COVER ART: THE STATUE OF LIBERTY (LIBERTY ENLIGHTENING THE WORLD), A GIFT FROM FRANCE THAT WAS INTENDED AS A REPRESENTATION OF REPUBLICAN IDEALS, HAS FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY BEEN THE PREEMINENT SYMBOL OF IMMIGRATION TO THE U.S. THE BLINDFOLDED STATUE OF JUSTICE, DERIVED FROM THE GREEK GODDESS, THEMIS, REPRESENTS THE ORDER OF SOCIETY ESTABLISHED BY LAW, CUSTOM, AND EQUITY. THESE TWO SYMBOLS HIGHLIGHT THE COMMISSION'S VIEW THAT A CREDIBLE IMMIGRATION POLICY MUST UPHOLD BOTH OUR IMMIGRATION TRADITION AND OUR COMMITMENT TO THE RULE OF LAW.

1997 REPORT TO CONGRESS
U.S. COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION REFORM
Becoming an American: Immigration & Immigrant Policy
SEPTEMBER 1997

The Commissioners and staff dedicate this final report of the bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform to the memory of

Barbara Jordan

Chair, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform December 14, 1993 - January 17, 1996

We are a nation of immigrants, dedicated to the rule of law. That is our history - and it is our challenge to ourselves. . . .It is literally a matter of who we are as a nation and who we become as a people. E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. One people. The American people. (Barbara Jordan, August 1995)

This report underscores the need for credible, coherent immigrant and immigration policy. Admission to this nation is only the first step of a process by which an immigrant becomes an American. Through the process of Americanization, immigrants become part of our communities and our communities learn from and adapt to their presence. We set out recommendations for immigrant policies that enhance this process through orientation services for immigrants and their new communities, English and civics education, and a credible, efficient naturalization process.

We also recommend immigration reforms. Since the Commission issued its 1994 report on illegal migration, significant progress has been made in improving border management, increasing criminal alien removals, reforming the asylum process, responding to mass migration emergencies, and pilot testing new worksite verification procedures. Illegal migration remains a problem, however, necessitating continued deterrence and removal efforts. In addition, we reiterate our call for legal immigration reform and make new recommendations regarding limited duration admissions.

In addition, we urge Congress to reconsider the welfare reform legislation adopted in 1996 that makes legal immigrants ineligible for basic safety net programs. Requiring immigrants to become citizens in order to receive the protections afforded by these programs debases citizenship. Further, making citizenship rather than legal status the determinant of eligibility blurs the distinction between legal immigrants, whom we welcome, and illegal aliens.

Restoring the credibility of our immigration system cannot happen unless the federal government is structured and managed effectively. While the Executive Branch has taken significant steps to address many of the weaknesses in current operations, the organization of the immigration system undermines reform efforts. Hence, in this report, we recommend a fundamental restructuring and streamlining of responsibilities for immigration.

Our work benefitted greatly from the effective cooperation we received from the Executive Branch and both Houses of Congress. We also thank the dozens of researchers who have contributed the results of their scholarship and the hundreds of community leaders, government officials, service providers and other experts who participated in our public hearings and consultations.

I particularly thank my fellow Commissioners. We have struggled with many tough issues, and we have reached consensus on nearly all of our recommendations. Without the dedication, hard work, and good humor of the members of this Commission, we could not have achieved this agreement. The work of the Commission could not have been accomplished without the support of an extraordinary staff led by Susan Martin, Executive Director and Andrew Schoenholtz, Deputy Director, assisted by the members of the Policy Research, the Public Affairs, Editorial, and Administrative Staffs. Each staff member has worked tirelessly to provide the Commission with volumes of valuable information, policy memoranda, and logistical support. The Commission is also indebted to the Executive Branch for lending outstanding career persons to serve on the Commission's staff.

Sincerely,
Shirley M. Hufstedler
Chair

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

SHIRLEY MOUNT HUFSTEDLER, CHAIR
	FORMER JUDGE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT
	FORMER SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
	MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP

LAWRENCE H. FUCHS, VICE CHAIR
	JAFFE PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN CIVILIZATION AND POLITICS,
	BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY

MICHAEL S. TEITELBAUM, VICE CHAIR
	ALFRED P. SLOAN FOUNDATION

RICHARD ESTRADA
	ASSOCIATE EDITOR, EDITORIAL PAGE
	DALLAS MORNING NEWS

HAROLD EZELL
	PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, EZELL GROUP

