese and Indian employer- recent statistics on the number of approved cards.
sponsored immigrants lacking a bachelor’s applicants indicate that about 4.7 million ap-
degree (EB3O), Indian professionals with a plicants are waiting for green cards because of
college degree (EB3), and Indian advanced- the quotas—83 percent in the family prefer-
degree holders (EB2), who all waited about a ences and 17 percent in the employment-based
decade to apply for their green cards in 2018. preferences (Table 2).8 One category—siblings
Figure 7 shows how wait times have in- of adult U.S. citizens—accounts for half the en-
creased since 1991 for nationalities with the lon- tire backlog. As Table 2 shows, there is a signif-
gest wait in each category in 2018. The largest icant mismatch between the share of available
Table 2
Immigrant preference system wait list and quotas, 2018
Preference categories Wait list Share of wait list Quotas Share of quotas
All family preferences 3,909,684 83% 226,000 62%
secnereferp ylimaF
Sources: U.S. Department of State, “Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants,” November 1, 2018 (increased by number of
adjustment-of-status family preference applicants, includes people whose priority date is current); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, “Count of Approved I-140 Petitions,” April 23, 2018 (excludes current priority dates, increased by ratio of dependents to
primary applicants in Department of Homeland Security, 2017 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 7).
8
Figure 6
Years waited for green card preference categories with longer than average waits in 2018,
1991 and 2018
F4 - Phil*
F3 - Phil
F3 - Mexico
F2B - Mexico
F1 - Mexico
F4 - Mexico
F4 - India
F4 - Other
F4 - China
F3 - Other
F3 - China
F3 - India
F1 - Phil
F2B - Phil
EB3O - China
EB3 - India
EB3O - India
EB2 - India
F1 - Other
F1 - China
F1 - India
F2B - Other
F2B - China
F2B - India
0 10 20
Years waited by green card recipients
1991 2018
Source: U.S. Department of State, “Visa Bulletin.”
*Phil = Philippines.
9
Figure 7
Wait times for green cards for nationalities with the longest wait in each preference category in
2018, 1991–2018
30 30
stneipicer drac neerg yb detiaw sraeY
20 20
10 10
0 0
1991
1991
2991
4991
6991
8991
0002
2002
4002
6002
8002
0102
2102
4102
6102
8102
2991
4991
6991
8991
0002
2002
4002
6002
8002
0102
2102
4102
6102
8102
F1 - Mexico F2B - Mexico EB1 - India EB2 - India EB3 - India
F3 - Philippines F4 - Philippines EB30 - China EB3 - CentrAm EB5 - China
Sources: U.S. Department of State, “Visa Bulletin.”
Note: F2A had equal times waited in 2018 for all nationalities and is not shown.
Table 3
Immigrant preference system wait list, 2018
Birthplace Total backlog (%) Family backlog (%) Employment backlog (%)
Mexico 1,314,206 28 1,312,743 33 1,463 0
India 920,993 19 280,072 7 640,921 78
Philippines 325,492 7 322,375 8 3,117 0
China 339,182 7 199,060 5 140,122 17
Vietnam 245,828 5 244,739 6 1,089 0
Dominican Republic 156,154 3 156,154 4 0 0
Haiti 100,968 2 100,968 3 0 0
El Salvador 84,464 2 69,304 2 15,160 2
All others 1,260,965 27 1,237,074 32 23,891 3
Sources: U.S. Department of State, “Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants” (increased by number of adjustment-of-status
family preference applicants, includes people whose priority date is current); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Count of
Approved I-140 Petitions,” April 23, 2018 (excludes current priority dates, increased by ratio of dependents to primary applicants).
green cards in each line and the share of appli- China, or Vietnam. Applicants from all other
cants in each line. countries amount to about a third of the total.
Table 3 shows the backlogs by national- While the distribution in the family preference
ity. Mexican applicants account for 28 percent categories is similar, the employment-based
of the backlog in the preference categories. backlogs are filled almost entirely by people
Indians accounted for 19 percent, and another born in India (78 percent) or China (17 percent).
