January 2006 ■ No. 14

S U M M A R Y

US immigration law establishes twosystems of admissions of foreignnationals: permanent and temporarysystems. Foreigners admitted legallymay enter as lawful permanent resi-dents (also called immigrants) or astemporary visitors (also called non-immigrants). Although the law estab-lishes a clear demarcation betweentemporary and permanent migrationsystems, in recent years that line hasbecome increasingly blurred.

This Insight seeks to understand bet-ter the connections between thepermanent and temporary systemsand focuses on the emerging systemof transitional visas, the most signifi-cant of which have come about inthe past fifteen years.The Insightbegins by describing the goals andstructure of each system of admis-sions. It continues with a discussionof the relationship between the twosystems. It also describes the criticalgaps in data that impede a thoroughunderstanding of the underlying reali-ties of immigration to the UnitedStates.The Insight concludes by argu-ing that any discussion of permanentimmigration in the context of com-prehensive immigration reform hasto consider the interconnectionsbetween temporary and permanentadmission systems.

The GrowingConnection BetweenTemporary andPermanentImmigration Systems

Jeanne Batalova

The United States has a 150-year history of regulating flows ofcitizens of other countries to its territory. Starting in 1906,arriving foreigners were asked whether they were coming forpermanent or temporary purposes, but it was not until theImmigration Act of 1924 that specific classes of nonimmigrantadmissions were established. Today foreign nationals admittedlegally enter the United States either as lawful permanent res-idents (LPRs or immigrants) or as temporary visitors arrivingfor a specific purpose (called nonimmigrants).

Permanent immigration system

Goals and structurePermanent immigration has been at the core of nation-build-ing from its very conception. US immigration law addressessocial, humanitarian, and economic goals through three broadpermanent immigration streams: family reunification, employ-ment sponsorship, and humanitarian protection (refugee andasylum adjustments). The immediate relatives of US citizens

(parents, spouses, and unmarried childrenunder the age of 21) and certain special immi-grants, such as returning residents, are notsubject to annual numerical limitations. Othergroups of permanent immigrants — family-preference, employment-preference, and diver-sity candidates — are subject to annualnumerical limitations and intending immi-grants often have to wait for a visa to becomeavailable (see Appendix 1).

According to US immigration law, upon meetingeligibility criteria, foreign nationals can obtainlawful permanent residence in one of two ways:1) by applying from outside the United Statesand receiving an immigrant visa from the USDepartment of State; or 2) by adjusting to LPRstatus from within the United States.

The last time the US Congress made majoramendments to the immigration system in anysignificant way was in 1990. The ImmigrationAct of 1990 made a number of changes in thepermanent visa caps,including a slightincrease in family-based preferencevisas, from 216,000to 226,000, and amore than doubling ofemployment-basedpreference visas from54,000 to 140,000per year. The Act alsocreated a diversityimmigrant categorywith an annual quotaof 55,000 visas tofacilitate the entry ofpersons from coun-tries with lower levelsof immigration andset a 10,000-person

annual limit on the asylees who can adjust toLPR status.

Composition of permanent immigrants Relatives of US citizens and lawful permanentresidents accounted for 66 percent of all legalpermanent immigrants in 2004

1(see Figure 1).

With the exception of 1992 and 1993, family-based immigration has accounted for abouttwo-thirds of total legal permanent immigra-tion since the mid-1980s, while employment-preference immigrants have accounted forabout 16 percent.

Temporary admissions

Goals and structureSimilar to the permanent system, the nonim-migrant system was developed to promote avariety of US political, economic, and culturalexchange goals, as well as to meet bilateraland multilateral US obligations. The nonimmi-

2

Figure 1. Share of selected classes of immigrants(%) in total immigration, FY 1986 to 2004*

grant system admits foreign nationals who areallowed to engage temporarily in an array ofactivities. These range from tourism and mul-tiple forms of business activities, to educa-tion and artistic endeavors. The UnitedStates is one of the most profitable touristand education destinations in the world. Forexample, in 2004, international tourists spentabout $94 billion in the United States, andinternational students contributed another$12.9 billion dollars in tuition and livingexpenses.2 The nonimmigrant system alsoallows US businesses to tap into the interna-tional labor pool and bring needed foreignworkers relatively quickly on temporaryworker and trainee, intracompany transferee,and a variety of treaty-based visas. In addi-tion, student and cultural exchange visasallow limited employment in the UnitedStates, even though employment is not a pri-mary purpose of these visas.3 Moreover, somenonimmigrant visas have recently been usedto facilitate US criminal justice and securitypriorities, while others (V visas) serve asinterim “holding tanks” for certain relativesof US LPRs.4