ROBERT CHARLES HILL
	VENABLE BAETJER HOWARD & CIVILETTI, LLP

WARREN R. LEIDEN
	BERRY, APPLEMAN & LEIDEN LLP

NELSON MERCED
	SENIOR ASSOCIATE
	COMMUNITY TRAINING & ASSISTANCE CENTER

BRUCE A. MORRISON
	CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD




COMMISSION STAFF

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUSAN MARTIN
DEPUTY DIRECTOR ANDREW SCHOENHOLTZ
DIRECTOR OF POLICY RESEARCH B. LINDSAY LOWELL (ON DETAIL FROM DOL)

POLICY RESEARCH STAFF
	GALLI AIZENMAN, PROGRAM ANALYST 7/96­8/97
	JOSEPH COSTANZO, PROGRAM ANALYST 10/93­7/94
	ROSEMARY CURTIN, RESEARCH ASSISTANT 6/95­8/95
	BRETT M. ENDRES, POLICY ANALYST 12/92­PRESENT
	DAVID R. HOWELL, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 4/94­4/96
	ANNA LAW, PROGRAM ANALYST 1/95­8/96
	NANCY LEACH, RESEARCH ANALYST 11/95­PRESENT
	ENRICO MARCELLI, RESEARCH ASSISTANT 2/96­5/96
	RAQUEL MARQUEZ, RESEARCH ASSISTANT 7/97­8/97
	DEBORAH WALLER MEYERS, POLICY ANALYST 6/93­PRESENT
	BRANDON MITCHELL, POLICY ANALYST 1/97­PRESENT
	KIMBERLY M. O'DONNELL, POLICY ANALYST 5/94­8/97
	LAVITA STRICKLAND, LEGAL COUNSEL 9/94­PRESENT
	KAREN WOODROW­LAFIELD, SENIOR RESEARCH ANALYST 10/94­2/95

DETAILEES:

	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
		HARPREET SANDHU, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 9/95­11/95

	DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
		ALLAN GALL, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 9/95­8/97
		LANI HOROWITZ, POLICY ANALYST 10/94­6/95
		DAVID NIELSEN, POLICY ANALYST 8/94­9/94
		LINDA SANCHES, POLICY ANALYST 1/96­8/96

	DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
	EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
		PATRICIA A. DUNN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 12/96­PRESENT
		CAROLYN M. PICCOTTI, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 9/95­12/96
		JEFFREY L. ROMIG, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 12/94­8/95

	IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
		GREGG A. BEYER, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 1/97­PRESENT
		PATRICIA A. COLE, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 4/93­6/95
		THEDORA HERNANDEZ, POLICY ANALYST 6/94­3/95
		MICHAEL D. HOEFER, POLICY ANALYST 12/93­9/94
		EDWARD SKERRETT, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 11/95­10/96
		TERRY TREMPER, POLICY ANALYST 10/94­12/94

	DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
		GAIL COLEMAN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 7/93­9/93
		DAVID A. LEVY, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 11/94­PRESENT

	DEPARTMENT OF STATE
		MARGARET COOPERMAN, POLICY ANALYST 4/95­6/95
		JAMES L. HALMO, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 8/96­3/97
		SUSAN JACOBS, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 9/94­2/95
		LAURIE JOHNSTON, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 8/94­1/95
		HARRY JONES, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 7/93­7/94
		JOHN SPIEGEL, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 3/97­PRESENT
		R. SUSAN WOOD, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 11/95­4/96

PUBLIC AFFAIRS & EDITORIAL STAFF
	PAUL DONNELLY, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 7/94­PRESENT
	ELIZABETH D. MALKS, PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER 12/92­9/94
	MINNA NEWMAN NATHANSON, PUBLICATIONS DIRECTOR 8/94­PRESENT

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
	MARK J. BOGDAN, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 12/93­7/97
	ANNA COBB, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 12/92­1/94
	L. ROBIN WALKER, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 12/93­PRESENT
	LATANYA PERRY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 9/95­PRESENT
	RONI AMIT, STAFF ASSISTANT 10/94­8/95
	RONALD K. SOMMERVILLE, CONSULTANT

THE COMMISSION EXTENDS ITS GRATITUDE TO ITS INTERNS: SUSAN BILES, ANDREA
CASERTA, JOANNE CLAIN, EMILY COPE, TARA CORONADO, LISA COTTER, ELAINE
GAYNES, PETER HENDRICKS, SUZANNE HILDERBRAND, A. MARC JOHNSTON, DIANA
JUDD, MICHELLE KLA­WILLIAMS, EDMOND LAHAI, JINHEE LEE, SARAH LOGAN,
BELINDA MARTINEZ, PASCALE MICHEL, NELSON MOCK, MIKAEL NACIM, NEGIN
NAZEMI, ELIZABETH OFFEN, AARTI PATEL, MARCIA PINCUS, LARRY RIMMER, ROGER
SALAZAR, SARAH SWANSON, GOURI SASHITAL, MEYLYSA TSENG, YVETTE VELASCO,
GUILLERMO VILLANUEVA, AND KIAL YOUNG.