19 percent were born either in the Philippines, The backlog has grown significantly since
10
“
1991. While only partial data is available, the citizen and thus bypassing the quota categories.
Altogether, number of people waiting for immigrant visas Of course, many immigrants will give up rather
about 675,000 abroad—primarily family-sponsored immi- than wait for a green card that may never come.
grants—has grown from 2.9 million in 1992 to 3.7 To account for attrition, Figure 8 projects how
would-be million in 2017.9 These numbers do not include long the average preference immigrant will
legal immi people waiting for green cards in the United have waited to apply for a green card in 2038, as-
grants—14 States—primarily employer-sponsored immi- suming that the linear trends from 2008 to 2018
percent of grants who work on temporary visas while their continue. If current trends continue, the aver-
age wait will increase from 5 years and 8 months
green card applications are pending. Based on
those waiting the increases in wait times for these categories, in 2018 to 7 years and 8 months in 2038.
in 2018—will the backlogs for these types of immigrants have Waits for specific nationalities will grow
die without also grown significantly. even more disproportionate under current
trends. Nationalities in about a dozen cat-
seeing a green egories will have waited multiple decades for a
card if they PROJECTED FUTURE WAIT TIMES green card in 2038 (Figure 9). This means that
refuse to give Whereas it may have taken immigrants an immigrants entering those lines in 2018 will
up and stay in average of 5 years and 8 months to immigrate in likely not apply for their green cards until 2038
or later. For F3 Mexican and Filipino married
2018, the backlogs mean that immigrants who
the line indefi
”
are applying for the first time right now may adult children of U.S. citizens, the wait is pro-
nitely. have to wait much longer. The government jected to rise to 36 years, meaning that appli-
makes no attempt to estimate these future cants who applied in 2003 or later will still be
waits. Table 4 highlights how long it would take waiting for their green cards in 2038. The share
to process everyone currently in the backlogs of immigrants receiving green cards under the
by nationality and category if everyone stays in quotas who wait more than two decades will
the line. As it shows, applicants in several lines rise from 3 percent to 15 percent by 2038.
face multidecade waits if they stick it out in-
definitely. In fact, EB2/EB3 Indian employees Figure 8
of U.S. businesses who entered the line in 2018 Average years waited to apply for a
have an impossible half-century-long wait, and green card for all preference
Mexican and Filipino married adult children categories, 2018 and projected in
of U.S. citizens and Mexican siblings of U.S. 2038
citizens face a full century in the backlog. 8
stneipicer drac neerg yb detiaw sraeY
All
Nationality 2 Deaths
backlog cards* process with deaths
Mexico 147,907 2,166 68 37,642 51
B2F
China 1,303 80 16 17 16
Philippines 38 471 0 1 0
El Salvador 9,428 1,258 7 54 7
4BE
F4 - Phil*
F3 - Phil
F3 - Mexico
F2B - Mexico
F1 - Mexico
F4 - Mexico
F4 - India
F4 - Other
F4 - China
F3 - Other
F3 - China
F3 - India
F1 - Phil
F2B - Phil
EB3O - China
EB3 - India
EB3O - India
EB2 - India
F1 - Other
F1 - China
F1 - India
F2B - Other
F2B - China
F2B - India
0 10 20 30 40
Years waited by green card recipients
2018 2038
Sources: Author’s calculations based on linear trend from: U.S. Department of State, “Visa Bulletin”; U.S. Department of State,
“Annual Report of the Visa Office,” 2018.
*Phil = Philippines.
13
“
and (5) the number of green cards made avail- and bachelor’s—the lines will tend to equalize
able for each nationality. Getting married over time (as they have already). For this reason, Deaths will
could increase or decrease the waits. Because it is worth treating them as a single category for also have only
the law gives spouses of immigrants the same purposes of projecting future wait times.