There are more than seventy classes of non-immigrant admissions, including tourists,business visitors, students, H-1B specialtyoccupation workers, religious workers, intra-company transferees, diplomats, representa-tives of international organizations, and others(see Appendix 2).5 Nonimmigrants arerestricted to the activity for which their visawas issued.6 For example, a person admittedas a tourist is not allowed to work or studyunless he leaves the United States and re-enters on a work or student visa. Althoughthere is no overall cap on how many nonim-migrants can be admitted to the United Statesper year, Congress set a numerical limit forsome categories of nonimmigrants. For exam-

ple, there is an annual limit of 65,000 H-1Bspecialty occupation visas (for first-timeapplicants) and an annual cap of 66,000 H-2B seasonal nonagricultural worker visas(see Appendix 2).

Composition of nonimmigrant flows There has been a steady increase in totaladmission of nonimmigrants to the UnitedStates from 16.1 million entries in 1989 to30.8 million in 2004.7 (Note that nonimmi-grant admission numbers refer to the numberof entries, not persons.) Following the terroristattacks of September 11, 2001, the admis-sions took a sharp dip, but the upward trendresumed in 2003 (see Figure 2).

The overwhelming majority of all nonimmi-grant admissions are tourists (B-2 visa) andvisitors for business (B-1 visa).8 Therefore,admissions of B visa short-term visitors drivethe fluctuation in the total number of tempo-rary admissions in the United States. Itsshare — around 90 percent — has been sta-ble over time.

Other classes of non-immigrant admis-sions also increasedfrom 1989 to 2004(although not enoughto affect the overallshare of the B visacategory). Work-related nonimmi-grants (temporaryworkers, intracompa-ny transferees, andexchange visitors),students, and their families constitute theoverwhelming majority of these (non-B visa)admissions (see Figure 3).

3

Insight

While some nonimmigrant visasare truly temporary in the lengthof stay permitted under the law,others are clearly issued for mid-term and long-term residence inthe United States. In fact, manyof these nonimmigrants would beconsidered long-term “immi-grants” according to the currentUnited Nations definition.

4

Figure 3. Share of selected classes of admissions (%) in total non-visitor admissions, FY 1989 to 2004

Figure 2. Nonimmigrant admissions to the United States, FY 1989 to 2004

Length of stay Temporary visas also differ in the length oftime nonimmigrants are permitted to spend inthe country per visit. The length of stay variessubstantially by the class of admission: fromthe couple of hours that aliens on a C-4 visamay need to transit through an airport to catchtheir next flight, to the number of years that F-1 students take to finish their studies at UScolleges and universities, to K-1 fiancés(ees)who come to the United States to marry US cit-izens and reside in the country (see Appendix2). In other words, while some nonimmigrantvisas are truly temporary in the length of staypermitted under the law, others are clearlyissued for mid-term and long-term residence inthe United States. In fact, many of these non-immigrants would be considered long-term“immigrants” according to the current UnitedNations definition.9

Flexibility of the temporary nonimmigrant system Unlike the permanent immigration system,which almost seems to be set in stone, amend-ments to the temporary system are much easierto make. For example, in response to USemployers’ claims of skilled labor shortagesduring the high-tech boom of the late 1990s,Congress substantially increased the number ofH-1B temporary worker visas — from 65,000to 195,000 visas for 2001, 2002, and 2003 —by passing only one act.10 Another example isthe creation of V visas. In order to address thesevere backlogs in the availability of family-based visas for LPRs, Congress passed theLegal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act,which provided a new visa to allow immediatefamily of LPRs who have been waiting morethan three years for a green card to reunite andobtain work authorization. The most recentchange was the enactment of the E-3 visa. It

was created in the spring of 2005 to provideAustralian citizens access to temporaryemployment as part of meeting US-Australiabilateral obligations. These few examples illus-trate the responsiveness of the temporary sys-tem in addressing the needs and interests ofvarious political and economic actors. Nowhere is this flexibility more apparent thanin the area of labor markets. American employ-ers have increasingly come to rely on the tem-porary migration system to gain access to theforeign workers they need because it is a faster,more efficient route with more predictable out-comes than the permanent system. This is why,for example, the H-1B visa program hasbecome the main gateway for bringing profes-sionals into the United States.

