5/2/2007

For the last two years, the employment-based immigration reform proposals focused on some key issues. Depending on how the specifics were presented for each of these key issues, each proposal had created several groups whose interests would have been differently affected. 

1) Allocation of Total Numbers to Each Preference Categories: The bill which the Senate passed last year changed the allocation system reducing the percent of allocation for EB-1 and EB-2 and drastically increasing the percent for EB-3 in anticipation of the illegal alien legalization and guest workers immigration programs. On the surface, it gave the impression that the CIR was only in favor of the illegal aliens and such allocation would have hurted other legal EB-immigrants. But that was not necessarily true. For instance, the so-called SKIL bill which was introduced separately from the CIR (unlike the SKIL bill which was also incorporated in the CIR being subject to the new allocation system under the CIR) provided in favor of the EB-1 and EB-2 immigrant in allocations at the cost of EB-3 immigrants for the two reasons, among others. 

First the SKIL bill proposed to create certain aliens who fitted mostly to EB-1 and EB-2 exempt from annual visa number limitations, while no such exemption was offered to the EB-3 immigrants. Considering the fact that the total EB number which was proposed was relatively small (290,000), the benefit to the EB-3 immigrants would have been unfairly disproportional. Accordingly, for the EB-3 immigrants, CIR would have been much better than SKIL bill, assuming that there were no legalization proposals in the CIR. In coming months, people should watch carefully not only the total numbers for EB but also internal distribution among different preferences.

2) Total EB-Numbers Subject to Numberial Limitation: Different proposals presented different numbers, ranging from 290,000 to 640,000 (current number: 140,000). However, a careful analysis will reveal that the total number itself can be misleading when it comes to different groups of EB-immigrants depending on how the following three other factors are presented.

3) Groups Exempt from Annual Numerical Limitation: Two groups were noticeable affecting the different groups of immigrants differently. One was excemption of the spouses and children from the numerial limitation. This exemption would have practically increased the total allocation for EB-based immigrant quota tremendously, way beyond the number shown above. The second group is those with Advanced degrees or medical field. 

As explained earlier, the exempt of these latter group from the numerical limitation de facto increased the EB-1 and EB-2 to a greater extent than the simple numbers allocated for EB-1 or EB-2 preference categories. Since this country has been moving toward the direction limiting the educated immigrants to the advanced degree holders, it is almost certain that a similar provision may be offered in the coming comprehensive immigration reform legislation.