place in line as the primary applicant, getting Marriages will have little effect on the EB2/
a relatively
married to a noncitizen would increase the EB3 backlog since most EB2/EB3 employees small effect
backlog. On the other hand, if the spouse is in the backlog are already married to foreign in the EB2
a U.S. citizen, the spouse can sponsor the im- spouses. Moreover, while marriages to U.S. cit-
izens decrease the backlog, marriages to for-
and EB3
migrant for a green card immediately, which
would reduce the backlog. eign spouses, which are particularly common categories
Children also have an equivocal effect on fu- among Indian nationals, increase it. Children over the
ture wait times. The law entitles children under can have a similarly equivocal effect depend- next couple
the age of 21 to the same place in line as their ing on their places of birth, but the fact that
parents. This means that, in cases where the children “age out” of eligibility for derivative
of decades,
child turns 21 before the parent is able to apply permanent residence through their parents’ though not
for a green card, the child loses eligibility, re- petitions will reduce the backlog by about over the next
”
ducing the wait times (at least for the parent— 45,000. Deaths will also have only a relative-
ly small effect in the EB2 and EB3 categories
50 years.
for the child, the wait becomes infinite, as he or
she will have lost eligibility entirely). If children over the next couple of decades, though not
are born in the United States, they are U.S. citi- over the next 50 years (as Table 4 above shows)
zens, and if their parents remain in the United because most employment-based immigrants
States for more than 20 years legally, the law al- are in their prime working years.
lows U.S. citizens to sponsor their parents for The two factors that could most dramati-
green cards immediately upon their 21st birth- cally change the length of future waits for
days, which would also reduce the backlog. On Indian employees of U.S. businesses—at least
the other hand, giving birth to children outside over the next several decades—are abandoned
the United States would increase the backlog applications and the availability of green cards
because those children would be entitled to the for Indians. Because the EB categories allow
same place in line as their parents. Deaths and nationalities to move above the country limit
abandoned applications obviously reduce the if not all the green cards would otherwise be
backlog, while the availability of green cards for used, it is impossible to know exactly how many
a particular nationality under the country limit green cards Indians will receive annually going
could increase or decrease the projected waits, forward. Because the EB2/EB3 lines for India
depending on whether a greater or lesser num- cumulatively used about 10,000 green cards in
ber of green cards is made available in future 2018—higher than the country limit of 4,900—
years than recently. the number of green cards for Indians could de-
To use a concrete example, current EB2 and crease in the future if demand in the EB2 and
EB3 immigrants from India—employees of U.S. EB3 categories rises among other nationalities.
businesses with bachelor’s or master’s degrees, The rate of abandoned applications must
respectively—have waited 9 and 10 years, re- be inferred indirectly. Abandoned applications
spectively. However, about 543,152 applications would include deaths, marriages to receive green
have been approved for Indian immigrants in cards, and emigration due to discouragement.
the EB2 and EB3 lines, and nearly all of them An I-140 petition for employer-sponsored
are working in the United States on work vi- workers starts the employment-based prefer-
sas that can be renewed indefinitely. About ence green card process, after which point the
80 percent of them are in the EB2 line, but be- worker must wait for a green card number to
cause all EB2 applicants can also qualify under become available. Since 2002—before the EB2/
EB3—as EB2 immigrants have both a master’s EB3 backlog built up—there have been about
14
“
460,000 more I-140 petitions for employment- projections are within a range of less than 5
If the rest based workers than green cards issued. As of years. This provides some independent sup-
of the world April 20, 2018, however, there were just 372,089 port for the projections based on the current
non-abandoned pending petitions—a differ- linear trends reported in Figure 6.
continues ence of about 89,000.11 This implies an aban- The particularities of different categories,
to increase donment rate by those who entered the backlog however, could result in strange departures
its share, for any amount of time of about 4.75 percent from the current trends. For example, waits
the 65,953 annually. This rate is only for the primary ap- for EB5 investors from China will almost cer-
tainly increase far more than current trends
plicants. The rate will be much higher for their
Chinese children since they would drop out when their predict. This is because Congress, in 1991, ef-
investors and parents leave or when they themselves turn 21 fectively reduced the Chinese EB5 country
their families and lose eligibility. About half of all the children limit to zero.13 However, because nationali-
in the backlog in 2018 will end up aging out.12 ties may exceed their country limits in order
could be More broadly, the total abandonment rate to allow for the use of all available green cards,
completely could increase in the future if the waits grow Chinese investors still managed to receive
shut out of the much longer and more people give up and about half the green cards in the category in
2018.14 But the waits for Chinese have already
EB5 program leave the country.