Two main factors explain why many employerschoose to bring foreign employees to the UnitedStates on a temporary visa rather than wait forapproval of a worker’s permanent visa. The firstis the long delays in processing applications forpermanent residence for employment-basedimmigrants at the US Department of Labor.Currently, it takes more than a year to process alabor certification application, which is amandatory step insponsoring most for-eign workers for anemployment-basedimmigrant visa. Thesecond has to dowith the low numbersof employment-spon-sored permanentvisas available andcountry limits on thetotal number of visas. In other words, evenwhen all necessary documents are processed, aforeign national may have to wait a long timefor an employment-based permanent visa num-

5

Insight

American employers haveincreasingly come to rely on thetemporary migration system togain access to the foreign work-ers they need because it is afaster, more efficient route withmore predictable outcomes thanthe permanent system.

ber to become available. This is especially rele-vant for nationals from certain countries suchas China, India, or the Philippines. To employ-ers who need quick access to workers, a wait oftwo to three years is not a viable option.

Interconnections between the temporary and permanentadmission systems

A close interrelation between the two admis-sions systems has evolved over time as thetemporary system was modified to compensatefor the lack of flexibility of the permanent sys-tem. However, the lack of adequate data aboutnonimmigrants adjusting to LPR status inhibitsthe development of informed policy and theevaluation of the workings of both temporaryand permanent systems.

Transitional visas According to the Immigration and NationalityAct (INA), Section 214(b), most foreign nation-als seeking to enter the United States under anonimmigrant visa must demonstrate that theydo not intend to abandon their countries of ori-gin and remain permanently in the United

States. Consularofficers in USembassies overseashave to presumethat the applicantsfor temporary visasare intending tobecome permanentimmigrants. Theburden is on appli-cants to convince

the consular officer that their stay in theUnited States will be temporary.

However, in an increasing number of suchadmission categories, the requirement of not

intending to stay in the United States perma-nently is waived, and nonimmigrant visa hold-ers may apply to adjust their status to LPReven without leaving the United States.11 Forexample, the Immigration Act of 1990 alloweddual intent for three groups of temporary work-ers — H-1B specialty occupation workers, L-1intracompany transferees, and O-1 temporaryworkers with extraordinary abilities/achieve-ments — thus making these visas a “naturalfunnel into permanent immigration.”12

Similarly, more recent amendments to the INAexempt certain additional classes of nonimmi-grant applicants from having to prove theirintention to return to their countries of origin.These include V1-V3 visa holders (certainclose family members of LPRs), K1-K2(fiancés(ées)) of US citizens and their minorchildren), K3-K4 (alien spouses and alien chil-dren of US citizens), T1-T4 (victims of severeforms of trafficking), and U1-U3 (victims ofcertain criminal activity). Therefore, althoughthe law attempts to keep the temporary and per-manent visa systems separate, in practice, anexpanding number of visas act as transmissionbelts, allowing people who are initially tempo-rary visitors to become permanent residents.

Predominance of status adjusters in the total LPR numbers In 2004, about one million persons wereadmitted as lawful permanent residents to theUnited States. Thirty-eight percent of them didso directly from overseas. More than 61 per-cent, or 583,921 persons, were already in theUnited States and adjusted their status toLPR. The total number of new LPRs fluctuat-ed substantially over the last fifteen years, pri-marily due to processing delays for adjust-ments of status and backlogs at ImmigrationServices (see Figure 4).13 The fluctuation inthe total number of immigrants admitted every

6

Although the law attempts tokeep the temporary and perma-

nent visa systems separate, inpractice, an expanding number

of visas act as transmissionbelts, allowing people who areinitially temporary visitors tobecome permanent residents.

year is thus driven, for the most part, by fluc-tuations in the numbers of status adjusters. AsFigure 4 indicates, although the number ofadjustments has varied greatly between 1986and 2004, the number of new arrivals hasremained relatively stable at about 400,000per year. The trend toward adjustment of statusas the dominant route to permanent immigra-tion has developed over time and illustratesyet again the strong relationship between per-manent and temporary migration.

