

RESEARCH PAPER - - 40		RESEARCH PAPER - -


Yang, P.Q. 1994. Explaining Immigrant Naturalization. International Migration Review 28:3 (Fall) 449-77.
	Potential Sponsorship by IRCA-Legalized Immigrants Karen A. Woodrow-Lafield Center for Social and Demographic Analysis University at Albany, State University of New York Summer 1994


U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M	U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 1992. Immigration Reform and Control Act: Report on the Legalized Alien Population. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Warren, R. 1988. Projected Immigration to the United States as a Result of the Legalization Program. Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, New Orleans.

White, M.J. 1992. A Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants: Issues and Opportunities. Presented at the workshop U.S. Immigration Research: An Assessment of Data Needs for Future Research, sponsored by the Committee on National Statistics and the Committee on Population, National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Washington, DC, September 17-18.

Woodrow, K.A. 1992. A Consideration of the Effect of Immigration Reform on the Number of Undocumented Residents in the United States. Population Research and Policy Review 11:117-44.

Woodrow, K.A.; Peregoy, A. 1991. Parents, Siblings, and Children: How Many Do Natives and Foreign-Born Persons

Have? Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Toronto.

Woodrow-Lafield, K.A. 1994a. Immediate Relatives of Natives and Immigrants in the United States. Unpublished manuscript.

____________ 1994b. Finding an Upper Limit on Recent Net Undocumented Migration to the United States. Revised version of paper presented at the 1993 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Miami Beach.

____________ 1995a. Post-Legalization Household Changes and Potential Family Reunification. Revised version of paper presented at the 1994 annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Miami.

____________ 1995b Forthcoming. Household Structure and Recent

and Prospective Immigration: Legalized Population Follow-up Survey. Monograph chapter, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC.

____________ 1995c Forthcoming. Emigration From the United States Using Multiplicity Surveys. Population Research and Policy Review.

Research supported by The Commission on Immigration Reform, Summer 1994.

I greatly appreciate computing support provided by the Center for Social and Demographic Analysis [CSDA] of the University at Albany, State University of New York, and data access given by the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor.

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

Passel, J.S.; Woodrow, K.A. 1984. Geographic Distribution of Undocumented Immigrants: Estimates of Undocumented Aliens Counted in the 1980 Census by State. International Migration Review 18:3 (Fall) 642-71.

__________ 1987. Comment on Family Reunification and the Immigration Multiplier. In Legal Immigration in the United States: A Demographic Analysis of Fifth Preference Visa Admissions (J.M. Goering, ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 83-88.

Pear, R. 1993. U.S. to Encourage Legal Immigrants to Get Citizenship. New York Times (November 26).

Perotti, R. 1994. Employer Sanctions and the Limits of Negotiation. The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science 534 (July) 31-43.

Roney, L.S. 1988. Materials prepared for U.S. General Accounting Office, Immigration Impacts Project Panel.

Sohn, L.B.; Buergenthal, T. 1992. The Movement of Persons Across Borders. Studies in Transnational Legal Policy, No. 23. Washington, DC: The American Society of International Law.

Teitelbaum, M.S. 1989. Skeptical Noises About the Immigration Multiplier. International Migration Review 23:4 (Winter) 893-99.

U.S. Department of State. 1993a. Immigrant Visa Waiting List in the Family-Sponsored and Employment-Based Preferences as of January 1993. Visa Bulletin 7 (23B).

____________ 1993b. Immigrant Numbers for November 1993. Visa Bulletin 7 (29).

____________ 1994. Immigrant Visa Waiting List in the Family-Sponsored and Employment-Based Preferences as of January 1994. Visa Bulletin 7 (36A).

____________ 1995. Immigrant Numbers for February 1995. Visa Bulletin 7 (46).

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988. The Future Flow of Legal Immigration to the United States. GAO/PEMD-88-7. Washington, DC.

____________ 1989. Immigration Reform: Major Changes Likely Under S.358. GAO/PEMD-90-5. Washington, DC.

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -1-

INTRODUCTION -3-

DATA AND METHODS -18

PRESENCE AND FUTURE IMMIGRATION
OF SPOUSES AND CHILDREN -12-

INTENTION TO NATURALIZE
AND FUTURE IMMIGRATION -17-

PROJECTING VISA PETITIONS -21-

SUMMARY -34-

REFERENCES -37-

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M



RESEARCH PAPER - -			RESEARCH PAPER - - 37


	Goering, J.M. 1989. Introduction and Overview. International Migration Review 23:4 (Winter) 797-812. Hagan, J.M.; Baker, S.G. 1993. Implementing the U.S. Legalization Program: The Influence of Immigrant Communities and Local Agencies on Immigration Policy Reform. International Migration Review 27:3 (Fall) 513-36. Harper, B.J. 1988. Materials prepared for U.S. General Accounting Office, Immigration Impacts Project Panel. Heinberg, J.D.; Harris, J.K.; York, R.L. 1989. The Process of Exempt Immediate Relative Immigration to the United States. International Migration Review 23:4 (Winter) 839-55. Interpreter Releases. 1990. The Immigration Act of 1990 Analyzed: Part I—Introduction. 67:45 (December 3). Jasso, G.; Rosenzweig, M. 1986. Family Reunification and the Immigration Multiplier: U.S. Immigration Law, Origin-Country Conditions, and the Reproduction of Immigrants. Demography 23:3 (August) 291-312. ____________ 1989. Sponsors, Sponsorship Rates, and the Immigration Multiplier. International Migration Review 23:4 (Winter) 856-89.	____________ 1990. The New Chosen People: Immigrants in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Keyfitz, N. 1987. The Social and Political Context of Population Forecasting. In The Politics of Numbers (W. Alonso, P. Starr, eds.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 235-58. Martin, P.L. 1994. Good Intentions Gone Awry: IRCA and U.S. Agriculture. The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science 534:44-57 (July). Massey, D.S.; et al. 1993. Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal. Population and Development Review 19:3 (September) 431-66. McDonnell, P.; Simon, R. 1994. Anti-Immigrant Mood Helps Fuel Citizenship Rise. Los Angeles Times (July 4). North, D.S. 1987. The Long Grey Welcome: A Study of the American Naturalization Program. International Migration Review 21:2 (Summer) 311-26. O'Connell, M. 1991. Late Expectations: Childbearing Patterns of American Women for the 1990's. In Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 176, Studies in American Fertility. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 1-18.


U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M	U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

potential for introducing wives and children into the United States initially as undocumented migrants, eventually as legal immigrants. In the present, these families may contribute to rural poverty problems (Martin 1994). These families and, to a lesser extent, families of generally IRCA-legalized immigrants, are mixed by legal status with complex implications for access to public benefits programs. Both another follow-up

survey of the generally IRCA-legalized immigrants and a SAW survey are most relevant for California and the Los Angeles area with their concentrations of these individuals.

REFERENCES

Alvarez, R.R. 1987. A Profile of the Citizenship Process Among Hispanics in the United States. International Migration Review 21:2 (Summer) 327-51.

Arnold, F. 1989. Unanswered Questions About the Immigration Multiplier. International Migration Review 23:4 (Winter) 889-92.

Arnold, F.; et al. 1989. Estimating the Immigration Multiplier: An Analysis of Recent Korean and Filipino Immigration to the United States. International Migration Review 23:4 (Winter) 813-39.

Baker, S.G. 1990. The Cautious Welcome: The Legalization Program of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Bean, F.D.; et al. 1990. Post-IRCA Changes in the Volume and Composition of Undocumented Migration to the United States: An Assessment Based on Apprehensions Data. In Undocumented Migration to the United States: IRCA and the Experience of the 1980s (F.D. Bean, B. Edmonston, J.S. Passel, eds.). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Borjas, G.J.; Tienda, M. 1993. The Employment and Wages of Legalized Immigrants. International Migration Review 27:4 (Winter) 712-47.

Cleveland, N. 1994. Staggering Numbers Pledge U.S. Allegiance. San Diego Union-Tribune July 4.

De Vos, S.; Palloni, A. 1989. Formal Models and Methods for the Analysis of Kinship and Household Organization. Population Index 55:2 (Summer) 174-98.

Donato, K.M.; Durand, J.; Massey, D.S. 1992. Stemming the Tide? Assessing the Deterrent Effects of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Demography 29:2 (May) 139-58.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A particular consideration of the Commission for Immigration Reform is the demand to immigrate to the United States by immediate relatives of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence and citizens of the United States. In devising the Immigration Act of 1990, policymakers considered current queues for relative categories and sought a balance among high demand, maintaining the family reunification principle, and establishment of a national level or "cap" on immigration. Given that the large backlogs of the 1980s and 1990s had not been anticipated before the 1965 Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, an ongoing review of legally resident immigrants' requirements for family reunification is worthwhile. This review is timely because recent legislative reforms created sizable new immigrant subgroups (formerly undocumented residents who have been here for more than a decade, formerly un

documented workers in seasonal

agricultural services, and diversity

immigrants from countries adversely

affected by the 1965 Amendments)

and expanded admissions under

employment-based preference categories.

