Equal Access to Green Cards for Legal Employment Act of 2022
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1508, I call up (H.R. 3648) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, to increase the per-country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. 3648.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering H.R. 3648, the EAGLE Act, a bipartisan bill that raises the per-country caps on family-sponsored immigrant visas and phases out the per-country caps on employment-based immigrant visas. The bill also includes significant improvements to the H-1B visa program that add protections for U.S. workers.
Our immigration system has not been significantly updated since 1990, and it really just follows the basic outlines for the bill that was enacted in 1965. The failure to evolve the immigration system has significantly damaged America's ability to compete in an increasingly global economy. The system is supposed to encourage immigration based on an individual's family ties to the United States or their ability to contribute to our economy. It often falls short.
For example, there are backlogs for families seeking reunification. That could be legal residents of the United States trying to get their spouse a legal residence visa. There are backlogs in some countries but none for Western Europe. In addition, in the employment-based context, before a foreign national can apply for a green card--here is the process--their employer has to advertise and demonstrate that there are no U.S. workers who are here who can do the job that they are being offered. This is to make sure that green card applicants are providing services and skills that are not readily available in America.
But after this initial test, which is merit-based, the per-country caps kick in. For example, under current conditions, an individual from Western Europe, a Western European country, applying for a green card in the employment-based second preference category based on a bachelor's degree would be able to gain their permanent residency in about a year. In contrast, an Indian national with a Ph.D. and potentially superior skills might have to wait approximately 200 years. That doesn't help America.
I would note also that the individuals who would ultimately benefit from the elimination of what amounts to a racist system of allocating visas, 95 percent of those individuals are already in the United States legally working on a temporary visa, but in limbo. As that limbo continues, their children who have been raised in the United States age out, and when they hit 21, they have to go back to the country their parents are from, but their parents remain legally in the United States.
We are losing individuals who we need in America, including physicians--25 percent of the MDs in the United States are foreign- born; many of them are from India. I have personally met physicians whose children have aged-out who decided they have to move to Canada where they can get a green card equivalent in under 6 months.
Now, the disparity, as I mentioned, in the family-sponsored context, there are some family-sponsored immigrants from Mexico whose wait time is over 200 years before they are eligible to receive a green card.
That doesn't make any sense at all, and in fact, it is a fraud on those applicants.
We have been trying to change this system for over a decade. The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, an earlier version of this legislation, first passed the House in 2011 and again last Congress. Iterations of this bill have been led by both Democrats and Republicans, received over 350 ``yes'' votes in the House, and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate.
The EAGLE Act is based on a bill that passed the Senate last Congress, with additional restrictions to protect American workers and a longer transition period to ensure that no country's nationals are excluded from receiving visas while the per-country caps are phased out.
Why is this important? People base their expectations on the situation as it exists. The Congressional Research Service has analyzed this bill and stated that no one currently in line is negatively impacted by this legislation.
I thank Representative John Curtis from Utah for working with me to introduce the EAGLE Act. I appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have previously supported this legislation, and I urge that we, once again, vote in favor of this bill.
A system that is based on where you are born instead of what you can do is not what serves America well. A system that is designed to advantage someone born in Western Europe over the entire rest of the world doesn't really recognize merit, which is what this bill is all about. We should have a system based on competitiveness, not the country where you were born.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize my colleague from the Judiciary Committee, I would just like to note that the issue about the EB-4, which is the children, is not correct.
Under current law, if you are a minor and have been abandoned by your parent, you can go to State court, and the State court will make a finding that you have been abandoned by your parent. Then, you can become eligible for legal permanent residence in the EB-4 category.
By the way, you are not, under law, able to then petition for a parent once the parent abandons you. They are out of the picture. That is backlogged right now from Central America. This bill will have the effect of easing those backlogs for orphans from Central America.
Jayapal), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Chu).
Mr. Speaker, I do want to address the issue of membership in the Communist Party. It has long been part of the Immigration and Nationality Act that if you were a member, you are not admissible. I will read the section. ``Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.''