Data considerations Given the high proportion of status adjusters(former nonimmigrants) in total permanentadmissions, what can available immigrationdata say about the types of status adjusters andtheir rates of adjustment?

According to the most recently available data,about one-quarter of new LPRs who were sta-tus adjusters are former tourists (see Table 1).14

The next largest group of status adjusters is

comprised of refugees and parolees whoseshare varied from 42 percent in 1994 to 5 per-cent in 1999. The share of persons whoentered the United States without inspection(unauthorized) and adjusted to permanent resi-dence also varied from 28 percent in 1997 toless than 1 percent in 2001.15 While the shareof new LPRs who were temporary workers (ortheir family members) was about 10 percentbefore 1998, it has been increasing since then.Students and intracompany transferees togetherwith their families made up less than 10 per-cent of all status adjusters in 2002.

Because of inadequate and incomplete data, itis not possible to calculate the proportion oftemporary nonimmigrants that make the transi-tion from temporary visas to LPR status. Thereare a few indirect estimates suggesting that asof 1994, as many as 38 percent of H-visaworkers and over 21 percent of L entrantsadjusted to LPR status.16 Estimates for the late1990s suggest that about half of H-1B workers

eventually adjusted toLPR status although it isnot clear how long it tookthem to do so.17

Some nonimmigrants alsoswitch from one temporaryvisa to another before theyadjust to LPR status. Inone estimate in 1996,about one-fifth of the for-eign students moved fromF visas either directly, orindirectly through H-1Bvisas, to permanentstatus.18 A more recentestimate suggests thatabout 7 percent of stu-dents adjust directly froman F visa either through

7

Insight

Figure 4. Immigrants admitted tothe United States (in thousands),FY 1986 to 2004

employment sponsorship or marriage to a UScitizen, while another 7 to 8 percent adjust viaH visas.19

As this brief overview of available data indi-cates, the lack of high-quality data limits soundanalysis of how many and what types of nonim-migrants become permanent immigrants, andhow long it takes them to do so.

Conclusion

With the removal of the dual intent prohibitionfrom an increasing number of temporary visas,a new system of admission has emerged that isneither nonimmigrant (temporary) nor immi-grant (permanent). Rather is it a system of tran-sitional (temporary-to-permanent) visas thatallows visa holders to demonstrate their abilityto be successful in the labor market and allowstheir employers to be assured that the visaholders are valuable to them and to the broadereconomy. This new system also reflects another

reality, namely, the dissatisfaction of most eco-nomic actors with a permanent immigrationsystem that fails to respond to robust and grow-ing demand for foreign workers.

Much of today’s permanent visa system, in fact,admits immigrants who have “learned theropes” while on nonimmigrant visas. By thetime these people seek to become LPRs, theyhave been exposed to American society, havelocal academic credentials and experience, andpossess valuable language skills and access tocrucial social networks. Therefore, any discus-sion of permanent immigration in the context ofcomprehensive immigration reform must con-sider the characteristics and evolution of thetemporary nonimmigrant system. Moreover, thegovernment’s lack of high-quality data hindersunderstanding of the realities of immigration,thereby undermining the foundation of solidpolicymaking. As the calls for fixing the “bro-ken system” increase, poor data quality mustbe addressed.

8

Table 1. Lawful permanent resident (LPR) status adjustersby previous nonimmigrant status (%), FY 1994 to 2002

9

Insight

APPENDIX 1: Elements of the USpermanent immigration system

This appendix describes the basic elements of thepermanent immigration system. There is an overalllimit on the number of immigrants admitted everyyear, within which certain categories of immigrantsare not subject to numeric limitation and others are.

Classes not subject to numerical limitation These categories include:• Immediate relatives of US citizens;• Certain surviving spouses of deceased US citi-

zens, and their children;• Certain children born to lawful permanent resi-

dents temporarily abroad;• Refugees (there are limits on arrivals but not

adjustments of status); and• Others (including returning residents, asylees,

certain former US citizens, and certain parolees).