”
These facts lead to three main scenarios for forced firms seeking EB5 investment to look
forever. future wait times. At the high end, scenario 1 for investors elsewhere, causing demand from
sees green card issuances at the country limit the rest of the world to rise. From 2014 to 2018,
(4,900 annually) and the same rate of aban- the share for Chinese fell from 85 percent to
doned applications (4.75 percent annually). 48 percent.15 If the rest of the world continues
Under this scenario, it would take 36 years to to increase its share, the 65,953 Chinese inves-
process the backlog. In the middle, scenario 2 tors and their families could be completely
sees the same rate of abandoned applications shut out of the EB5 program forever.
but green card issuances above the country cap
(10,000 annually). Under the midrange scenario
2, it would take 26 years to process the backlog. WHY WAIT TIMES MATTER
At the low end, scenario 3 sees the higher rate of Lengthy wait times result in several inter-
green card issuances, but the rate of abandoned related problems. Wait times reduce the lib-
applications gradually rises at 0.2 percent annu- erty of Americans to associate with people
ally to almost double the current rate (9.4 per- born in other countries. The waits separate
cent annually). Under the low-end scenario 3, it U.S. citizens from their family members,
would take 24 years to process the backlog. prevent U.S. businesses from employing or
Figure 10 provides these three projections fully utilizing the skills of foreign workers,
compared to the 10- and 15-year trends for and keep U.S. firms from receiving capital
wait times for Indians in the EB2 and EB3 lines from foreign investors. Simultaneously, wait
over the next 20 years. In the low-end scenar- times artificially depress the rate of legal im-
io—with high attrition and high green card is- migration to the United States. America al-
suances—the wait would increase to 21 years ready has a rate of immigration—controlling
and 3 months by 2038—meaning that people for population size—lower than much of the
who applied in 2017 and 2018 would still be developed world, and its net immigration
waiting at that time. In the midrange scenario, rate and immigrant share of the population
it would increase to 22 years and 3 months, and ranked in the bottom third of wealthy coun-
in the high-end scenario it would increase to tries from 2015 to 2017.16
24 years and 5 months. The high-end and low- By hampering America’s ability to com-
end scenarios closely align with the 15-year pete for labor and capital around the world,
and 10-year linear trends, respectively. All the wait times injure the U.S. economy. Every
15
“
Figure 10
Years waited for EB2 and EB3 Indians receiving permanent residence, By hampering
2003–2018 (actual), 2019–2038 (projected) America’s
25
ability to
stneipicer drac neerg 3/2BE yb detiaw sraeY
compete for
20
labor and
capital around
15 the world,
wait times
10 injure the U.S.
”
economy.
5
0
4002
6002
8002
0102
2102
4102
6102
8102
0202
2202
4202
6202
8202
0302
2302
4302
6302
8302
EB2/EB3 (actual) EB2/EB3 (15-year trend) EB2/EB3 (10-year trend)
year that EB5 investors wait is a year in which rather than pursue green cards. As one recent
the United States loses out on billions of dol- study found, “The stay rate of Chinese gradu-
lars in foreign direct investment that grows ates [of U.S. universities] declines by 2.4 per-
the economy and increases demand for U.S. centage points for each year of delay, while
workers.17 Both family-sponsored and em- Indian graduates facing delays of at least five
ployment-based immigrants generally have and a half years have a stay rate that is 8.9
higher college and high school graduation percentage points lower.”21 Because foreign
rates than the U.S. public, meaning that le- students are highly skilled, higher rates of
gal immigrants are increasing the U.S. skill departure result in fewer startups, fewer pat-
level.18 According to a 2016 analysis from the ents, and less innovation—all of which high-
National Academies of Sciences, Engineer- skilled immigrants do at higher rates than the
ing, and Medicine, better-educated immi- U.S.-born population.22
grants contribute significantly more in taxes The country limits exacerbate these trends
than they receive in benefits, making pref- by concentrating the wait times among cer-
erence immigrants a net positive to the U.S. tain nationalities. Moreover, they perversely
Treasury.19 The same analysis concluded that distort the labor market by making people
immigrants make the GDP of the United with more experience and skills wait longer
States larger by 11 percent annually—about than other immigrants. In fact, the country
$2.2 trillion in 2018.20 limits depress the average wage offer for new
Particularly lengthy wait times cause some employment-based immigrants by $11,592
foreign students to leave the United States in the EB2 and EB3 categories because the
16
“
Figure 11
Average wage offers of EB2/EB3 immigrants with and without country Wait times
limits and wage offers by birthplace, 2018 undermine
the goal of
With country limit reducing
illegal
Without country limit
immigration,
while also
causing
Indians
damage to the
economy and
Chinese separating
Americans
from their
”
All others
families.