1997 REPORT TO CONGRESS U.S. COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION REFORM
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1
MANDATE AND METHODS2
TODAY'S IMMIGRANTS2
Characteristics of Immigrants ............................................................ 4
Effects on the Economy .................................................................... 15
Population Growth and Natural Resources ..................................... 19
Foreign Policy and National Security Interests ............................... 22
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 24
AMERICANIZATION AND INTEGRATION OF IMMIGRANTS ...... 25
A DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND VALUES ............................... 25
AMERICANIZATION ............................................................................. 26
ORIENTATION ...................................................................................... 30
EDUCATION ......................................................................................... 36
NATURALIZATION ................................................................................ 45
A CREDIBLE FRAMEWORK FOR IMMIGRATION POLICY ......... 59
LEGAL PERMANENT ADMISSIONS .................................................... 59
LIMITED DURATION ADMISSIONS ..................................................... 76
Principles for a Properly­Regulated System .................................... 81
Framework ....................................................................................... 84
Short­Term Visitors .......................................................................... 88
Foreign Workers ............................................................................... 89
Conclusion ...................................................................................... 102
CURBING UNLAWFUL MIGRATION .................................................. 103
DETERRENCE STRATEGIES .......................................................................... 104
REMOVALS .............................................................................................. 126
ACHIEVING IMMIGRATION POLICY GOALS ............................. 147
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 147
STRUCTURAL REFORM .................................................................... 147
Bureau for Immigration Enforcement (DOJ) ................................. 153
CITIZENSHIP, IMMIGRATION, AND REFUGEE ADMISSIONS (DOS) ......................... 161
IMMIGRATION­RELATED EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS (DOL) ................................. 169
Agency for Immigration Review .................................................... 174
MANAGEMENT REFORM .................................................................. 182
IMPROVED DATA AND ANALYSIS ..................................................... 193
Information Needs .......................................................................... 196
Legal Permanent Admissions ........................................................ 197
Limited Duration Admissions ........................................................ 199
Unauthorized Migration ................................................................. 200
CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 203
REFERENCES .............................................................................. 205
COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION REFORM RESOURCES ............. 205
Interim Reports* ............................................................................. 205
Contract Research Papers* ............................................................ 205
PUBLIC HEARINGS/EXPERT CONSULTATIONS .............................. 207
TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO THE U.S. CONGRESS ...................... 212
APPENDIX A ................................................................................ 215
IMMACT: PROVISIONS AND EFFECTS ............................................. 215
APPENDIX B ................................................................................ 222
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER WARREN R. LEIDEN ................. 222
Legal Permanent Admissions ........................................................ 222
Structural Reform ........................................................................... 225
BACK COVER .............................................................................. 231

Immigration and immigrant policy is about immigrants, their families and the rest of us. It is about the meaning of American nationality and the foundation of national unity. It is about uniting persons from all over the world in a common civic culture. The process of becoming an American is most simply called "Americanization," which must always be a two­way street. All Americans, not just immigrants, should understand the importance of our shared civic culture to our national community. This final report of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform makes recommendations to further the goals of Americanization by setting out immigrant policies to help orient immigrants and their new communities, to improve educational programs that help immigrants and their children learn English and civics, and to reinforce the integrity of the naturalization process through which immigrants become U.S. citizens.

This report also makes recommendations regarding immigration policy. It reiterates and updates the conclusions we reached in three interim reports  - on unlawful migration, legal immigration, and refugee and asylum policy -  and makes additional recommendations for reforming immigration policies. Further, in this report, the Commission recommends ways to improve the structure and management of the federal agencies responsible for achieving the goals of immigration policy. It is our hope that this final report Becoming An American: Immigration and Immigrant Policy, along with our three interim reports, constitutes a full response to the work assigned the Commission by Congress: to assess the national interest in immigration and report how it can best be achieved.

Public Law 101­649, the Immigration Act of 1990 [IMMACT], established this Commission to review and evaluate the impact of immigration policy. More specifically, the Commission must report on immigration's impact on: the need for labor and skills; employment and other aspects of the economy; social, demographic, and environmental conditions; and the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States. The Commission engaged in a wide variety of fact­finding activities to fulfill this mandate. Site visits were conducted throughout the United States. Commission members visited immigrant and refugee communities in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Arizona, Washington, Kansas, Virginia, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Some Commission and staff members also visited such major source countries as Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Haiti, and the Philippines. To increase our understanding of international refugee policy issues, members and staff of the Commission visited Bosnia, Croatia, Germany, and Kenya, and consulted with Geneva­based officials from the U.N. High Commission for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration. We held more than forty public hearings, consultations with government and private sector officials, and ex­ pert roundtable discussions.