10

APPENDIX 2: Class of admission, time limits, and visa caps associated with each nonimmigrant visa

11

Insight

12

Although it is not clear why the percent of unre-ported/missing cases increased from 12 percent in1997 to 50 percent in 1998, most likely it has todo with data processing. Such a dramatic increasein missing data coincided with the transfer ofimmigration data processing to a new system in1998. Data specialists think that because previous(nonimmigrant) status is not one of the fieldsrequired to adjudicate an application, some servicecenters stopped keying it into the database. It is

possible for processing centers to restore thisimportant piece of information: the adjudicated(past) applications can be matched by a uniqueidentifier and the new applications (present) can beentered with all information in them. Unfortunately,the Office of Immigration Statistics, the only sourceof immigration data, has little leverage in how thedata are collected and processed.

APPENDIX 3: Differences in counting nonimmigrants

There are two ways of counting nonimmigrants:

1. In the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics(OIS) figures, nonimmigrant admissions are record-ed for each arrival. A nonimmigrant may travel onthe same (or different) visa back and forth betweenthe United States and another country within thesame year. Every time this person enters the UnitedStates, the entry is recorded and added to the totalnumber of admissions for that fiscal year.Therefore, the count of admissions exceeds thenumber of individuals arriving.

The number of individuals who entered the UnitedStates on a temporary visa just one time in 2004totals 22.6 million; 3.2 million individuals enteredthe country more than once.20

2. The US Department of State (DOS) counts howmany and what type of visas are issued to foreignnationals in overseas consulates and embassiesevery fiscal year. The number of nonimmigrantsarriving in the United States does not match thenumber of nonimmigrant visas issued by overseas

consulates in the same fiscal year. There are anumber of reasons for this difference. First, not allforeign nationals need a visa to enter the UnitedStates. Nationals of twenty-seven countries that arepart of the Visa Waiver Program (e.g., the UK,Ireland, France, Germany, Japan, etc.) can travel tothe United States without a visa if they come for aperiod of less than ninety days as tourists or busi-ness travelers. Second, most nonimmigrant visasare valid for several years and an unlimited num-ber of entries. And third, some people may choosenot to travel to the United States even if theyobtain a visa, or they may choose to travel in a sub-sequent year. In 2004, DOS issued 5,049,083 non-immigrant visas.21

The different methods of counting nonimmigrantsreflect administrative differences between agenciesthat issue foreign nationals temporary visas(Department of State) and screen them at the portof entry (Department of Homeland Security). But itintroduces confusion about who is counted andhow many arrive in the country at any given pointin time.

APPENDIX 4: Increasing data problems in reporting prior status of certain lawful permanent residents

13

Insight

ENDNOTES

1 All years for immigration statistics refer to fiscal years unless otherwise indicated. 2 Travel Industry Association of America, www.tia.org; and Stephen Yale-Loehr, Demetrios Papademetriou, and Betsy

Cooper, Secure Borders, Open Doors: Visa Procedures in the Post-September 11 Era. (Washington, DC: MigrationPolicy Institute, 2005), http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/visa_report.pdf.

3 Demetrios Papademetriou and Kevin O’Neil, “Efficient Practices for the Selection of Economic Migrants”(Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, DG Employment and Social Affairs, 2004),http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_analysis/docs/select_econ_migr1.pdf.

4 The Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act and its amendments established the V visa category that allowscertain spouses or children of an LPR to live and work in the United States in a nonimmigrant category. Thespouse or child can remain in the country until they are able to apply for lawful permanent residence status or foran immigrant visa, instead of having to wait outside the United States as the law previously required. This visa cat-egory is available only for those who have been waiting for at least three years for their petitions to be approved orfor immigrant visas to become available.

5 The letter in the visa name refers to the paragraph in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). For example, anF-1 foreign student visa refers to paragraph F(i) in the INA, which describes the purpose and eligibility require-ment for this visa.

6 Appendix 3 explains how the Departments of Homeland Security and State — the federal agencies that have mostnonimmigrant-related responsibilities — collect and record information on foreign nationals with temporary visas.

7 In 2004, there were about 179 million nonimmigrants admitted to the United States, of whom 148 million (83 per-cent) were exempt from completing the I-94 arrival/departure form at the port of entry. These nonimmigrants arefrom two groups: Canadians who travel to the United States for business or pleasure, and Mexicans who possess anonresident alien Border Crossing Card (i.e., laser visa). DHS only reports the characteristics of I-94 nonimmi-grants, who accounted for 30.8 million temporary admissions in 2004.