This research focuses on demand to immigrate legally by relatives of those aliens who, having resided in an unlawful status since before 1982, legalized under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 [IRCA]. A special survey of these legalized immigrants affords analysis of household composition (including members' legal residence status and relationship to the IRCA-

legalized immigrant), distribution of nonresident relatives intending to immigrate to the United States, and

intentions to naturalize among IRCA-

legalized immigrants. The questions

addressed are: What will be the probable numbers and timing of visa

petitions under second preference?¹ Assuming that immigrants intending to naturalize do so, what will be the prob

¹Family preference categories under the Immigration Act of 1990 are:

1st: Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and their children;

2nd: Spouses, children, and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent resident aliens;

3rd: Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and

children;

4th: Siblings of U.S. citizens (at least twenty-one years of age) and their spouses and children.

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

able numbers and timing of visa petitions under first, third, and fourth preferences, and under exempt immediate relatives categories? Unfortunately, the survey did not include aliens legalized under Special Agricultural Worker [SAW] provisions and the magnitude of requirements to be joined by their immediate family members cannot be addressed. IRCA-legalized aliens, both from general and agricultural provisions, are already accountable for substantial numbers of visa petitions for spouses and children and, as shown here, these cohorts could eventually sponsor considerable immigration of their immediate relatives. This work contributes

insights to the broader question of family reunification requirements for immigrant cohorts under the Immigration Act of 1990. Several recommendations are included for improving social science and policy analyses of progression to naturalization, impacts for legal immigration of family migration, and possible interconnections of family migration with undocumented immigration to the United States.

fully. Only with longitudinal data on socioeconomic assimilation would the push-pull aspects of the relationship

between settlement success and family reunification be discernible. Only by recontacting these individuals will there be measures of the degree to which

parents, children, or siblings may

have chosen to settle here as undocumented residents while awaiting an

immigrant visa.

One of IRCA's main purposes, curbing undocumented immigration, apparently has not been fulfilled, based on analyses of apprehensions statistics (Bean, et al. 1990), surveys of Mexican sending communities (Donato, Durand & Massey 1992), and assessment of net undocumented immigration in the 1980s (Woodrow-Lafield 1994b; Woodrow 1992). A portion of this failure is due to continuing migration of undocumented farm workers (Martin 1994). Unrealized by policymakers and researchers may be the full extent to which undocumented migration is an integral part of legal immigration to the United States as individuals enter illegally or overstay for the fundamental reason of living with their families. With the exception of sending communities surveys, research on undocumented migration ignores its family character.

Yet family ties may be the critical link

in analyzing undocumented migration

patterns for the 1990s and into the twenty-first century. Failure of the legal immigration system to afford legal opportunity for family migration may lead to substantial undocumented immigration of family members of this cohort of legalized immigrants who have been settled for a decade. Another survey with similar and expanded questions on residence of family members would be valuable for studying the linkages of legal and undocumented immigration and informing policymakers concerned with enforcement of employer sanctions provisions and border control.

Finally, a similar survey of Special Agricultural Workers is long overdue. The controversy aroused by the unexpected numbers of SAW applicants probably would be relatively diminutive if the scope of undocumented and legal immigration stemming from SAWs were measurable. This population is truly elusive from the demographer's measurement view as SAWs are fully entitled to reside permanently in the United States and yet

the extent to which they are resident

is unknown.

Characterized as primarily Mexican and young, this population has tremendous

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

status may have on the timing of bringing other family members to the United States, these data offer extraordinary insights to family migration for immigration during the 1990s. It appears that the family preference visa backlog could increase by as much as 100 percent merely as a result of the legalization of 1.7 million aliens under IRCA.

Of what value will this study be in the contemporary discussions about immigration and immigrants? May we

assume enough accuracy about these

predictions for policy purposes? Keyfitz (1987:237) has stated "Yet standing against this assertion of the absolute impossibility of knowing the future is the absolute necessity of a picture of the future if behavior is to have any sense." For this population subgroup previously destined for an underclass life-style, the picture features massive embracing of American citizenship. Among the benefits of citizenship are greater range of eligibility for sponsorship of family members as immigrants, but political participation will be a more universally received benefit. Patterns of geographic concentration of immigrants in certain states and cities are long-standing and empowerment of these immigrants from undocumented origins in the 1970s may bode well for future urban health.

Several recommendations for federal agencies and policymakers are warranted. The recommendation with the most immediacy is that the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service should make an organized field effort to guarantee prompt and complete statistical records for naturalizations for 1994 and subsequent years. If the sea change suggested herein takes place, these data will be extremely relevant for social science studies of assimilation and political behavior. Concurrently with these administrative efforts, initiation of evaluation research, including naturalistic

research, on advocacy groups' role in promoting naturalization and political education is merited (e.g., Hagan & Baker 1993). To sharpen the precision of these projections and the relationship between needs for family reunification and decision to naturalize, the Legalized Population Follow-up Survey and the Legalized Applicants Public-Use File should be updated regularly during 1995-2000 to include administrative data from linked naturalization records.

A recommendation for a third wave survey of the legalized population is an obvious necessity at this critical juncture in the cohort's experience, not merely for traditional assimilation analysis, but also for informing immigration policy more

INTRODUCTION

For a long time, combined immigration under family preference categories and immigration of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens without numerical limitation has exceeded immigration under occupational preference and other categories. In devising the Immigration Act of 1990, policymakers considered the opinions of immigration experts (U.S. General Accounting Office 1989) that setting an absolute limit on family-based immigration was not feasible. If such a limit had been imposed, the trend of increasing numbers of immediate relative immigration, only partly resulting from the amnesty programs, would have reduced the numbers of family preference visas.

Therefore, the current three-track

immigration system has a "piercable cap," a limit of 675,000 that theoretically consists of 480,000 family-sponsored

immigrant visas, 140,000 employment-based visas, and 55,000 diversity visas. Refugees and certain other aliens are outside this cap. The "piercability" stems from the artificiality of the 480,000 limit on family immigration. Immigration of immediate relatives, including spouses of citizens, children (under twenty-one years of age) of citizens, parents of citizens twenty-one years of

age or older, and orphans adopted by citizens who are at least twenty-one years of age, continues to be exempt from numerical limitation. With a set minimum of 226,000 for family preference visas, the combination of immediate relatives and family preference

immigration could exceed the so-called cap. Although the initial piercing had been expected for fiscal 1993 (Interpreter Releases 1990), fiscal 1994 marked the initial application of the minimum for family preference visas (U.S. Department of State 1993b).

An important task for the Commission on Immigration Reform is consideration of "the requirements of citizens of the United States and of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence to be joined in the United States by immediate family members and the impact which the establishment of a national level of immigration has upon the availability and priority of family preference visas" (Immigration Act of 1990 Section 141, (c), (1), (A)).

In devising the Immigration Act of 1990, policymakers considered current queues for relative categories and sought a balance among: high demand for visas for family members of citizens and aliens; maintaining the family reunification principle; and establishment of a national

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

level or "cap" on immigration. Given that the large backlogs of those waiting for visas in the 1980s and 1990s had not been anticipated before the 1965 Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, an ongoing review of the needs for family reunification is worthwhile. Recent legislative reforms created special needs for this assessment by creating sizable new immigrant subgroups (formerly undocumented residents who have been here for more than a decade, formerly undocumented workers in

seasonal agricultural services, and diversity immigrants from countries adversely

affected by the 1965 Amendments)

and expanding admissions under

employment-based preference categories.

Significant contributions to the issue of chain migration have drawn broadly from census data sources in ex post facto fashion, but relied on naturalization for a single immigrant entry cohort (Jasso & Rosenzweig 1986, 1989, 1990), focused on naturalization and sponsorship for a small sample with linked records (U.S. General Accounting Office 1988; Heinberg, Harris & York 1989), or studied selected origin groups longitudinally subsequent to immigration (Arnold, et al. 1989). (Also see Goering 1989; Arnold 1989; Teitelbaum 1989; and Passel & Woodrow 1987.)

Immigrants to the United States are a highly heterogeneous group by demographic characteristics, origin country, immigration circumstances, and reasons for emigration, so that large-scale data are really needed to capture this heterogeneity. Immigrant statistics and censuses and surveys have cross-sectional analytic value for delineating events and foreign-born populations (Woodrow 1992), but these sources are inadequate for causal or descriptive multistate modelling of initial migration, duration of residence, naturalization, and sponsorship of immediate relatives over time. Change in the composition of the kinship network by residence may occur at each stage, and demographic factors of marriage, fertility, and mortality continue to operate. In general, analytic development of models of household and kinship organization is incomplete as there is a complex mosaic of constraints (De Vos & Palloni 1989). Compounding family network change is the additional constraint of legality of immigration to the United States to join the household or kinship organization. International migration dynamics are most appropriately studied with attention to the

"families, households, or other culturally defined units of production and consumption" in the new economics of migration (Massey, et al. 1993).

broadly sought and facilitate family migration from Mexico as well as other countries. These projections have great value for illustrating that there will be extremely heavy demand for visas under fourth preference from the legalization cohort. The actual level of demand may be lower if these legalized individuals had one or more siblings living outside their household who, having resided here since before 1982, also received

legalization.

Beyond this immediate scenario, introduction of parents as immediate relatives could lead to appearance of petitions shown here under fourth preference, under second preference, and, eventually, under first or third preferences. A pathway for sibling immigration may involve bringing in the parent, who later may sponsor remaining children (Arnold, et al. 1989). This effort is conservative about making explicit projections of that wave of petitioning as it is contingent on so many assumptions about the occurrence and timing of legalized immigrants' and parents' naturalization, among others. The accuracy of any projection diminishes as effects of erroneous assumptions compound over time. A few tentative statements are possible. Depending on family characteristics of siblings, there could be tremendous increases under

second preference, possibly even before the year 2000, with many of these petitions spooling into third preference. Petitions filed under the third preference category could increase several-fold in the early part of 2000-2009.

SUMMARY

The ideal source for depicting socioeconomic changes, acculturation, fertility, and family reunification, would be longitudinal data for a full array of immigrant entry cohorts (White 1992) with linkages to original immigrants. However, the processes of sponsorship, naturalization, and family reunification are lengthy. Such a survey or administrative tracking system would be quite costly, would need to be in place for two to four decades, and would always be subject to the bias of incomplete observation of more recent entry cohorts' experiences.

This research draws on an existing dataset with detailed information about numbers, residence, and intended residence for parents, siblings, and children of an immigrant cohort. Although the study population is unique in its long-term residence in undocumented status and the effect that transition to legal

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

Table 13.

The foreign-born population in the United States was estimated to have at least 17 million parents, children, and siblings living abroad in 1989, with siblings as the most prevalent type (Woodrow-Lafield 1994a; Woodrow & Peregoy 1991). Although this estimate could understate the true number, it is also an overstatement of the potential level of future immigration of immediate family members. First, as the

foreign-born universe included at least two million undocumented residents, some of these residents would be ineligible to sponsor any immediate relatives (Woodrow 1992). Second, the actual number of family members seeking to immigrate to the United States is unknown. Third, some foreign-born

persons residing here in 1989 would eventually emigrate, making immigration of their family members less likely

or possible.

The demand of immediate family members to immigrate legally to the United States is partially reflected in petitioner backlogs for immigrant visas. These counts are available only on an annual basis rather than more frequently as might be possible if petitions were maintained on automated systems. By this

indicator, demand increased markedly between January 1, 1990 and January 1, 1994, from 2.5 million to 3.6 million (40 percent) (U.S. Department of State 1994).² Actual demand could be higher as not all persons wishing to come to the United States would have filed petitions, given the waiting time and concern that a nonimmigrant visa might be denied if intention to overstay and reside in the United States were suspected. Most of the increase in the backlog is located in the second preference category.

The 1990 Act has significantly added to the number of visas for the 2A class (issuances during FY 1994 will be close to 50% more than would have been possible under the former provisions of law), and has now virtually equalized the visa waiting period for applicants from all countries. (Previously, there had been substantially earlier cut-off dates for Mexico, Philippines and Dominican Republic applicants.) It is apparent, however, that even with the greater visa availability, the large and rapidly growing waiting list assures continued oversubscription in the foreseeable future,

VISA PETITIONS POSSIBLY TO BE FILED UNDER FAMILY PREFERENCE AND IMMEDIATE RELATIVES CATEGORIES

UNDER SPONSORSHIP OF GENERALLY LEGALIZED IMMIGRANTS:

EL SALVADOREAN ORIGIN

Relevant Demand Level

Possible Petitions in Fiscal Year

Category for Petitioning

Total Family Members

Family Preferences

First

Unmarried adult sons and

daughters of citizens

(and children)

Second

Spouses

children,

unmarried sons and daughters

of permanent resident aliens

Third

Married sons and daughters

of citizens (and spouses

and children)

Fourth

Siblings of citizens

(and their spouses

and children)

Immediate Relatives

Parents

Children

Spouses

Combined

254,000

235,000

5,000

62,000

15,000

46,000

(A)

4,000

2,000

1,000

164,000

86,000

52,000

26,000

---

25,000

(C)

In U.S.

65,000

61,000

(A)

38,000

14,000

24,000

(A)

(---)

(A)

24,000

12,000

7,000

4,000

---

4,000

(C)

Intending

189,000

173,000

5,000

24,000

1,000

22,000

(A)

4,000

2,000

1,000

140,000

74,000

44,000

22,000

---

21,000

(C)

Total

1994-1998

135,000

107,000

1,000

---

(B)

(A)

3,000

1,000

102,000

54,000

32,000

16,000

35,000

17,000

1,000

1994-1995

18,000

1,000

---

(B)

(A)

1,000

16,000

9,000

5,000

3,000

6,000

3,000

1995-1996

59,000

45,000

---

(B)

(A)

1,000

43,000

23,000

14,000

7,000

15,000

7,000

1996-1997

53,000

41,000

---

(B)

(A)

1,000

40,000

21,000

12,000

6,000

12,000

6,000

1997-1998

6,000

4,000

---

(B)

(A)

4,000

2,000

1,000

2,000

1,000

Note: These estimates are illustrative. See text for explanation.

(A) Given high demand under second preference, assumption is that all unmarried sons and daughters will be transferred to petition under first preference for which demand is much lower.

(B) The assumptions are that visa petitions have already been filed under second preference, will have been largely satisfied in 1992-1994, and that legalized immigrants may be slower to naturalize and sponsor co-residing relatives.

²Petitions are removed from consular listings on receipt of immigrant visa or on failure to respond to visa notification within one year.

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

and the prospect of a lengthening delay between the filing of a petition and the applicant's turn for visa issuance being reached. . . .

As is clear from the section below, the major factor contributing to the greatly increased Family 2A visa demand is the filing of petitions for immediate family members by persons legalized under the terms of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, who began to be admitted to permanent residence in large numbers during 1989. . . .

Over the next few years, as the petitioners in 2A cases become eligible to apply for naturalization, some may become citizens and thus pending 2A petitions for their spouses and children would be converted automatically into the immediate relative visa category, which is not subject to numerical limit and for which, therefore, there is no waiting period. There is potential for a possible, indeed probable, major increase in immediate relative visas in coming years, therefore, with a corresponding drop in the Family 2A waiting list. It is not possible at

present to quantify this prospect, however. (U.S. Department of State 1994:A6)

For general and SAW-legalized immigrants under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 [IRCA], there were 853,382 petitions as of January 1994 for admission of spouses and children under second preference, of whom 675,626 were Mexico-born petitioners. Other countries with significant numbers were El Salvador (34,293), Haiti (26,277), Guatemala (15,689), India (13,052), and the Dominican Republic (10,645). Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic were important source countries for generally legalized immigrants. Mexico, Haiti, and India were important source countries for SAW applicants.

During 1992 and 1993, visas were granted respectively to 52,272 and 55,344 dependents of legalization. In 1994, as only 32,776 visas were anticipated for such dependents, only about 140,000 spouses and children of legalized individuals would have been admitted

under this special allocation, despite

demand by nearly one million spouses and children.

Table 12.

VISA PETITIONS POSSIBLY TO BE FILED UNDER FAMILY PREFERENCE AND IMMEDIATE RELATIVES CATEGORIES

UNDER SPONSORSHIP OF GENERALLY LEGALIZED IMMIGRANTS:

MEXICO-BORN

Relevant Demand Level

Possible Petitions in Fiscal Year

Category for Petitioning

Total Family Members

Family Preferences

First

Unmarried adult sons and

daughters of citizens

(and children)

Second

Spouses

children,

unmarried sons and daughters

of permanent resident aliens

Third

Married sons and daughters

of citizens (and spouses

and children)

Fourth

Siblings of citizens

(and their spouses

and children)

Immediate Relatives

Parents

Children

Spouses

Combined

1,629,000

1,466,000

18,000

349,000

105,000

244,000

(A)

64,000

26,000

13,000

1,035,000

545,000

327,000

163,000

---

181,000

(C)

In U.S.

419,000

401,000

(A)

228,000

84,000

144,000

(A)

(---)

(A)

173,000

91,000

55,000

27,000

---

18,000

(C)

Intending

1,210,000

1,065,000

18,000

120,000

21,000

99,000

(A)

64,000

26,000

13,000

862,000

454,000

272,000

136,000

---

163,000

(C)

Total

1994-1998

1,391,000

1,174,000

4,000

---

(B)

(A)

54,000

22,000

11,000

1,115,000

587,000

352,000

176,000

219,000

131,000

72,000

15,000

1994-1995

149,000

118,000

2,000

---

(B)

(A)

10,000

4,000

2,000

106,000

56,000

33,000

17,000

31,000

20,000

10,000

1,000

1995-1996

526,000

442,000

1,000

---

(B)

(A)

23,000

9,000

5,000

418,000

220,000

132,000

66,000

85,000

53,000

27,000

5,000

1996-1997

661,000

573,000

1,000

---

(B)

(A)

19,000

8,000

4,000

554,000

291,000

175,000

87,000

89,000

52,000

30,000

6,000

1997-1998

54,000

40,000

---

(B)

(A)

2,000

1,000

37,000

20,000

12,000

6,000

14,000

7,000

6,000

1,000

Note: These estimates are illustrative. See text for explanation.

(A) Given high demand under second preference, assumption is that all unmarried sons and daughters will be transferred to petition under first preference for which demand is much lower.

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

cide not to migrate, but that source of attrition might be offset by others changing to decide to immigrate or by higher numbers of children.

The Mexico case shows similar patterns with an implied estimate of 1,210,000 immediate family members nonresident and intending to immigrate to the United States, of whom the majority (862,000) are siblings with spouses and children. This high level of demand would mean that waiting times under this category, now nearly twelve years, never would be likely to improve.

These projections are of lesser magnitude for El Salvadorean legalized immigrants, with about 189,000 immediate relatives, mostly siblings with their spouses

and children, implied as intending to

immigrate.

Demographic population projections grounded in measurement of recent patterns of fertility, mortality, and net immigration seldom achieve high accuracy due to the likelihood of measurement error, erroneous assumptions, or even demographic behavioral shifts by time periods. These projections are unlikely to be error-free for levels and timing of family member visa petitions from legalization beneficiaries under general pro

visions. Similar projections have rarely been devised. [See Roney (1988) and Harper (1988) for projections of future immigration prepared for background discussion of an earlier version of the Immigration Act of 1990.] With very little empirical information, Warren (1988) estimated that there would be about 300,000 dependents of legalization beneficiaries, relying on an assumption that prior low rates of naturalization for Mexican immigrants would pertain to this special cohort. Teitelbaum (1989) rightly cautioned against assuming that past patterns of naturalization and petitioning would hold. The recent work of Yang (1994) indicates the pitfalls of merely using demographic characteristics to explain naturalization with its influence for social and economic outcomes. Entry cohorts of the past three decades also may differ from historical cohorts in that they may be lifetime migrants. Although the foreign-born population has nearly doubled in 1970-1990, emigration research has not detected any increases (Woodrow-Lafield 1995c).

Now that the appropriate caveats have been cited, the major findings can be freely noted. With these empirical portraits of immediate relatives networks, intentions to immigrate, and naturalization intentions, naturalization may be

Table 1.

Visa Petitions Filed with The U.S. Department of State
by Preference Category:
January 1992, 1993, and 1994

January 1992 January 1993 January 1994

Total Of Legalization Total Of Legalization Total Of Legalization

Category Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries

Total 2,923,765 268,818 3,393,193 739,774 3,612,121 853,382

Family

Preferences 2,751,152 268,818 3,235,270 739,774 3,462,147 853,382

First 42,646 NE 54,779 NE 63,499 NE

Second 894,620 268,818 1,350,655 739,774 1,498,075 853,382

Spouses &

children 589,997 268,818 958,839 739,774 1,047,496 853,382

Adult sons &

daughters 304,623 NE 391,816 NE 450,579 NE

Third 199,460 NE 218,121 NE 257,110 NE

Fourth 1,614,426 NE 1,611,715 NE 1,643,463 NE

Employment

Preferences 172,613 157,923 149,974

First 535 NE 6,882 NE 8,315 NE

Second 32,452 NE 18,682 NE 11,159 NE

Third 137,809 NE 128,175 NE 125,083 NE

Skilled 50,003 NE 32,813 NE 30,735 NE

Other 87,806 NE 95,362 NE 94,348 NE

Fourth 1,817 NE 4,045 NE 5,241 NE

Fifth 0 NE 139 NE 176 NE

Note: `NE' designates ineligibility

Sources: U.S. Department of State (1993a, 1993b, 1994)

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

This research focuses on demand to immigrate legally by immediate family members of those who, having resided in an unlawful status since before January 1, 1982, legalized under IRCA. The research questions addressed are: What will be the probable numbers and timing of visa petitions under second preference and, subsequent to naturalization, under first, third, and fourth preferences, and of immigrants under exempt immediate relatives categories?

This research begins to address the issue of future family immigration empirically with special survey data, for a specific cohort, for immediate relatives residing abroad, intending to come to the United States, and already living in the United States, whether lawfully resident or in undocumented status.

Ideally, the composition of immediate family networks would be studied with data compiled from individuals' applications for lawful permanent residence, but these items are not transferred for data files. In lieu of such a resource and given the shortcomings of visa petitions data, special surveys alone can yield answers.

DATA AND METHODS

Pursuant to legislative requirements to study the characteristics of aliens legalized after long-term undocumented residence, the Legalized Population Survey [LPS1], under primary sponsorship of the INS, surveyed about 6,000 respondents in 1988 on their background and socioeconomic characteristics (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 1992; Borjas & Tienda 1993).³ The Legalized Population Follow-up Survey [LPS2], primarily sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, recontacted about 4,000 respondents and is a unique

longitudinal data source with detailed questions affording analyses of post-

legalization experiences. Woodrow-Lafield (1995a, 1995b) outlined changes in household composition (including legal residence status and relationship to the IRCA-legalized immigrant) and described the distribution of nonresident consanguineal relatives intending to immigrate to the United States. For this research, IRCA-legalized relatives' intentions to naturalize are used to set parameters on the extent to which that intending population may immigrate.

Table 11.

VISA PETITIONS POSSIBLY TO BE FILED UNDER FAMILY PREFERENCE AND IMMEDIATE RELATIVES CATEGORIES

UNDER SPONSORSHIP OF GENERALLY LEGALIZED IMMIGRANTS

Category for Petitioning

Relevant Demand Level

Possible Petitions in Fiscal Year

Combined

In U.S.

Intending

Total

1994-1998

1994-1995

1995-1996

1996-1997

1997-1998

Total Family Members

Family Preferences

First

Unmarried adult sons and

daughters of citizens

(and children)

Second

Spouses

children,

unmarried sons and daughters

of permanent resident aliens

Third

Married sons and daughters

of citizens (and spouses

and children)

Fourth

Siblings of citizens

(and their spouses

and children)

Immediate Relatives

Parents

Children

Spouses

2,472,000

2,267,000

54,000

551,000

161,000

389,000

(A)

85,000

34,000

17,000

1,577,000

830,000

498,000

249,000

---

259,000

(C)

578,000

551,000

(A)

330,000

125,000

205,000

(A)

(---)

(A)

222,000

117,000

70,000

35,000

---

27,000

(C)

1,894,000

1,716,000

54,000

221,000

36,000

185,000

(A)

85,000

34,000

17,000

1,356,000

714,000

428,000

214,000

---

232,000

(C)

1,965,000

1,207,000

13,000

---

(B)

(A)

73,000

29,000

15,000

1,121,000

590,000

354,000

177,000

417,000

192,000

144,000

81,000

282,000

210,000

8,000

---

(B)

(A)

14,000

6,000

3,000

188,000

99,000

59,000

30,000

72,000

31,000

23,000

18,000

849,000

501,000

2,000

---

(B)

(A)

32,000

13,000

6,000

467,000

246,000

147,000

74,000

175,000

79,000

58,000

38,000

742,000

442,000

1,000

---

(B)

(A)

25,000

10,000

5,000

416,000

219,000

131,000

66,000

151,000

72,000

54,000

24,000

92,000

54,000

1,000

---

(B)

(A)

3,000

1,000

50,000

27,000

16,000

8,000

19,000

9,000

2,000

Note: These estimates are illustrative. See text for explanation.

(A) Given high demand under second preference, assumption is that all unmarried sons and daughters will be transferred to petition under first preference for which demand is much lower.

³The sampling frame did not include all applicants for legalization, such as late filers or those whose right to apply was unclear.

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

moot as a new petition need not be filed because the petition is automatically shifted upon naturalization.

Despite the necessity of these various assumptions, at this point, serious doubts may have arisen about the value of the ensuing illustrations. In discussing visa petitions possibly to be filed under family preference and immediate relatives categories under sponsorship of immigrants legalized under general provisions, general patterns are noteworthy and minor differences may not be. The foundation for these projections may appear to be simplistic relative to

the complex operations of the immigration system, but these have a major

advantage over any others in that there

are empirical estimates for immediate

family members intending to immigrate and there is an empirical gauge for

naturalization.

With an accounting for possible numbers of spouses and children of siblings and married sons and daughters, the overall implied number of nonresident immediate family members would be increased to 1,894,000. Siblings, with their spouses and children, could account for 1,356,000 of these. Most of the petitions ensuing from citizenship attainment are shown to be filed in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 according to assumed timing.

Petitions under exempt immediate relatives categories would increase under this scenario, especially during fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Subject to the accuracy of assumptions about co-

resident spouses' and children's achievement of immigrant visas, there might only be moderate increases for spousal petitions. For children and parents, annually petitions easily could be twice as high as the numbers of immigrant visas granted during fiscal year 1992.

By stipulation, there would be no

further impacts for petitioner backlogs under second preference. These illustrative flows for first preference would not create any major delays, as this category is fairly up-to-date. These types of petition flows would probably mean that there would be increases to backlogs under third and, especially, fourth, preferences.

For fourth preference, this is particularly a concern as the most recent cut-off date among countries of chargeability is March 22, 1985 (U.S. Department of State 1995)! Even if all of the 65,000 visas annually were dedicated only to siblings of these legalization beneficiaries, it would take approximately seventeen years to allocate visas to this many siblings with spouses and children as estimated. During that waiting period, some might de

Individual-level characteristics may be analyzed as with any survey, utilizing the base weights to achieve population-level results. Because some households included more than one legalized applicant, alternative weights were necessary for accurately representing household or relatives network characteristics, e.g., the household population and the populations nonresident in the household. Family- or household-level characteristics, including relationships that are consanguineal (by blood) and affineal (by marriage), may be analyzed by utilizing the family weights, which are the base weights modified for respondents' reporting of the presence of one or more other legalized individuals within the household. Each legalized individual in a household would be eligible to report every other member of the household in the survey but would not necessarily be eligible to report the same individual family members as the respondent. These weights are used here for analyses of household composition with the caveat that all relationships are defined with respect to the primary applicant or respondent for the household.⁴

For analyzing data on nonresident relatives, consanguineal relatives may be specifically analyzed by accounting for the probability of selection into the sample and the chances that any legalized individual is eligible to report the family relative. A series of questions pertained to the legalized respondent's consanguineal relatives (parents, siblings, and children) who were not residing in the household and were outside the United States. Unfortunately, we do not know whether there were any legalized individuals outside the household who would also be eligible to report these non-U.S. resident relatives. For parents and siblings, the family weight is assumed to account for that multiplicity. For children, a weight is used based on whether a legalized spouse is residing with the legalized respondent and, presumably, could report the same children. It also accounts for whether a legalized co-resident grandchild might be able to report those individuals as parents, and a legalized co-resident child could report the legalized respondent's other children as siblings. For siblings, these estimates may be overstated as other

⁴As LPS1 did not acquire legalization applicant status for household members, a computer matching algorithm was used with household listings and administrative records of applicants, producing a set of variables for household legal status characteristics, i.e., numbers of legalized applicants, rejected applicants, citizens or lawful permanent residents, and "other," presumably undocumented status (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 1992).

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

legalized individuals outside the household might be eligible to report the

legalized respondent's siblings, e.g., as children. Legalized grandparents, and, possibly, some of the `other relatives,' also could report the legalized respon-dent's parents. By examining the network of legalized individuals within and outside the household who also are eligible to report immediate relatives of the respondent with the same consanguineal counting rule, the base weight could be

appropriately modified to account for multiplicity of reporting and derive more accurate estimates for the respondent's relatives abroad.⁵

To summarize this discussion of weighting and estimation of various relatives, first, estimates for household members should be very accurate. However, complete information is lacking for the most accurate weighting of nonresident relatives of the reporting respondent. For example, if an individual reported a nonresident parent living abroad, we would need to know how many other consanguineal relatives living in the United States and legalized under IRCA could also have reported that parent,

with other children as the most likely. If an individual reported a nonresident sibling abroad, we would ideally know how many other siblings, parents, or children of that nonresident were here as legalized aliens. As a surrogate, the number of legalized respondents in

the household is used as the multiplicity in developing these estimates of

nonresidents.

Estimating the demand of immediate family members to immigrate legally involves both nonresident immediate family members, reported as intending to come to the United States, and resident ones without permission to reside permanently, each with specificity for respondent's intentions to naturalize. These results are presented in direct relationship to family preference categories and eligibility under exempt

immediate relatives provisions and with specificity for the legalized respondent's country.⁶ The approach is static rather than dynamically incorporating the range of possible demographic changes between the survey and occurrence of immigration.

apply for citizenship, an overall completion rate of .75 is assumed with completion of naturalization equally in 1995 and 1996. Among those who were "uncertain," the assumption is that one-half will decide to so, split equally between 1996 and 1997. Finally, the assumption is made that one-quarter of those saying they would "probably not" apply for citizenship would do so and become naturalized by 1997. These assumptions are obviously tentative and unsupported, but helpful in devising illustrative

projections.

The timing of entry into marriage varies across cultures and marriage timing for sons and daughters living in origin countries and separated from parents already immigrated to the United States might be highly unpredictable. For the purposes here, the assumption is that sons' and daughters' marital statuses at petition will not differ from marital status based on the 1992 response. Also, for children already living in legalized households for whom a petition may be filed, it is not possible to differentiate married from unmarried or even sons and daughters from sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, so all are assumed as unmarried. For purposes of estimation of second preference and immediate relatives' petitions, the assumption is made

that children do not age into adulthood prior to immigration.

For married sons and daughters, the assumptions are that a visa petition also will be filed for one spouse and that 50 percent of these couples will have one child for whom a petition is filed. For siblings, the assumptions are that 60 percent will be married at time of filing petition and that 50 percent of these will have one child. Even if the survey had acquired information on children of unmarried and married sons and daughters, that number might have changed by the prospective date of immigration as couples had more children or children aged to adulthood.

Finally, the assumption is made that visa petitions already have been filed under second preference for spouses and children estimated as residing in legalized households in 1992. As discussed above, figures for co-resident children are too high, including sons-in-law and

daughters-in-law. Although these petitions were competing with those from

dependents of SAW legalization, the

assumption is made here that these individuals already received a visa during 1992-1994 or that their status will be less likely to be affected by naturalization of their immigrant sponsor. The point is

⁵See Woodrow-Lafield (1995c) for more rigorous questions and multiplicity weighting scheme in estimating the emigrant population.

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

2. Unmarried sons' and daughters' transition to married status prior to immigration;

3. Transition from child to adult;

4. Spouses and children per married son or daughter;

5. Proportion married of siblings and average number of children per sibling.

Each of these assumptions will be discussed before compiling a schedule of possible visa petitions by family preference category to be filed during fiscal years 1994 through 1998.

The assumption is made that those indicating they will "definitely" apply for citizenship will complete naturalization and will do so relatively quickly, perhaps within three years. Accordingly, this timing is assumed such that one-quarter will become naturalized in 1994, one-half in 1995, and one-quarter in 1996. Anecdotal accounts suggest that the pace of naturalizations already has accelerated in such places as Miami and southern California where there were large numbers of legalizations (Cleveland 1994; McDonnell & Simon 1994). Of those indicating that they will "probably"

Behavioral intentions data are admittedly subject to response error; respondents may have not considered fully their future behavior or a present decision may be changed in the course of future events. For example, fertility expectations may not accurately depict eventual fertility levels (O'Connell 1991). These levels of intended immigra-

tion and intended naturalization merit serious consideration for five singular reasons.

First, this cohort has demonstrated

major commitment in their most extra-ordinary experience of living here in

undocumented status for an extended period. This may portend truly high rates of naturalization and certainly implies higher rates than past measurements that confounded emigration and naturalization. There has already been extensive information exchange with relatives in the home country about the United States. Second, the survey occurred only one to two years before legalized individuals began to reach their dates of eligibility for applying for citizenship so that there may be high correspondence of intentions and behavior.

Third, many legalized persons fulfilled their English and civics requirements at application for lawful permanent residence in 1988-1989, perhaps corroborating their intention to naturalize and portending expeditious processing of their applications. Fourth, legalized persons were highly concentrated geographically by state and metropolitan area, and, fifth, their familial ties to their origin countries are substantial.

Regarding the role of geographic

concentration, Yang (1994) found that living in sizeable immigrant ethnic communities facilitates naturalization. His analysis also led him to support the hypothesis that unfavorable country-of-origin conditions might provide impetus for citizenship acquisition to help other relatives to immigrate to the United States. The legalized population is strongly representative of such countries as Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala, among others, that are unfavorable relative to the United States, i.e., with less developed economic infrastructures for adequate labor force incorporation of their working age populations.

PROJECTING VISA PETITIONS

To project visa petitions for immediate family members, the essential components are projected numbers of family members (and spouses and children) requiring or desiring to immigrate and aspects of resident relative's eligibility as sponsor, i.e., whether resident alien or naturalized citizen. Known is that a substantial number of legalized immigrants have already filed visa petitions for substantial numbers of spouses and children, many of whom are already living in the United States under "family fairness" protection or with other temporary status. Further, the cohort has exhibited strong levels of desire to naturalize in stated intentions and partial completion of requirements. These are the more certain contributions of the present research. To move beyond this level and project visa petitions to be filed for immediate family members, various assumptions are necessary concerning:

1. The relationship between the legalized immigrant's stated commitment to apply for citizenship and the time lag between naturalization and visa petition;

⁴As country of birth was categorized in the LPS2 survey only as "born in Mexico" or "born in a country other than Mexico," country of citizenship is used for analyzing the experiences of legalized persons from countries other than Mexico.

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

PRESENCE AND FUTURE IMMIGRATION OF SPOUSES AND CHILDREN

The demographic profile of undocumented residents of the United States in 1980 diverged from that of the border-apprehended population as primarily young, male, and Mexican. Rather, the undocumented population included large numbers of women, children, and non-Mexicans (Passel & Woodrow 1984), reflecting family migration and settlement rather than merely circular migration patterns. Analysis of the initial survey of the legalized population by Woodrow-Lafield (1995a, 1995b) described the scope of family migration for the legalized population at amnesty application. These long-term residents not only had 1.8 million relatives living with them, but they also had 4.0 million relatives living elsewhere in the United States. Also remarkable is that there were an estimated 9.6 million relatives living outside the United States (Woodrow-Lafield 1995a, 1995b). Interpreting these num

bers in terms of potential demand to immigrate is difficult, because, as noted earlier, these two questions were broadly stated to include all family members, that is, "spouse or partner, parents, children, brothers, sisters, grandparents, grand-children, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law." That is, these figures pertain to consanguineal and affineal relatives rather than specifically consanguineal relatives. Nevertheless, these statistics discount notions of transience about the population.

In 1992, four to five years after amnesty application, legalized households included more spouses and children and fewer other relatives and nonrelatives than at application (Woodrow-Lafield 1995a, 1995b). The reference group of legalized residents included 1,577,000 based on the survey. Composition by residence status is mixed, but members are predominantly entitled to reside permanently in the United States. Among the 2,519,000 persons living in households of legalized persons in 1992,⁷ a very high number, 1,432,000 were described as citizens of the United States. Another 248,000 are lawful permanent residents. Another 78,000 were described as hav

Table 10.

CHILDREN LIVING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND INTENDING TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES

BY AGE, MARITAL STATUS, RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO NATURALIZE:

EL SALVADOR-BORN, LEGALIZED POPULATION FOLLOW-UP SURVEY, 1992

UNDER 21

21 OR OLDER

GROUP AND RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO NATURALIZE

Living Outside U.S.

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

Intends to Come

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

TOTAL

42,000

20,000

8,000

7,000

2,000

3,000

1,000

29,000

15,000

7,000

4,000

1,000

TOTAL

28,000

13,000

5,000

2,000

1,000

22,000

11,000

5,000

3,000

1,000

MARRIED

1,000

UNMARRIED

27,000

12,000

5,000

2,000

1,000

22,000

11,000

5,000

3,000

1,000

TOTAL

14,000

7,000

3,000

1,000

7,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

MARRIED

6,000

3,000

1,000

2,000

1,000

UNMARRIED

8,000

4,000

2,000

1,000

5,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

⁷These figures are based on family weights that use information on number of legalized persons in the household.

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

ing Special Agricultural Worker status and, consequently, entitled to lawful permanent residence⁸ and eligible for citizenship beginning in 1994. Many (129,000) are described as under "family fairness,"⁹ principally spouses (41,000) and children (66,000). About 95,000 are described as having temporary visas and 385,000 fall within the "other" category. In the earlier survey, there were an estimated 686,000 individuals in this "other" category, presumably including undocumented status.

Although nearly 1.9 million resident family members have, or will have, permanent residence status, many household members may not be so entitled and might have filed visa petitions. Specifically, 136,000 spouses, 223,000 children, 30,000 parents, 130,000 siblings, and 102,000 other relatives (including grandparents and grandchildren) are estimated with status of family fairness, temporary visa, other, or missing.

With questions on nonresident children, parents, and siblings, specific for

consanguineal, and weighting to compensate for multiple reporting of the same persons, a set of estimates is derived for these nonresident relatives. In 1992, the legalized population is linked to approximately 60,000 nonresident spouses, 424,000 nonresident children, 901,000 nonresident parents, and 2,843,000 nonresident siblings, totalling 4,229,000. High proportions of spouses (59.4 percent) and children (64.4 percent) are stated as intending to immigrate to the United States, but the total number is only about 309,000. Legalized respondents indicated that lower proportions of parents (25.7 percent) and siblings (25.1 percent) were intending to come to the United States, but the numbers are larger—232,000 parents and 714,000

siblings. The total number of individuals estimated as intending to immigrate is 1,254,000.

With Mexico so strongly represented

in the legalization population, that

country is likely to be dominant in every country-specific analysis. With these survey data, sampling variability and

Table 9.

CHILDREN LIVING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND INTENDING TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES

BY AGE, MARITAL STATUS, RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO NATURALIZE:

MEXICO-BORN, LEGALIZED POPULATION FOLLOW-UP SURVEY, 1992

UNDER 21

21 OR OLDER

GROUP AND RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO NATURALIZE

Living Outside U.S.

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

Intends to Come

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

TOTAL

247,000

98,000

70,000

46,000

8,000

14,000

11,000

143,000

64,000

41,000

25,000

7,000

2,000

4,000

TOTAL

143,000

50,000

43,000

28,000

5,000

8,000

9,000

99,000

38,000

31,000

19,000

5,000

2,000

4,000

MARRIED

7,000

2,000

4,000

2,000

UNMARRIED

136,000

48,000

41,000

26,000

5,000

8,000

9,000

95,000

36,000

29,000

19,000

5,000

2,000

4,000

TOTAL

104,000

48,000

27,000

18,000

3,000

6,000

3,000

44,000

26,000

10,000

5,000

2,000

MARRIED

69,000

30,000

19,000

12,000

2,000

4,000

3,000

26,000

16,000

6,000

3,000

1,000

UNMARRIED

35,000

18,000

8,000

6,000

1,000

2,000

18,000

10,000

4,000

2,000

1,000

⁸Technically, these individuals misreported SAW status as nondenied SAW applicants were automatically converted to lawful permanent residence as of December 1, 1990.

⁹For a discussion of "family fairness," see Baker (1990) and for international guidelines on "family unity," see, Sohn and Buergenthal (1992).

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

Table 2.

Family Members by Relationship to Respondent, Current Residence,

Status (for Household Members), and Intentions to Come to the United States:

Legalized Population Follow-Up Survey, 1992

Other

Non-

relatives

307,000

54,000

16,000

4,000

16,000

15,000

81,000

52,000

70,000

Other

Relatives

273,000

40,000

8,000

6,000

21,000

9,000

112,000

44,000

31,000

Table 8.

Grand-

children

71,000

3,000

1,000

2,000

57,000

3,000

CHILDREN LIVING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND INTENDING TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES

BY AGE, MARITAL STATUS, AND RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO NATURALIZE:

LEGALIZED POPULATION FOLLOW-UP SURVEY, 1992

Grand-

parents

7,000

1,000

4,000

Other Relatives

UNDER 21

21 OR OLDER

Siblings

315,000

84,000

17,000

8,000

44,000

20,000

40,000

89,000

13,000

2,843,000

714,000

Parents

108,000

38,000

4,000

28,000

7,000

8,000

16,000

4,000

901,000

232,000

GROUP AND RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO NATURALIZE

Living Outside U.S.

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

Intends to Come

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

TOTAL

424,000

207,000

102,000

66,000

11,000

19,000

16,000

2,000

273,000

147,000

65,000

37,000

10,000

4,000

8,000

2,000

TOTAL

247,000

114,000

64,000

39,000

8,000

11,000

1,000

185,000

92,000

49,000

28,000

7,000

3,000

6,000

1,000

MARRIED

9,000

4,000

2,000

1.000

5,000

3,000

2,000

UNMARRIED

238,000

110,000

61,000

37,000

7,000

11,000

1,000

180,000

89,000

47,000

28,000

7,000

3,000

6,000

1,000

TOTAL

177,000

93,000

39,000

26,000

4,000

8,000

5,000

1,000

88,000

55,000

17,000

9,000

3,000

1,000

2,000

1,000

MARRIED

92,000

44,000

24,000

15,000

2,000

4,000

34,000

22,000

7,000

4,000

1,000

UNMARRIED

85,000

49,000

15,000

11,000

2,000

4,000

2,000

1,000

54,000

33,000

10,000

6,000

2,000

1,000

Total

772,000

166,000

30,000

19,000

97,000

38,000

217,000

152,000

54,000

3,745,000

945,000

Immediate Family

Children

1,546,000

198,000

9,000

66,000

46,000

25,000

1,070,000

114,000

18,000

424,000

273,000

Spouses/

Partners

565,000

253,000

23,000

41,000

89,000

17,000

63,000

67,000

10,000

17,000

60,000

36,000

Respondent

905,000

(X)

All Household

Members

4,096,000

1,577,000

78,000

129,000

248,000

95,000

1,432,000

385,000

153,000

4,229,000

1,254,000

Total

3,016,000

1,357,000

32,000

107,000

135,000

42,000

1,133,000

181,000

29,000

484,000

309,000

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

small numbers preclude a complete

country-by-country examination of patterns. In Table 3, showing estimates for

Mexican-born and other origin legalized respondents, the numbers of consan-guineal family members living outside the United States and intending to come dwarf those figures for relatives of legalized persons from other countries.

Six countries (Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Philippines, and Poland) account for 81.5 percent of spouses, children, parents, and siblings living abroad and 74.6 percent of those whom respondents state as intending to come to the United States. Relatives of Mexicans living outside the United States number 2,813,000, and 781,000 (about 28 percent) intend to come here to live. Siblings represent the majority of each of these categories, with an astounding estimate of 1,916,000 nonresident siblings and 454,000 siblings intending to immigrate. El Salvadorean legalized persons have about 335,000 spouses and consan-guineal family members abroad, of whom 126,000 would like to immigrate. Guatemalan legalized persons have about 139,000 family members abroad, of whom 45,000 are expected to immigrate to the United States.

Lesser levels of demand for family immigration are evident for legalized persons of Colombian, Polish, and Filipino citizenship, as commensurate with their lesser representation in the amnestied population. Altogether, remaining countries of citizenship account for

784,000 nonresident family members with 343,000 stated as intending to immigrate.

This perspective on numbers intending to immigrate relative to the numbers of nonresident immediate family members brings realism to temper any debate about explosive chain migration for legalized immigrants. By any measure, the numbers of family members expected or desired by their legalized relative to immigrate to the United States have demographic and policy significance. Nevertheless, the magnitude of this intended immigration is much less than the magnitude if all immediate family members living abroad desired to join their relatives in the United States. With the "illusory" character of sibling immigration (Arnold, et al. 1989), the absolute numbers of immediate family members that may immigrate to the United States within the next few years would be significantly lower.

Table 7.

FAMILY MEMBERS LIVING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND INTENDING TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES

BY RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO NATURALIZE:

EL SALVADOR-ORIGIN, LEGALIZED POPULATION FOLLOW-UP SURVEY, 1992

IMMEDIATE FAMILY

OTHER RELATIVES

GROUP AND RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO NATURALIZE

Living Outside U.S.

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

Intends to Come

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

TOTAL

335,000

162,000

95,000

53,000

9,000

7,000

125,000

67,000

37,000

13,000

3,000

1,000

3,000

TOTAL

46,000

22,000

9,000

8,000

2,000

4,000

1,000

31,000

16,000

7,000

5,000

1,000

SPOUSES/

PARTNERS

4,000

2,000

1,000

2,000

1,000

CHILDREN

42,000

20,000

8,000

7,000

2,000

3,000

1,000

29,000

15,000

7,000

4,000

1,000

TOTAL

290,000

140,000

87,000

44,000

7,000

6,000

95,000

51,000

30,000

9,000

2,000

PARENTS

76,000

37,000

22,000

12,000

2,000

1,000

21,000

13,000

6,000

2,000

1,000

SIBLINGS

214,000

103,000

65,000

32,000

5,000

4,000

5,000

73,000

38,000

24,000

7,000

1,000

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

Table 3.

CONSANGUINEAL FAMILY MEMBERS BY RELATIONSHIP TO RESPONDENT

AND INTENTIONS TO COME TO THE UNTIED STATES:

SELECTED COUNTRIES OF CITIZENSHIP, LEGALIZED POPULATION FOLLOW-UP SURVEY, 1992

Table 6.

FAMILY MEMBERS LIVING OUTSIDE THE uNITED sTATES AND iNTENDING TO cOME TO THE uNITED sTATES

BY rESPONDENT'S iNTENTION TO nATURALIZE:

mEXICO-bORN, lEGALIZED pOPULATION fOLLOW-uP sURVEY, 1992

Family

Immediate Family

Other Relatives

IMMEDIATE FAMILY

OTHER RELATIVES

Spouses/

Partners

60,000

36,000

48,000

27,000

37,000

21,000

3,000

1,000

2,000

1,000

2,000

13,000

9,000

Children

424,000

273,000

329,000

200,000

247,000

143,000

42,000

29,000

16,000

13,000

7,000

4,000

9,000

8,000

4,000

95,000

72,000

Total

3,745,000

1,041,000

3,068,000

779,000

2,528,000

617,000

290,000

95,000

121,000

31,000

70,000

18,000

43,000

17,000

2,000

677,000

262,000

Parents

901,000

232,000

745,000

200,000

612,000

163,000

76,000

21,000

30,000

9,000

14,000

4,000

8,000

3,000

5,000

157,000

32,000

Siblings

2,843,000

809,000

2,323,000

579,000

1,916,000

454,000

214,000

74,000

90,000

22,000

56,000

14,000

35,000

13,000

12,000

2,000

520,000

230,000

Country and Category

All Countries (N=1,294,562; H=905,386)

Living Outside U.S.

Intends to Come

Selected Countries (N=1,097,932; H=744,861)

Living Outside U.S.

Intends to Come

Mexico (N=893,449; H=596,131)

Living Outside U.S.

Intends to Come

El Salvador (N=113,386; H=78,268)

Living Outside U.S.

Intends to Come

Guatemala (N=44,077; H=30,695)

Living Outside U.S.

Intends to Come

Colombia (N=19,851; H=16,741)

Living Outside U.S.

Intends to Come

Philippines (N=14,627; H=12,217)

Living Outside U.S.

Intends to Come

Poland (N=12,542; H=10,809)

Living Outside U.S.

Intends to Come

Unspecified Countries (N=196,630; H=160,525)

Living Outside U.S.

Intends to Come

Members

4,229,000

1,350,000

3,445,000

1,007,000

2,813,000

781,000

335,000

126,000

139,000

45,000

78,000

22,000

53,000

25,000

27,000

8,000

784,000

343,000

Total

484,000

309,000

377,000

228,000

285,000

164,000

45,000

31,000

19,000

14,000

8,000

5,000

10,000

8,000

10,000

6,000

107,000

81,000

GROUP AND RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO NATURALIZE

Living Outside U.S.

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

Intends to Come

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

TOTAL

2,813,000

1,115,000

893,000

582,000

65,000

53,000

105,000

1,000

782,000

373,000

235,000

127,000

15,000

9,000

23,000

TOTAL

285,000

110,000

82,000

55,000

9,000

15,000

14,000

165,000

72,000

47,000

30,000

8,000

3,000

6,000

SPOUSES/

PARTNERS

37,000

12,000

9,000

1,000

3,000

22,000

8,000

6,000

5,000

1,000

2,000

CHILDREN

247,000

98,000

70,000

46,000

8,000

14,000

11,000

143,000

64,000

41,000

25,000

7,000

2,000

4,000

TOTAL

2,528,000

1,005,000

811,000

526,000

56,000

37,000

91,000

1,000

617,000

302,000

188,000

98,000

8,000

6,000

16,000

PARENTS

612,000

245,000

198,000

125,000

13,000

8,000

23,000

163,000

79,000

52,000

26,000

1,000

5,000

SIBLINGS

1.916,000

760,000

613,000

402,000

43,000

29,000

68,000

1,000

454,000

223,000

136,000

72,000

7,000

5,000

12,000

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

Table 5.

FAMILY MEMBERS LIVING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND INTENDING TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES

BY RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO NATURALIZE:

LEGALIZED POPULATION FOLLOW-UP SURVEY, 1992

INTENTION TO NATURALIZE AND FUTURE IMMIGRATION

Already into their second decade of U.S. residence, these persons appear as a solidly settled population with many having married and begun childrearing in their first five years of legal residence. Transition to naturalized citizenship is the next legal option in the route to full American status. Eligibility for greater sponsorship of family members for immigrant visas is generally considered to be a major benefit of acquisition of citizenship. Citizens are able to sponsor unmarried sons and daughters (first preference), married sons and daughters with spouses and children (third preference), siblings with spouses and children (fourth preference), as well as parents, spouses, and children under twenty-one years (immediate relatives provisions).

Very few legalized individuals indicated that they would "probably not" (28,000) or "definitely not" (22,000) apply for U.S. citizenship. The overwhelming majority indicated that they would apply for citizenship, with most responding "yes, definitely" (621,000) or "yes, probably" (355,000). A substantial number (225,000)

indicated some uncertainty about whether they would apply for citizenship. If these intentions or expectations become fulfilled, they presage a remarkable shift toward naturalization.

Presumably, those indicating they "definitely" will apply for citizenship will do so early upon eligibility and may be among those having partially fulfilled naturalization requirements. The extent of revision of intentions to apply for citizenship among those stating "probably," "uncertain," "definitely not," or "don't know" may depend on success levels of early applicants for naturalization, primarily the "definitely" category. The roles of individuals as "social actors" in negotiating INS procedures have been highlighted by Hagan and Baker's (1993) evaluation of the legalization program at eight sites nationally. During the legalization application period for both amnesty programs, response levels were moderate initially. As the legalization program proceeded without negative consequences for applicants and as knowledge about the application process, the immediate benefit of work authorization, and advocacy groups' role diffused through social networks in

communities, applications increased

dramatically (Hagan & Baker 1993). April and May of 1988 were the peak

IMMEDIATE FAMILY

OTHER RELATIVES

GROUP AND RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO NATURALIZE

Living Outside U.S.

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

Intends to Come

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

TOTAL

4,229,000

1,965,000

1,189,000

757,000

97,000

76,000

1,000

138,000

6,000

1,254,000

685,000

333,000

172,000

24,000

11,000

28,000

2,000

TOTAL

484,000

233,000

119,000

78,000

13,000

20,000

2,000

309,000

164,000

74,000

44,000

11,000

5,000

9,000

2,000

SPOUSES/

PARTNERS

60,000

25,000

17,000

12,000

1,000

2,000

4,000

36,000

17,000

9,000

7,000

1,000

2,000

CHILDREN

424,000

207,000

102,000

66,000

11,000

19,000

16,000

2,000

273,000

147,000

65,000

37,000

10,000

4,000

8,000

2,000

TOTAL

3,745,000

1,733,000

1,071,000

679,000

85,000

56,000

1,000

118,000

4,000

945,000

521,000

259,000

128,000

13,000

6,000

19,000

PARENTS

901,000

416,000

261,000

164,000

20,000

13,000

28,000

1,000

232,000

126,000

66,000

33,000

2,000

1,000

5,000

SIBLINGS

2,843,000

1,317,000

809,000

516,000

65,000

43,000

90,000

3,000

714,000

395,000

193,000

95,000

11,000

6,000

14,000

Results for children of Mexico-born and El Salvadorean-citizen legalization respondents have similar patterns to those overall results. Not all of those children living outside the United States are stated as intending to come to live here. This is the case even for the largest single category, unmarried younger children, that might be expected to be most dependent.

side the United States are unmarried and younger than twenty-one years despite the legalized respondent's U.S. residence for at least ten years—238,000 (56.1 percent). Of the 177,000 adult children

living abroad, a slightly higher number were married (92,000) than unmarried (85,000). A large proportion (65.9 percent) of children intending to come here to live are unmarried and under age twenty-one.

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

involve "work with private groups to publicize the advantages of citizenship and to expedite the handling of applications. . . . without lowering standards for citizenship . . . she intends to simplify naturalization procedures . . ." (Pear 1993).

Assuming that intentions to naturalize will be realized and that intentions for relatives to immigrate to the United States will reflect visa petitions, an assessment of future immigration of family members of the legalized population is possible. Shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7 are crosstabulations of nonresident and immigration-intending relatives by intention to naturalize for all legalized respondents, Mexican legalized respondents, and El Salvadorean legalized respondents. There are approximately 1,965,000 nonresident spouses, children, parents, and siblings for legalized persons "definitely" intending to naturalize and another 1,189,000 nonresident relatives for those "probably" intending to naturalize. Of these figures, 685,000 are relatives of "definitely" naturalizing persons intending to come to the United States. Another 333,000 relatives of "probably" naturalizing persons are reportedly intending to come.

Of family members of Mexico-born

legalized persons living outside the United States in 1992, more than one million (1,115,000) were related to a respondent "definitely" intending to naturalize and another 893,000 were related to someone "probably" intending to naturalize. Slightly more than one-half million (582,000) were related to a respondent uncertain about applying for citizenship. Of those family members of Mexican legalized persons reportedly intending to immigrate, more than one-half million were related to someone either "definitely" (373,000) or "probably" (235,000) applying for citizenship.

Among legalized individuals of El Salvadorean citizenship, the estimated numbers of nonresident relatives of those "definitely" and "probably" applying for U.S. citizenship were 162,000 and 95,000, respectively, and the implied numbers intending to come to the United States were 67,000 and 37,000.

Estimated numbers of children living outside the United States and intending to come to the United States by respondent parent's intentions to naturalize are shown in Table 7 with detail on marital status and age group (under twenty-one years or twenty-one years or older). The largest number of children living out

Table 4.

INTENTIONS TO NATURALIZE:

LEGALIZED POPULATION FOLLOW-UP SURVEY, 1992

INTENTION

TOTAL

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

Uncertain, Not Sure

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Refused

Don't Know

Not Ascertained

NUMBER

1, 295,000

621,000

355,000

225,000

28,000

22,000

1,000

40,000

2,000

PERCENT

100.0

48.0

27.4

17.4

2.2

1.7

0.1

3.1

0.2

months of applications under general legislation and SAW legislation. After the close of the general legislation application period, SAW applications flowed in during June-November 1988 at gradually increasing levels until dramatically increasing in the final month (Baker 1990).

At the close of 1993, a year with a resurgence of anti-immigration debate (Perotti

1994), the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service inaugurated a new policy of actively encouraging legal immigrants to become United States citizens. In the past, the naturalization process has been complex, unfriendly, and lengthy (North 1987; Alvarez 1987), perhaps deterring any immigrants already feeling ambivalent about severing the home country tie. INS Commissioner Doris Meissner's new policy is to

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

Potential Sponsorship by IRCA-Legalized Immigrants

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -1- INTRODUCTION -3- DATA AND METHODS -18 PRESENCE AND FUTURE IMMIGRATION OF SPOUSES AND CHILDREN -12- INTENTION TO NATURALIZE AND FUTURE IMMIGRATION -17- PROJECTING VISA PETITIONS -21- SUMMARY -34- REFERENCES -37-

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

REFERENCES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

INTRODUCTION

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

SUMMARY

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

Visa Petitions Filed with The U.S. Department of State by Preference Category: January 1992, 1993, and 1994

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

DATA AND METHODS

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

PROJECTING VISA PETITIONS

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

PRESENCE AND FUTURE IMMIGRATION OF SPOUSES AND CHILDREN

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

U.S. C O M M I S S I O N O N I M M I G R A T I O N R E F O R M

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH PAPER - -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -1-

INTRODUCTION -3-

DATA AND METHODS -18

PRESENCE AND FUTURE IMMIGRATION
OF SPOUSES AND CHILDREN -12-

INTENTION TO NATURALIZE
AND FUTURE IMMIGRATION -17-

PROJECTING VISA PETITIONS -21-

SUMMARY -34-

REFERENCES -37-

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

Visa Petitions Filed with The U.S. Department of State
by Preference Category:
January 1992, 1993, and 1994

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -

RESEARCH
PAPER
- -