0 50,000 100,000
Sources: Department of Labor, “OFLC Performance Data,” FY 2018; U.S. Department of State,
“Annual Report,” 2017 as calculated by author; and David Bier, “Higher-Paid Immigrants Forced
to Wait Longer Due to Per-Country Limits,” Cato at Liberty (blog1, October 22, 2018.
outcomes. Similarly situated employees of U.S. improve economic efficiency by ending dis-
businesses or family members of U.S. citizens crimination against immigrants who would
wind up with waits that diverge wildly for no be more productive.
reason other than that one immigrant was Second, Congress should link the family
born in a country with higher demand than preference quotas to population growth and
the other. Legal immigration should be a first- the employment quotas to economic growth.
come, first-served process without consider- Hard caps make little sense in a world that is
ation of an immigrant’s nationality. constantly changing. Since Congress passed
Removing the country limits would equal- the Immigration Act of 1990 that determined
ize wait times among nationalities, elimi- the current quotas, the U.S. population has
nating the extremely long waits for certain grown by a third and the U.S. economy has
immigrants. Repealing the country limits, more than doubled in size.27 It makes sense
for example, would make the average time to link the overall family preference quotas
to process everyone in the EB2 and EB3 lines to population growth because the need for
six or seven years—using the same assump- family-sponsored green cards grows with the
tions about abandonment rates as above— population. On the other hand, if the U.S. pop-
compared to 24 to 36 years for Indians and ulation begins to decline and America’s grow-
roughly zero for almost everyone else except ing economy needs even more workers, the
Chinese. That would produce a fairer process employment-based preference quotas should
and give all immigrants a reason to advocate be tied to growth in U.S. GDP.
for additional reforms. As noted earlier, re- Third, Congress should explicitly exempt
pealing the country limits would raise the derivative applicants—spouses and minor chil-
average wage offer of green card recipients dren of primary applicants (e.g., employees of
by eliminating long waits for the more expe- U.S. businesses)—from the quotas. Current
rienced workers in the backlog. That would law entitles these immediate family members
18
“
to the same status as their parent or spouse. In category and prevent immigrants from aban-
The law 2017, about 45 percent of all green cards in the doning the legal option entirely.
should preference categories went to derivatives, not
the primary applicant.28 It makes no sense to
automatically lengthen wait times for primary applicants sim- CONCLUSION
grant a green ply because they marry someone or have chil- The average immigrant’s wait time for a
card to dren while they are waiting for a green card. green card was nearly twice as long in 2018 as it
someone who Had derivatives not been charged against was in 1991 when the quotas were first imple-
the green card limits since 1991, the waits and mented. The share of those waiting more than
has waited for backlogs would have been eliminated. For a decade increased nearly tenfold, and many
five years or example, the EB2/EB3 backlog has grown to immigrants already wait more than 20 years
”
more. nearly 600,000 applicants—primary and deriv- because of the quotas. Wait times for immi-
ative—which is 810 percent larger than the total grants will continue to grow year after year as
number of green cards issued annually in those a result of America’s antiquated legal immigra-
categories. Yet an average of 52,000 green cards tion quotas, and many immigrants who are ap-
per year have gone to spouses and children of plying right now will not see their green cards
the employees (about 800,000 total), mean- for decades, if ever. Today, almost five million
ing that if the administration had not counted immigrants are waiting for green cards in a
those applicants against the quotas, the back- fundamentally broken legal system.
log would have never developed at all. In 2017, The current quotas fail to respond to chang-
excluding spouses and children of preference es in America’s population or economy, and
category immigrants from the count would the waits reflect this disconnect. The country
have amounted to an increase in overall legal limits create massive inequities between iden-
immigration of roughly 318,000 or 28 percent. tical immigrants who happen to have different
Fourth, Congress should enact a guar- birthplaces. For this reason, these limits have
antee that immigrants will not have to wait no place in a modern immigration system.
longer than five years for a green card. If the Congress should eliminate the country quo-
measures above do not prevent wait times tas, exempt spouses and minor children from
from creeping back up, the law should auto- the overall quotas, and instead link quotas to
matically grant a green card to someone who population and economic growth. America
has waited for five years or more. That would needs a flexible and adaptive immigration sys-
preserve the viability of each immigration tem for the 21st century.
19
in response to a lawsuit affecting EB-5 investors. Other 2018 23. David Bier, “Higher-Paid Immigrants Forced to Wait Longer
green card numbers are estimated using 2017 figures. Charles Due to Per-Country Limits,” Cato at Liberty (blog), Cato Insti-
Oppenheim, “Declaration of Charles W. Oppenheim,” Feng tute, October 22, 2018.
Wang, et al., v. Michael Pompeo, et al., No. 18-1732, August 24,
2018, p. 4. 24. U.S. Department of State, “Diversity Visa Program, DV
2016-2018: Number of Entries Received during Each Online
15. U.S. Department of State, “Table V (Part 3) Immigrant Vi- Registration Period by Country of Chargeability,” November
sas Issued and Adjustments of Status Subject to Numerical 12, 2018, https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Diversity-
Limitations Fiscal Year 2014,” https://travel.state.gov/content/ Visa/DVStatistics/DV%20AES%20statistics%20by%20
dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2014AnnualReport/ FSC%202016-2018.pdf; U.S. Department of State, Refugee
FY14AnnualReport-TableV-PartIII.pdf. Processing Center, “Admissions & Arrivals,” October 31, 2018;
and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Popu-
16. David Bier, “America Is One of the Least ‘Generous’ Countries lation Statistics.”
on Immigration,” Cato at Liberty (blog), Cato Institute, January
30, 2018. 25. For example, Sen. Phil Gramm, 101 Cong. Rec. 7789 (July 12,
1989): “We have tremendous illegal immigration in this country
17. For a review of studies on EB5 investment see Carla N. Argueta which has not been stopped and yet we are here setting up arbi-
and Alison Siskin, “EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa,” Congressio- trary limits that prevent people who came here legally, who have
nal Research Service, April 22, 2016, p. 15. been successful, who have achieved the American dream, from
bringing their kinfolk to America. I do not think that is right. I
18. David Bier, “Family and Diversity Immigrants Are Far Better do not think it makes any sense. And I do not think that this is a
Educated Than U.S.-Born Americans,” Cato at Liberty (blog), very bold or daring amendment in terms of doing injustice to the
Cato Institute, January 25, 2018. bill before us. I think it is a simple, straightforward amendment.
It says that when you reach the point of only 216,000 people left
19. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to come in under family preference, after you take out the imme-
(NASEM), The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration diate family, you do not let it go any lower.” The amendment was
(Washington: National Academies Press, 2017), p. 349. adopted, and the final bill adopted the 226,000 floor for family
preference green cards.
20. NASEM, The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration,
p. 215. 26. Douglas Massey and Nolan Malone, “Pathways to Legal Im-
migration,” Population Research Policy Review 21, no. 6: 473–504.
21. Shulamit Kahn and Megan MacGarvie, “The Impact of Per-
manent Residency Delays for STEM PhDs: Who Leaves and 27. U.S. Census Bureau, “U.S. and World Population Clock”;
Why,” NBER Working Paper No. 25175, October 2018. World Bank, Data, “Population, Total for United States”; and U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Data, “Gross Domestic Product.”
22. Alex Nowrasteh, “Boost Highly Skilled Immigration,” Cato
Online Forum, Cato Institute, November 17, 2014. 28. Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, 1991–2017.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the Cato Institute, its
trustees, its Sponsors, or any other person or organization. Nothing in this paper should be construed as an attempt to
aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. Copyright © 2019 Cato Institute. This work by Cato Institute is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.