8 Nonimmigrant data gathered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) counts admissions, not individuals.This means that if the same person entered the United States three times under the same or different visa withinthe same (fiscal) year, he or she would be counted three times.

14

9 The United Nations defines a long-term migrant as a person who moves to a country other than that of his or herusual residence for a period of at least a year (twelve months), so that the country of destination effectivelybecomes his or her new country of usual residence. From the perspective of the country of departure, the personwill be a long-term emigrant and from that of the country of arrival, the person will be a long-term immigrant.United Nations, “Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration (Revision 1).” United Nations,Statistical Papers Series M, No. 58, Rev. 1, (New York, NY, 1998),http://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/SeriesM/SeriesM_58rev1E.pdf.

10 For more information see Deborah W. Meyers, Temporary Worker Programs: A Patchwork Policy Response, MPIInsight Prepared for the Independent Task Force on Immigration and America’s Future (Washington, DC:Migration Policy Institute, January, 2006), http://www.migrationpolicy.org/ITFIAF/Insight-7-Meyers.pdf.

11 For example, a person comes to the United States as a student and while on a student visa, marries a US citizen.Her spouse can petition US Citizenship and Immigration Services on her behalf to adjust her status to lawful per-manent residence. Family reunification would be the basis for her adjustment. Under certain circumstances, ille-gally residing foreigners can also adjust to LPR status. Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and ImmigrantResponsibility Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-208), a person who is unlawfully present in the United States for morethan 180 days but less than one year is inadmissible for three years, and a person who is unlawfully present formore than one year is inadmissible for ten years. Therefore, if such a person becomes eligible for admission asan immigrant and comes forward to apply while still unlawfully present, he or she is still considered inadmissiblefor a period of time depending on the duration of unlawful residence. That means that such a person has to leavethe United States for three or ten years before he or she can apply for lawful permanent residence. However, atvarious times in the past, Congress has authorized exemptions to these provisions. For instance, under Section245(i) of the INA, persons who would be otherwise eligible for LPR status when a visa becomes available mayhave petitions filed on their behalf even though they were unlawfully present. It is also possible to transition fromillegal to a quasi-legal status such as temporary protected status (TPS) and then be admitted as an immigrant,although one would have to qualify as immigrant through one of the regular channels; TPS does not lead directlyto any other status. Finally, Congress has also passed laws retroactively allowing special categories of people whohave been in the United States illegally to adjust their status if they meet certain criteria. In all such cases, the“illegal presence” prohibitions were waived. The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act(NACARA) is but one such example.

12 Papademetriou and O’Neil, “Efficient Practices,” 18.13 Immigration services were conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prior to 2003, and are

now conducted by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) under the Department of HomelandSecurity.

14 Due to data quality concerns, the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) stopped publishing data on status adjusters by previous status from 2003 on. As Appendix 4 shows, about 50 percent of the data were missing inthe five years before 2002.

15 From 1995 to 2000, unauthorized immigrants were able to adjust to LPR according to the INA Section 245(i). 16 See David S. North, “Some Thoughts on Nonimmigrant Student and Worker Programs,” in Foreign Temporary

Workers in America: Policies That Benefit the U.S. Economy, edited by B. Lindsay Lowell (Westport, CT: QuorumBooks, 1999) 57-94.

17 B. Lindsay Lowell, “H1-B Temporary Workers: Estimating the Population” (Washington, DC: Institute for theStudy of International Migration, Georgetown University, 2000).

18 Brian Christian, “Facilitating High-Skilled Migration to Advanced Industrial Countries: Comparative Policies.”(Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Institute for the Study of International Migration, 2000),http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/programs/isim/Publications/Christiansan/BrianSkillPolicyCompare.pdf.

19 B. Lindsay Lowell, “Foreign Student Adjustment to Permanent Status in the United States.” Presentation at theInternational Metropolis Conference (Toronto, Canada, 2005).

20 Elizabeth M. Grieco, “Temporary Admissions of Nonimmigrants to the United States in 2004” (Washington, DC:US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2005),http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/index.htm.