Now, there are some exceptions, for example, if your membership was not willing. We do know that in some cases, and not just in China, Russia signed up, essentially, Boy Scouts as members of the Communist Party against their will, and they were 12 years old. So the consular officer can find exceptions based on that, and that is sensible.
Now, the one point that the gentleman did make in committee had to do with applying this Communist Party inadmissibility provision explicitly to H-1B applicants, and we did take him up on that suggestion. In fact, that is a reasonable thing to do. The gentleman made that point because H-1B visa applicants have dual intent. So the application is eminently reasonable when it comes to those dual-intent immigrants.
Although we did not draft the amendment at the markup, we did contact the gentleman's legislative director and went back and forth with the lawyers on the staff, so there was full knowledge of this provision, and I thank the gentleman for raising the issue.
There have been complaints that we haven't had hearings. We have had a lot of hearings on this issue. In fact, I can recall so well, physicians--a quarter of the physicians in the United States are foreign born. Most of those medical doctors were born in India, and they are providing medical services to underserved communities throughout the United States. I have met many of them. We have had testimony from them at our hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary.
To tell the people who are getting their medical care from these physicians that it doesn't matter, these physicians have to go to Canada and leave them without a doctor in their small town, that is not reasonable. Failure to act will result in that type of situation. In fact, it is already resulting in that type of situation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a note on the issue of nursing, which is very important. As you know, we have had a very tough time with nurses in America. They have been through COVID; the trauma has been enormous, and we have a need for more nurses while nurses are leaving the profession for understandable reasons.
Part of the answer is nurses who want to come to the United States and practice nursing. That is not the whole answer, but it is part of the answer, and so at the request and suggestion of Senators who we have been talking about, there is a carve-out of 4,400 visas for nurses and physical therapists during the transition period. We think once the transition is over, we will be adequately accommodated, but during the transition, that is included.
I would note that the Society of Hospital Medicine does support this bill.
We had three hearings in the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee on this topic, and I think we had an understanding on the subcommittee kind of on what all the issues were.
This is our best effort at dealing with those issues. It has received broad support in the past, bipartisan support in the past, and I hope it would do so again.
Mr. Speaker, just a couple of notes. First, this bill does not add any additional visas to the visa system. There were efforts to do that, plans to recapture visas. That was never agreed to by the Senate, and so this is an allocation of existing visas. It doesn't add a single visa.
As I said before, 95 percent of the individuals who would be impacted are already here legally in the United States. They are legally working in the United States. So it is no new people coming in, either. It is people who are already here, no additional visas.
We asked the Congressional Research Service to do an analysis because people wanted to know--and they were right to want to know--is there any adverse impact on Africa or the Caribbean, and CRS told us there was no impact on Africa or the Caribbean.
Referring to the EB-5 category, I think those who are concerned don't realize that we actually changed the EB-5 Act through the Integrity Act earlier this year, and due to those changes, 32 percent of the green cards available every year for investments go to a new category. It is completely current. There is no backlog.
I just want to talk a little bit about what we are doing here. My colleague from California said we are talking about picking winners and losers.
In 1965, the Congress did pick winners and losers when they designed this structure. The winners were Western Europe, and the losers were everyone else. Now, that system, although not, I am sure, intended to be called racist, did advantage people from Western Europe to the disadvantage of the rest of the world, and we are still working on that system today.
I think it is time to change that system. It is time to move to merit, not to race, not to the country you were born in. I am not accusing any critics of this bill, I am not talking about their motivation, but the fact is, if we don't change this system, we are supporting something that we did in 1965 that really has an effect of having race play a role in who gets a visa instead of merit on the employment side. I don't think that serves our country well.
Put aside for a minute our ideals just to discuss the economic impact. We do well economically when the very most able people who want to come here and be Americans, to start companies, to invent things are able to do so. The current system throws a wrench into that, and it is not good for the United States of America.
I hope, once again, that we can vote to approve this bill. It doesn't do everything I would like to do in reforming immigration law. As the gentleman knows, I have worked for many decades to do a variety of improvements, but this fixes something.
Let's not say we can't do anything unless we do everything. That is a path toward mediocrity.
Let's do what we can do to make this system work better, to move it away from its racist origins and have a system based on merit.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source