See Table 1

The effects of immigration are numerous, complex, and varied. Im­ migrants contribute in many ways to the United States: to its vibrant and diverse communities; to its lively and participatory democracy; to its vital intellectual and cultural life; to its renowned job­creating entrepreneurship and marketplaces; and to its family values and hard­work ethic. However, there are costs as well as benefits from today's immigration. Those workers most at risk in our restructuring economy - low­skilled workers in production and service jobs - are those who directly compete with today's low­skilled immigrants. Further, immigration presents special challenges to certain states and local communities that disproportionately bear the fiscal and other costs of incorporating newcomers.

In FY 1996 (the last year for which data are available), more than 900,000 immigrants came to the United States from 206 nations, for a variety of reasons and with a diverse set of personal characteristics. Not surprisingly, the characteristics of immigrants from different sending countries vary, as do their effects on the U.S. There are also differences between immigrants admitted under different classes of admission. These differences generally reflect the statutory provisions that guide admissions.

[See Appendix for description of IMMACT's more specific provisions and its effects.]

Places of Origin.

1996 Top Ten Countries of Origin of Legal Immigrants
Mexico	159,731
Philippines	55,778
India	44,781
Vietnam	42,006
Mainland China	41,662
Dominican Republic	39,516
Cuba	26,415
Ukraine	21,051
Russia	19,646
Jamaica	19,029
Source: INS FY 1996 Public Use Admissions Data.

Asia and North America (i.e., Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean, and Central America) remain the sending regions with the largest share of immigrants. Mexico remains the largest sending country and its share of total legal immigrants to the U.S. increased from an average of 12 percent in the 1980s to more than 13 percent in FY 1994 and up to 18 percent in FY 1996. The effects of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 [IRCA], which resulted in the legalization of about two million formerly illegal Mexican residents, explains this trend. Even though the special admission category for the spouses of legalized aliens' dependents has been discontinued, Mexico benefits from the IMMACT's removal of per­country limits on the numerically limited spouse and children class of admission (FB­2A).

IMMACT established a transitional and a permanent "diversity" category for countries whose admission numbers were adversely affected by the Immigration Act of 1965. The transitional program was in effect from FY 1992 to 1994, but unused visas were carried over through FY 1996. The permanent program went into effect in FY 1995. European countries benefitted the most from the transitional program, which mandated that as many as 40 percent of the visas could go to nationals of Ireland. Actual Irish admissions reached only 35 percent, with Polish immigrants accounting for an even larger share (38 percent). Under the permanent diversity program, 42 percent of the immigrants came from European countries and 35 percent came from Africa. The effect on African admissions is particularly noteworthy as Africans account for less than 1 percent of immigrants in other admission categories.

Immigrants in FY 1996 continue to select just a few states as their destinations. About two­thirds intend to reside in California, New York, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey. One­quarter of admissions are to California alone with another one­seventh to New York. New York City retains its place as the pre­eminent immigrant city with 15 percent of immigrants intending to go there. About 7 percent of immigrants intend to go to Los Angeles, and Miami and Chicago are in third place with about 4.5 percent each of the total. There has been little change in these leading destinations since IMMACT. However, some new destinations have emerged in recent years. For example, during the past decade, such midwestern and southern states as Mississippi, Nebraska, Kansas, Georgia and North Carolina saw more than a doubling of the number of immigrants intending to reside there. Although the numbers are significantly smaller than the more traditional destinations, absorbing more new immigrants can be a challenge for these newer destinations that often do not have the immigration­related infrastructure of the traditional receiving communities.

1996: Top Ten Intended States of Residence of Legal Immigrants
California	199,221
New York	153,731
Texas	82,229
Florida	79,067
New Jersey	63,162
Illinois	42,154
Massachusetts	23,017
Virginia	21,329
Maryland	20,683
Washington	18,718
Source: INS FY 1996 Public Use Admissions Data.

Top Ten Intended Metro Areas of Residence of Legal Immigrants
New York	133,168
Los Angeles	64,285
Miami	1,527
Chicago	39,989
Washington DC	34,327
Houston	21,387
Boston	18,726
San Diego	18,226
San Francisco	18,171
Newark	17,939
Source: US DOJ

Age Groups of 1996 Legal Immigrants (Principals and Derivative Beneficiaries)
GROUP	ALL	FAMILY	EMPLOYMENT	DIVERSITY	HUMANITARIAN
15 yrs. & younger	22%	23%	20%	22%	20%
16 through 29 yrs.	31%	34%	23%	33%	27%
30 through 44 yrs.	27%	23%	44%	34%	24%
45 through 60 yrs.	15%	14%	12%	10%	21%
65 years & older	5%	5%	0%	1%	8%
Source: INS FY 1996 Public Use Admissions Data.

Immigrants in FY 1996 remain young, with the largest proportion being in their later teens or twenties. A little more than one­fifth are children 15 years of age or younger, and another one­fifth are 45 years or older. More than one­half of family­based immigrants are younger than 30 years of age, reflecting the predominance of spouses and children. Because of beneficiaries, employment­ based immigrants have just as many minor dependents age 15 years and younger as other groups, but more than two­fifths of these employment­based immigrants themselves are 30­44 years, the experienced and highly productive working ages. Diversity immigrants have a similar, yet somewhat younger, age distribution than other classes of admission. In contrast, and in large part due to those admitted as refugees from the former Soviet Union, humanitarian admissions tend to be somewhat older than other immigrants.

Females were 54 percent of admissions in FY 1996. There had been an essentially even balance of men and women during the decade of the 1980s. The increased share of females in the 1990s parallels the historical tendency toward more female immigrants throughout much of the post­World War II period. It also reflects the admission of the spouses of legalized aliens who were predomi­ nantly male. In FY 1996, family­based admissions were predominantly female (57 percent) and employment­based admissions (including beneficiaries) were evenly balanced by gender. Diversity (45 percent female) and humanitarian (48 percent female) admis­ sions, in contrast, had more male immigrants. That a slight majority of FY 1996 humanitarian admissions were male is somewhat surprising given that worldwide refugee populations are disproportionately female.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] admissions data do not include information on English language ability (or education, as discussed below). The following analysis draws instead on preliminary data from the New Immigrant Survey [NIS], 1] which studied a sample of immigrants admitted in FY 1996. The NIS is a pilot study designed to test the feasibility of a longitudinal immigrant survey. Although the data are not yet published, analysis indicates that it offers promise of providing certain information about immigrants that has not previously been available. The NIS, using the same measure as the U.S. Census, reports on the English language proficiency of adult legal immigrants who are 18 years and older. The initial results show that employment­based immigrants report the greatest English ability - 70 percent of employment­based admissions report speaking at least fairly well and less than 10 percent speak very little or no English (the remainder report an "average" speaking ability). About 37 percent of family­based admissions report speaking English at least fairly well and an almost equal proportion report speaking little or no English. The diversity immigrants tend to report even less English ability, despite the requirement that they have at least a high school education. The humanitarian admissions trail the furthest behind in reported English language ability. Only 16 percent report speaking English at least fairly well, while more than 50 percent report speaking little or no English.

The years of schooling completed by immigrants is perhaps one of the most critical measures of skill level. The NIS provides our first indicators of years of education of adult legal immigrants at the time of their admission. As found in studies of foreign­born residents, the immigrants surveyed by the NIS tend to cluster at the higher or lower ends of the educational spectrum and differ significantly in their educational attainment by class of admission. Fully 46 percent of employment­based admissions have completed four years of college or a graduate degree. This figure includes principals and beneficiaries, making it likely that well­educated employment­based immigrants tend to have well­educated spouses. In contrast, just 17 percent of family­based immigrants 25 years and older have completed a college­level education while 42 percent have less than a high school education.

Diversity immigrants are required to have a high school education or two years of skilled work experience. The NIS data show that diversity immigrants tend to be better educated than family­based, but not as well educated as employment­based immigrants. About 14 percent have not completed high school. They may be either principals who meet the work but not the education requirement or the spouses of the principals. Twenty­two percent of diversity immigrants have completed college or done graduate­level education, about the same proportion as among U.S. natives. [2]

The humanitarian classes of admission are less well educated than the employment­based, but are better educated than family admissions. The large number of relatively well­educated persons admitted as refugees from the Soviet Union may partly explain this finding. About 21 percent have less than a high school education, while about 19 percent have college or higher degrees.

Ultimately, the English and educational skills that immigrants have are reflected in their occupations. The INS admissions data, which we use here, have only crude occupational classifications. It imperfectly captures the difference between immigrants who adjust into legal permanent resident [LPR] status after working in a U.S. job for several years and those who report an occupation upon admission that tells us more about what the immigrant did at home than what they will do here.

Sixty­five percent of all immigrants in FY 1996 reported no occupation or being a "homemaker," reflecting the fact that children, parents, and spouses are a large share of all admissions and most do not work at the time of entry.

Nevertheless, occupational status faithfully reflects the legal requirements of the admission class - the proportion of all immigrants not reporting an occupation is greater among family and humanitarian admissions, about 70 percent of all immigrants in each category. By way of comparison, only about one­half of all employment and diversity admissions have no reported occupation.[3] The skills which immigrants bring to the United States are reflected in their type of occupations. Family and humanitarian immigrants are primarily blue­collar workers. In contrast, employment­based and permanent diversity immigrants are predominantly white­collar workers. These broad differences between the major classes of admission have changed only slightly over the past three decades.

IMMACT has had an effect on occupational distribution within these broad categories. To gauge its effects, a research paper prepared for the Commission calculated simple linear projections for all of the admission categories now subject to the worldwide ceiling on admissions. Data from FY 1972­1991 were analyzed and the trends identified, then projected forward to FY 1996. This analysis, there­ fore, paints a "what­if" picture of what today's immigration might have looked like if past trends had continued unaffected by IMMACT [see table above]. The actual total number of admissions under the worldwide ceiling in FY 1996 was 720,314 which - compared to the projected figure of 426,929 - was 69 percent greater than would have been expected without IMMACT. Admissions were greater than the projected fig­ ure because IMMACT increased numerically­limited family, employ­ ment, and diversity admissions. The numerically­exempt admis­ sions for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens would have grown between 1992 and 1996 even without IMMACT. This analysis does not include humanitarian admissions.

FY 1996 Regular Admissions by Occupation:	Predicted and Actual
OCCUPATION	PREDICTED (WITHOUT IMMACT)	ACTUAL (WITH IMMACT)	EXCESS OF OVER-PREDICTED WHITE­COLLAR WORKERS
Professional, Technical, and Kindred
Health Professionals	10,244	18.986	85%
Other Professionals	9,231	19,477	111%
Technical & Specialty	22,115	33,117	50%
Executives	20,283	30,702	51%
Sales	12,943	13,002	0%
Administrative Support	19,437	19,807	2%
BLUE­COLLAR WORKERS
Precision Production	21,028	20,116	­4%
Operators, Fabricators, & Laborers	37,702	53,936	43%
FARMING, FORESTRY, AND FISHING	12,251	12,588	3%
SERVICE	48,180	51,797	8%
TOTAL WITH OCCUPATION	165,234	221,731	34%
TOTAL WITHOUT OCCUPATION	261,694	498,583	91%
GRAND TOTAL	426,928	730,314	69%
Note: Predicted numbers in FY 1996 are based on linear projections (from the years between 1972 and 1991), and are kept within numerical limits on nonexempt categories. Humanitarian admissions are not included.	Source: Greenwood, M.; Ziel, F.A. 1997. The Impact of the Immigration Act of 1990 on U.S. Immigration. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform.

Of immigrants who reported an occupation, the actual admissions in FY 1996 were 221,731 which - compared to the projected figure of 165,234  -  was 34 percent greater than would have been expected if IMMACT had not gone into effect. By contrast, nonworking immigrants experienced a 91 percent increase of actual over projected. This finding is not surprising as FY 1996 family admissions were significantly higher than would have been permissible under previous law. In part this was because IMMACT permitted unused FY 1995 employment­based numbers to be transferred to the FY 1996 family categories. In combination with a growth in immediate relatives (including those who would normally have been admitted in FY 1995 but were caught in processing delays), the additional visas meant more spouses and minor children entered. These immigrants are the least likely to be employed.

As might be anticipated, IMMACT's new emphasis on admitting highly­educated and skilled persons led to growth in professional occupations among those who reported an occupation. As stated above, there was an overall 34 percent increase in persons reporting an occupation. This increase was not evenly distributed, however. The number of health professionals, for example, was projected to be 10,244, but at 18,985 was 85 percent greater. The number of executives also shows a higher than expected increase. Interestingly, projections not shown here indicate that within the employment­based category, family members (beneficiaries) of the principals show the greatest growth in professional occupations. This suggests that when principals with more skills are admitted, they bring with them spouses who are, likewise, more skilled than in the past. Further, projections not shown here indicate that the skill requirement for permanent diversity immigrants makes for more highly­skilled admissions from eligible countries. In short, IMMACT increased both the numbers of more skilled admissions and their share of immigrants admitted.

Most nonprofessional white­collar and blue­collar occupations show very little or no growth over what might have occurred without IMMACT. The one notable exception is a greater­than­expected increase in the number of "Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers." There were 53,936 admissions in these occupations compared to the 37,702 that were projected. As the employment­based access for persons with these occupations is highly limited, it appears that much of this increase is attributable to family­based admissions. It is unclear from the data, however, why this pattern has emerged.