21 This number includes the combination of B1/B2 and Border Crossing Cards (n=740,616). US Department ofState, “Visa Office Report: Classes of Nonimmigrants Issued Visas,” 2005,http://travel.state.gov/pdf/visa_office_report_table_xvi.pdf.

15

Insight

Additional Readings

Grieco, Elizabeth M. 2005a. “Length of Visit ofNonimmigrants Departing the United States in2003.” US Department of Homeland Security,Office of Immigration Statistics, Washington, DC.Available at http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statis-tics/publications/index.htm.

—. 2005b. “Temporary Admissions ofNonimmigrants to the United States in 2004.” USDepartment of Homeland Security, Office ofImmigration Statistics, Washington, DC. Availableat http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publi-cations/index.htm.

Papademetriou, Demetrios and Kevin O’Neil. 2004.“Efficient Practices for the Selection of Economic

Migrants.” European Commission, DG Employmentand Social Affairs, Brussels, Belgium. Available athttp://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_analysis/docs/select_econ_migr1.pdf.

Yale-Loehr, Stephen, Demetrios Papademetriou, andBetsy Cooper. 2005. Secure Borders, Open Doors:Visa Procedures in the Post-September 11 Era.Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC.Available athttp://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/visa_report.pdf.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank DemetriosPapademetriou, Doris Meissner, Deborah W.Meyers, and B. Lindsay Lowell for their valuablecomments.

Jeanne BatalovaJeanne Batalova is a Policy Analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, where shefocuses on the impacts of immigrants on social structures and labor markets;integration of immigrant children and elderly immigrants; and the policies andpractices regulating immigration of highly skilled workers and foreign stu-dents. She is also Data Manager for the Migration Information Source, a one-stop, web-based migration resource for journalists, policymakers, opinionshapers and researchers.

Before joining MPI, Dr. Batalova was working on her dissertation regardingthe economic impact of highly skilled immigrants in the United States. It willbe published in 2006 as a monograph titled Skilled Immigrant and NativeWorkers in the United States:The Economic Competition Debate and Beyond.Recently, she co-authored a study on children with limited English proficiencyand their academic literacy outcomes (with MPI’s Julie Murray and MichaelFix) and a study on characteristics of elderly immigrants in the United States(with UCI’s Judith Treas).

She received her PhD in Sociology from the University of California - Irvine,MBA from Roosevelt University, and BA in Economics from the Academy ofEconomic Studies, Chisinau, Moldova.

About the Author

1400 16th Street NWSuite 300Washington,DC 20036

202 266 1940202 266 1900 (fax)

www.migrationpolicy.orgwww.migrationinformation.org

The Migration Policy Institute

(MPI) is an independent, non-

partisan, non-profit think tank

dedicated to the study of the

movement of people worldwide.

The institute provides analysis,

development, and evaluation of

migration and refugee policies at

the local, national, and international

levels. It aims to meet the rising

demand for pragmatic responses

to the challenges and opportunities

that migration presents in an ever

more integrated world. MPI

produces the Migration

Information Source website, at

www.migrationinformation.org.

M O R E F R O M M P I :

w w w . m i g r a t i o n p o l i c y . o r g

This report was commissioned as part of MPI’s Independent Task Force onImmigration and America’s Future. The task force is a bipartisan panel of prominentleaders from key sectors concerned with immigration, which aims to generate soundinformation and workable policy ideas.

The task force’s work focuses on four major policy challenges:■ The growing unauthorized immigrant population■ Immigration enforcement and security requirements■ Labor markets and the legal immigration system■ Integrating immigrants into American society

The panel’s series of reports and policy briefs will lead to a comprehensive set of rec-ommendations in 2006.

Former Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) and former Congressman Lee Hamilton(D-IN) serve as co-chairs, and the task force’s work is directed by MPI Senior FellowDoris Meissner, the former Commissioner of the Immigration and NaturalizationService.

The approximately 25 task force members include high-ranking members of Congresswho are involved in shaping legislation; leaders from key business, labor and immigrantgroups; and public policy and immigration experts. MPI, a nonpartisan think tank ded-icated to the analysis of the movement of people worldwide, is partnering withManhattan Institute and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars forthis project.

For more information on the Independent Task Force on Immigration and America’sFuture, please visit: