Webinar on Reducing Barriers to Citizenship: New Research and the Need for a Partial Fee Waiver. January 8, pm ET / 1pm PT

Similar documents
Profiling the Eligible to Naturalize

Paths to Citizenship: Data on the eligible-to-naturalize populations in the U.S.

Overview of Boston s Population. Boston Redevelopment Authority Research Division Alvaro Lima, Director of Research September

Illegal Immigration: How Should We Deal With It?

Annual Flow Report. of persons who became LPRs in the United States during 2007.

Independent and Third-Party Municipal Candidates. City Council Election Reform Task Force April 8, :00 p.m.

The New Metropolitan Geography of U.S. Immigration

The New Geography of Immigration and Local Policy Responses

A Demographic Profile of Mexican Immigrants in the United States

The New Geography of Immigration and Local Policy Responses

Where U.S. Immigrants Were Born 1960

NATURALIZATION POLICY & PROGRAM MENU

DACA at Four: Estimating the Potentially Eligible Population and Assessing Application and Renewal Trends

Immigrant Incorporation and Local Responses

Fiscal Policy Institute. Working for a Better Life. A Profile of Immigrants in the New York State Economy

Paths to Citizenship Using Data to Understand and Promote Naturalization

Prophetic City: Houston on the Cusp of a Changing America.

Using Data to Improve Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act (WIOA) Services for Immigrants and Refugees

Creating Inclusive Communities

UNAUTHORIZED & UNINSURED: Medical Insurance Coverage in the California Endowment s (TCE s) Building Healthy Communities (BHC) Sites

The Inland Empire in Hans Johnson Joseph Hayes

BENCHMARKING REPORT - VANCOUVER

Advocating for the Rights of Migrating Children. Copyright U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants 2012, All Rights Reserved Trademark pending

Immigrants and the Hudson Valley Economy

The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program Alan Berube, Fellow

Selected National Demographic Trends

U.S. Immigration Policy

A Profile of U.S. Children with Unauthorized Immigrant Parents

Annual Flow Report. U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents: Office of Immigration Statistics POLICY DIRECTORATE

Annual Flow Report. of persons who became LPRs in the United States during 2008.

FIVE KEY TRENDS STRUCTURING L.A. S FUTURE AND WHY 2GEN MAKES SENSE

African immigrants in the Washington region: a demographic overview

Online Appendix for The Contribution of National Income Inequality to Regional Economic Divergence

THE STATE OF THE UNIONS IN 2009: A PROFILE OF UNION MEMBERSHIP IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AND THE NATION 1

Paths to Citizenship Using Data to Understand and Promote Naturalization

Older Immigrants in the United States By Aaron Terrazas Migration Policy Institute

DAPA in the Balance: Supreme Court Arguments and Potential Impacts on U.S. Families and Communities

The County-Level View of Unauthorized Immigrants and Implications for Executive Action Implementation

Unaccompanied Immigrant Children

Business Immigration Weekly

New Patterns in US Immigration, 2011:

Division of Unaccompanied Children s Services

The I.E. in the I.E. November Christopher Thornberg, PhD Director, Center for Economic Forecasting and Development

The Brookings Institution

Annual Flow Report. U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: Office of Immigration Statistics POLICY DIRECTORATE

Chapter 1: The Demographics of McLennan County

Twenty-first Century Gateways: Immigrant Incorporation in Suburban America

Econ 196 Lecture. The Economics of Immigration. David Card

Washington Area Economy: Performance and Outlook

Children of Immigrants

New Americans in Lancaster

Epicenter Cities and International Education 17th AIEC Melbourne, Victoria Australia

THE DEMOGRAPHY OF MEXICO/U.S. MIGRATION

Geographic Mobility of New Jersey Residents. Migration affects the number and characteristics of our resident population

National Travel and Tourism Office

The New U.S. Demographics

Recent Trends in Immigration Enforcement

International Visitation to the United States: A Statistical Summary of U.S. Visitation (2011)

By 1970 immigrants from the Americas, Africa, and Asia far outnumbered those from Europe. CANADIAN UNITED STATES CUBAN MEXICAN

The National Partnership for New Americans: Principles of Immigrant Integration

Carl Snyder Memorial Lecture. Immigration: Trends, Impacts, Policies. David Card, UC Berkeley

California s Congressional District 37 Demographic Sketch

Health Coverage and Care for Undocumented Immigrants

LAURA E. HILL. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA

Latest Immigration Data

Oregon and STEM+ Migration and Educational Attainment by Degree Type among Young Oregonians. Oregon Office of Economic Analysis

Administrative Action on Immigration Reform. The Fiscal Benefits of Temporary Work Permits. By Patrick Oakford September 2014

Annual Report. Immigration Enforcement Actions: Office of Immigration Statistics POLICY DIRECTORATE

THE STATE OF THE UNIONS IN 2011: A PROFILE OF UNION MEMBERSHIP IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AND THE NATION 1

County-by- County Data

Immigration and Language

KENAN INSTITUTE WHITE PAPER

The Immigration Population in the Washington, D.C. Region and the Service Needs of Central American Child and Family Migrants By Randy Capps

NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES HOMEOWNERSHIP IN THE IMMIGRANT POPULATION. George J. Borjas. Working Paper

A Way with Words Broadcast and Podcast Media Kit

IMMIGRATION FACTS. How Changes to Family Immigration Could Affect Source Countries Sending Patterns. Migration Policy Institute

A Review of the Declining Numbers of Visa Overstays in the U.S. from 2000 to 2009 Robert Warren and John Robert Warren 1

Georgia s Immigrants: Past, Present, and Future

Immigrants and Health Care Reform: What s Really at Stake?

Patrick Adler and Chris Tilly Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, UCLA. Ben Zipperer University of Massachusetts, Amherst

GAO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT. ICE Could Improve Controls to Help Guide Alien Removal Decision Making. Report to Congressional Requesters

38% 38% NEW AMERICANS IN SAN JOSE AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH A SNAPSHOT OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF IMMIGRANTS

The Foreign-Born Population of Southeastern Pennsylvania. By Randy Capps

Q 23,992. New Americans in Champaign County 11.6% 11.8%

IMMIGRATION LAW OVERVIEW DETAILED OUTLINE

FAMILY IMMIGRATION POLICY AND TRENDS: HOW THE U.S. COMPARES TO OTHER COUNTRIES

Nonimmigrant Admissions to the United States: Annual Flow Report

Immigration: Diversity Visa Lottery

Gone to Texas: Migration Vital to Growth in the Lone Star State. Pia Orrenius Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas June 27, 2018

Megapolitan America. Luck Stone Corporation

6/17/11 BUILDING RESILIENT REGIONS THE CHALLENGE OF IMMIGRATION THE CHALLENGE OF IMMIGRATION THE IMMIGRATION CHALLENGE.

Venture-Ready Entrepreneur Workshop: Keeping Foreign Entrepreneurs (and Their Startups) in the United States. Overview

Checklist for Conducting Local Union Officer Elections

Left out under Federal Health Reform: Undocumented immigrant adults excluded from ACA Medicaid expansions

U.S. Passport Services

Every year, about one million new legal immigrants, or lawful permanent residents, are admitted to the

Left out under Federal Health Reform: Undocumented immigrant adults excluded from ACA Medicaid expansions

The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program Robert Puentes, Fellow

The Popula(on of New York City Recent PaFerns and Trends

Family-sponsored Preferences

Transcription:

Webinar on Reducing Barriers to Citizenship: New Research and the Need for a Partial Fee Waiver January 8, 2015 4pm ET / 1pm PT

During the Webinar For technical issues with webinar system Call 1-800-843-9166 For webinar link or sound questions, contact Emma Stern at estern@ilrc.org For all other questions contact Jacki Esposito at jacki@inspiregroupllc.com To hear the speakers Call 1-800-920-7487; Conference code 26224472#

Questions During the Webinar Chat Box: You can enter your questions in the chat box, and instructors will answer them, if time permits.

WHERE ARE THE ELIGIBLE TO NATURALIZE

WHY IT S IMPORTANT

NURTURING NATURALIZATION: PROFILING THE ELIGIBLE TO NATURALIZE 1.8.15 MANUEL PASTOR, PATRICK OAKFORD AND JARED SANCHEZ

PROFILING THE ELIGIBLE TO NATURALIZE WHY? High naturalization fee suggests impediment LPRs with less education (and likely less income) particularly impacted Need detailed profile on eligible LPRs to determine fee effects Fostering citizenship is a public good

BUT FIRST, WHAT DO WE ALREADY KNOW? Eligible LPRs are price sensitive to naturalization costs Data suggests that fee increases, particularly the very significant increase in 2007,may have had a negative impact on the rate of naturalization. Price increases are associated with a dramatic decline in the naturalization of less-educated (and likely lower-income) immigrants

WHY DIDN T WE KNOW THAT ALREADY? Two Congressional Research Services looking (preemptively) at whether fee shifts changed the demand for overall immigration services and workload. Didn t much but it actually shift the composition of what type of services were demanded. Form FY 1994 FY 1999 % Diff FY 2002 FY 2004 % Diff FY 2006 FY 2007 % Diff FY 2007 FY 2011 % Diff I-90 $75 $110 47% $130 $185 42% $190 $290 53% $290 $365 26% I-129 $75 $110 47% $130 $185 42% $190 $320 68% $320 $325 2% I-130 $80 $110 38% $130 $185 42% $190 $355 87% $355 $420 18% I-485 $130 $220 69% $255 $315 24% $325 $930 186% $930 $985 6% I-765 $70 $100 43% $120 $175 46% $180 $340 89% $340 $380 12% N-400 $95 $225 137% $260 $320 23% $330 $595 80% $595 $595 0% Source: For FY 1994 to FY 2011, Congressional Research Service U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Immigration Fees and Adjudication Costs: Proposed Adjustments, and Historical Context; for FY 2011, http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5be73dc5cb93b210vgnvcm100000082ca60arcrd&vgnextchannel=5b33aca797e63110v

PRICE SENSITIVTY JUMPS IN PRICE DIFFERENTIAL

WHY DIDN T WE KNOW THAT ALREADY? Fiscal Year N-400 Applications Percent Change All Other Applications Percent Change 1998 932,957 3,598,745 1999 765,346-18.0% 3,769,592 4.7% 2000 460,916-39.8% 5,022,876 33.2% 2001 501,646 8.8% 6,831,692 36.0% 2002 700,649 39.7% 5,623,847-17.7% 2003 523,370-25.3% 5,896,248 4.8% 2004 662,794 26.6% 4,591,050-22.1% 2005 602,972-9.0% 5,006,985 9.1% 2006 730,642 21.2% 4,908,031-2.0% 2007 1,382,993 89.3% 4,913,437 0.1% 2008 525,786-62.0% 3,960,777-19.4% 2009 570,442 8.5% 4,591,522 15.9% Source: Congressional Research Service

PRICE SENSITIVTY WHEN DO PETITIONS SPIKE?

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 PRICE SENSITIVTY WHEN DO PETITIONS SPIKE? Figure 3. Applications and Number of Naturalizations for Fiscal Years. 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 Applications Number Naturalized 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Source: Office of Immigration Statistics

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 PRICE SENSITIVTY USING THE ACS Figure 4. Number Naturalized, Data Comparison. 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 Number naturalized by fiscal year (OIS) Number naturalized by calendar year (2011 ACS) 600,000 400,000 200,000 - Source: CSII analysis of 2011 IPUMS American Community Survey data

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 PRICE SENSITIVTY USING THE ACS Figure 5. Share of Naturalized by Year of Naturalization, ages 25+ at Naturalization. 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Less than High School Grad Bachelors Degree or higher HS Grad/Some College/Associates Degree 0% Source: CSII analysis of 2011 IPUMS American Community Survey data

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 PRICE SENSITIVTY USING THE ACS Figure 8. Share of Those Naturalizing Who are Mexican Origin. 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Source: CSII analysis of 2011 IPUMS American Community Survey data

WHY WORRY? BENEFITS OF NATURALIZATION Research has demonstrated that naturalization can improve incomes and enhance civic participation Impact on earnings from attaining citizenship falls somewhere between 8 percent and 11 percent Boost in earnings associated with naturalization, with additional gains over subsequent years

BOOSTING EARNINGS Earned Income Returns to Naturalization Over Time returns, no job shifting returns, with job shifting mid-range estimate 12.4% 13.5% 12.9% 9.9% 10.1% 10.0% 8.8% 8.6% 5.6% 7.2% 6.8% 5.9% 1 to 2 3 to 6 7 to 11 12 to 17 18 to 29 30 or more Years since naturalization

PROFILING THE ELIGIBLE TO NATURALIZE What are the major characteristics of eligible LPRS? How might income status influence naturalization? Is income associated with race/ethnic origin with limits to naturalization?

DEFINING THE ELIGIBLE TO NATURALIZE Methodology: Used 2012 American Community Survey (CEPR extract) In approach similar to Migration Policy Institute, utilized certain characteristics and information from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to identify the undocumented (key difference is that we use a logistic regression probability analysis Then calibrated final count for undocumented with estimates of Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) and Pew

DEFINING THE ELIGIBLE TO NATURALIZE Table 1. Country of Birth of LPR Eligible to Naturalize Adult Population, 2012 Year Number Percent Total 8,825,670 Pre-1960 166,445 1.9% 1960-69 390,352 4.4% 1970-79 905,553 10.3% 1980-89 2,114,181 24.0% 1990-99 2,660,320 30.1% 2000-2009 2,588,819 29.3% 2010-2012 - - Table 2. Year LPR Status Obtained for the Eligible to Naturalize Adult Population, 2012 Country of Birth Number Percent Total 8,825,670 Mexico 2,555,338 29.0% China 361,291 4.1% Philippines 249,765 2.8% India 442,959 5.0% Dominican Republic 279,797 3.2% Cuba 293,079 3.3% Vietnam 109,070 1.2% El Salvador 244,065 2.8% Canada 283,233 3.2% United Kingdom 256,822 2.9% The remainder of non-citizen immigrants should be Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs). Applying the residency restrictions (five years, three if married to a U.S. citizen), we obtain a total of eligible to naturalize that matches aggregate OIS estimates as well as country distribution But because we are using the 2012 American Community Survey, we can estimate individual characteristics

ADULT LPRS ELIGIBLE TO NATURALIZE, POVERTY BAND Income Thresholds for Family of Four, 2013 150% of poverty $35,751 250% of poverty $59,585 500% of poverty $119,170 Nearly two million adults eligible to naturalize LPRs within the 150% to 250% poverty band (working poor) representing 22 percent of all eligible to naturalize adult LPRs Greater than 500%, 18% 250% to 500%, 27% Less than 150%, 32% A more realistic way to understand: for the household in the middle of the 150-250% band, the fee alone is about one week of post-tax takehome pay 150% to 250%, 22%

SHARE THAT ARE MEXICAN-ORIGIN BY POVERTY BAND 50% Overall, Mexican-origin population is 29% of those eligible to naturalize but 40% of those below 150% of poverty level 40% 40% 37% 30% 29% 20% 18% 10% 0% Less than 150% 150% to 250% Greater than 250% Total

PATTERN FOR EDUCATION Figure 3. Share with Less Than a High School Degree of those Eligible to Naturalize by Poverty Bands, 2012 60% 50% 40% The share eligible to naturalize 51% with a BA or better has a big break 43% Not surprisingly, the share of those eligible to naturalize in the lower income bands are much less educated (and have less English fluency) 30% 20% 21% 10% 0% Less than 150% 150% to 250% Greater than 250%

A DIRECT TEST 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% The American Community Survey has year of naturalization so we take Less than 150% 45% everyone 53% who naturalized in 2011-2012 and compare them 150% to 250% everyone who was eligible who did not Greater than 250% 22% Only possible with individual answers 21% and we can use income breaks since income will not have changed much 32% 26% (recall trajectory graph Naturalized Eligible but did not naturalize

EXECUTIVE ACTION USCIS asked to explore a partial fee waiver program in their next biennial feestudy To consider a partial waiver (e.g. 50%) in the case of applicants whose income is more than 150% and no greater than 200% OR A scaled adjustment to the fee based on a range of income levels

ADULT LPRS ELIGIBLE TO NATURALIZE, POVERTY BAND Income Thresholds for Family of Four, 2013 150% of poverty $35,751 200% of poverty $47,668 There are slightly over 1 million adult eligible to naturalize LPRs within the 150% to 200% poverty band (working poor) representing 12 percent of all adults eligible to naturalize LPRs Greater than 250%, 46% Less than 150%, 32% One reasonable estimate: if the rate of naturalization for this group (150-200%) was to rise to average for immigrants with incomes above 250% of poverty level, that s an extra 25,000 naturalizations a year 200% to 250%, 10% 150% to 200%, 12%

FUTURE RESEARCH Further calibration between OIS data and ACS simulated data (figure to right done from OIS data in cruder way) Analysis of shifts in naturalizations after the fee waiver became more automatic Multi-year ACS pool to drive to lower levels of geography and help drive sub-state efforts

CONCLUSIONS There may also be a population whose income is slightly higher than that that might benefit from a fee waiver as well Further research is needed both on price sensitivity and also on cost recovery Working together, we can make an even stronger commitment to facilitating citizenship on the part of LPRS

NATURALIZATION BENEFITS ALL AMERICANS Wage increases associated with naturalization would strengthen families financial security and reduce poverty. A 10% increase in earnings would mean an extra $3,575 each year for a family of four at 150% of the poverty line. This is enough money to cover nearly 40% of the average annual food expenses of a four person household.

NATURALIZATION BENEFITS ALL AMERICANS Naturalization improves the productivity of our workforce and grows the economy. Increased labor market mobility Investment in human capital Improved job-skills match

NATURALIZATION BENEFITS ALL AMERICANS Naturalization benefits the children of immigrants the next generation of American workers. Source: Dowell Myers, Stephen Levy and John Pitkin The Contributions of Immigrants and Their Children to the American Workforce and Jobs of the Future (Center for American Progress, 2013)

THANKS!

Fee Waivers and the New Americans Campaign Melissa Rodgers January 8, 2015

Who makes up the New Americans Campaign? Seattle, WA Napa, CA San Francisco, CA San Jose, CA Los Angeles, CA Orange County, CA San Diego, CA East Bay, CA Inland Empire, CA Chicago, IL Dallas, TX Detroit, MI Boston, MA New York, NY Baltimore, MD Charlotte, NC *NAC partners such as IRC and NPNA also operate in many additional sites, making this one of the largest naturalization collaborations in the United States. Houston, TX Miami, FL

Increasing the use of fee waivers

How did we do it? Fee Waivers! RAISE AWARENESS FEE WAIVER STATIONS SHARE BEST PRACTICES PARTNERSHIPS Promote at upcoming workshops and in-house services Proliferate at workshops and with Citizenshipworks Webinars, tips, toolkits Available on the New Americans Campaign website and Ning Agencies that administer government benefits can help with outreach and evidence

Challenges remain Discretionary adjudication Chilling effect Limited to 150% of FPL Need for advocacy Naturalization Working Group

Questions? Melissa A. Rodgers Director of Programs Immigrant Legal Resource Center New Americans Campaign 415-255-9499 ext. 763 mrodgers@ilrc.org www.ilrc.org www.newamericanscampaign.org #newamericans - @nacnow

TAKE ACTION! Tell DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez TO LOWER THE FEE!

Questions & Answers