According to the NIS survey, the median earnings of all male immigrants admitted in 1996 was $15,600 and for women was $11,960, lower than the median earnings for natives. Compared to the earnings in their last country of residence, male immigrants experienced a 59 percent increase and women a 45 increase in earnings upon admission to the United States. Differences in earnings are, as should be expected, substantial by admission class. Many employment­based immigrants earn a median income of $36,400 on the date of their admission to LPR status, while the sibling or spouse of an LPR earns $11,750 and the spouse of a citizen earns $18,200.

An independent evaluation of immigration by a panel of eminent social scientists at the National Research Council [NRC], sponsored by the Commission, [ 4] found that immigration has a positive economic impact on the national level. However, the NRC panel's findings confirm the by now commonplace conclusion that there are tangible costs to certain sectors of the labor market and certain communities. This reinforces the Commission's conclusions on the need for a well­regulated system of immigrant admissions, as well as the need for attention to means of improving integration and reducing friction between newcomers and established residents. The NRC panel estimates that immigrants may add $1­10 billion directly to the national economy each year, a small but positive amount in a $7.6 trillion economy. Many consumers, business owners, and investors benefit from the immigrant labor force. Recent newcomers may be willing to work for lower wages than other U.S. workers, although, with the exception of many immigrants with less than a high school education, most immigrants tend to earn as much as natives after a decade. Many others in the economy benefit, particularly those who do work that is complementary to that performed by immigrants. Immigrants provide the labor that has kept viable entire segments of certain labor­intensive industries, such as garment and shoemaking. Many immigrant entrepreneurs expand trade with foreign countries from which they come, and the language and cultural expertise of many immigrant employees are valuable to U.S. companies doing business abroad.

Immigrants also contribute to the economic revitalization of the communities in which they live. As middle­class natives have left the inner cities, immigrant newcomers have settled, established businesses, bought homes, and otherwise invested in these areas. Gateway cities, such as New York and Los Angeles, have benefitted particularly from this urban renewal. At the same time, these cities face new challenges related to immigration. Growing immigrant communities require local school systems (some of which may have otherwise faced declining enrollments) to provide sufficient classroom space and teachers. They must also develop programs to teach children who are without English skills or prior education. Overcrowded housing, drug trafficking, gang violence, sweatshops, and public health problems also may be found in many of these inner­city communities. [5]

Immigration particularly affects certain U.S. workers. The NRC panel finds that workers with less than twelve years of education are the most adversely affected by low­skilled immigrant workers.

Immigrants may have reduced substantially the wages of high school dropouts, who are about one­tenth of the workforce, by 5 percent nationwide. This is a sizable impact on a group that was already poorly paid before the loss in real earnings it experienced over the past two decades. Most often it is the foreign­born worker, particularly in labor markets with large numbers of immigrants who experience the greatest competition. [ 6] While the education and skill level of most U.S. workers differs significantly from those of most immigrants (and therefore they are not competing for the same jobs), the new arrivals are often direct substitutes for immigrants who arrived a short time before them. [7]

The evidence on the impact of immigration on native­born minorities nationwide is less clear. The NRC concluded that in the aggregate, the economic opportunities of African Americans are not reduced by immigration because African Americans and immigrants tend to be in different labor markets and reside in different cities. Other research finds small, adverse effects on African Americans. [ 8] These effects are found most strongly when low­skilled minority workers compete with low­skilled immigrant workers in the same industries and the same geographic areas.

The fiscal effects of immigration also are complicated. Generally, the impacts on the federal government are favorable compared to those on state and local governments. Most studies show that at the federal level, the foreign­born pay more in taxes than they receive in services. When spread across all taxpayers, this characteristic represents a very small, but positive, benefit. At the local level, however, immigrants often represent a net fiscal cost, in some cases a substantial one. Research on the resident illegal alien population finds the clearest examples of fiscal costs to states and localities. [9]

In general, much of the negative effect is related to school costs that are considerable because of the larger size of many immigrant families. Although funds spent on education may be considered an investment, not just a fiscal burden, the payoff is not realized for many years.

Education affects fiscal impacts in a second way. Ultimately, the economic success and fiscal contributions of immigrants are determined by their educational level. The NRC panel found that immigrants who complete high school and beyond generally represent a more favorable balance of fiscal costs and contributions than do those with little or no education. Even over their lifetimes, immigrants without education are unlikely to contribute sufficient tax revenues to offset their use of services. Both groups of immigrants tend to use public services in a similar fashion, particularly as related to the schooling of their children, but the more educated immigrants tend to earn more and pay higher taxes.

Educational differences also explain why certain states and localities are more adversely affected by immigration than are others. California immigrants represent a sizeable tax burden (estimated at almost $1,200 per native­headed family per year) while New Jersey immigrants represent a more modest tax burden (estimated to be $232 per native­headed family per year). The difference can be explained largely by the differences in the average educational level of the immigrants residing in these states.[10]

English language ability also affects the economic success and fiscal impacts of immigrants. In the 1990 Census, 47 percent of the foreign­born more than 5 years of age reported not speaking English "very well." Individuals with poor English language skills tend to be confined to the lowest levels of the U.S. job market. By contrast, ability in spoken English markedly improves immigrants' earnings, especially for Hispanic and Asian adult immigrants. [11] English reading comprehension also has been found to improve the earnings of young immigrant adults. [12]

In recent years there have been about 800,000 legal admissions and an additional estimated 200,000 to 300,000 unauthorized entries, but the net annual increase of the foreign­born population is about 700,000 each year due to return migration and mortality. 13 In 1996, the foreign­born population was 24.6 million, 9.3 percent of the U.S. population. Recent arrivals make up a large share of the resident foreign­born population; about 28 percent arrived after 1990, and an additional 35 percent during the 1980s.

It is estimated that international migration makes up somewhere between one­quarter and one­third of net annual population increase. Given current demographic trends and noting that much can happen to alter long­range forecasts, the U.S. Census Bureau projects the population to increase by 50 percent between 1995 and 2050. Immigration is likely to become a larger proportion of the net increase. 14

The NRC report also presented estimates of population growth. It found that without immigration since 1950, the U.S. population would have been 14 percent smaller than its 1995 size of 263 million. The NRC projected the population to the year 2050 after making certain assumptions about mortality, fertility, and rates of group inter­marriage. According to the projection based on these assumptions, the U.S. population would increase by 124 million persons to 387 million, with immigration responsible for two­thirds (82 million) of the increase. Of this 82 million, 45 million are immigrants and an additional 37 million increase is due to their higher assumed fertility. Immigration affects the age structure as well as the overall population. The NRC panel projected that under current immigration policy, kindergarten through grade eight school enrollment in 2050 would be 17 percent higher than it was in 1995. High school enrollment would rise from 14.0 million in 1995 to 20.3 million in 2050. Immigration also has small effects on the proportion of the population that is elderly. No matter which immigration policies are adopted, according to the NRC, the number of persons aged 65 years and older will double between 1995 and 2050. However, the proportion of older people in the total population will be somewhat smaller with immigration.

The NRC panel's projection of the ethnic distribution of the U.S. population in 2050 shows the Hispanic population increasing from 10 to 25 percent and the Asian population from 3 to 8 percent of the population. These projections are dependent on today's rates of group intermarriage and how persons report their ethnicity. It may be that, like children of immigrants who arrived in the last century, descendents of today's immigrants will choose to report their ethnicity as being different from that of their parents, and that today's ethnic categories will not accurately describe tomorrow's populations.

What broader implications do these growth figures have? Some analysts argue that high immigration levels mean an abundant supply of youthful workers who will be a substantial spur to the economy. From this perspective, population growth is an engine for technological progress and the means to solve environmental problems, effectively spawning change out of necessity. Proponents of this view argue that human resourcefulness has dealt with population growth in the past and the solutions often have left us better off. Adding more people may "cause us more problems, but at the same time there will be more people to solve these problems."[15] Others are concerned about the negative consequences of population growth, particularly on the environment, infrastructure, and services. [16] They see population growth as imposing pressures on our natural resources and quality of life, raising special concerns in the arid regions of the southwest or sites of industries relocating to the south central states. [17] Those concerned argue that our future well­ being depends upon both conservation, and stabilizing population growth. [18]

This debate primarily concerns total U.S. population growth, which is strongly influenced by immigration. Still, there is little or no information about whether immigrants have differential impacts distinct from the population increase they produce on the U.S. environment. [19]

The Commission did find that rapid inflows of immigrants can pose difficulties for those who must plan for community growth. Schools sometimes receive large numbers of new immigrant students that had not been planned for. Housing and infrastructure development may not be adequate in affected urban and rural communities. [20] New immigrant destinations, sometimes to areas that have not had new immigrants for a century or more, can put particular stress on communities that have experienced rapid growth in the past decade.

Immigration matters frequently are intertwined with foreign policy and national security. Today, migration and refugee issues are matters of high international politics engaging the heads of state involved in defense, internal security, and external relations. [21] International migration intersects with foreign policy in two principal ways. The U.N. Security Council has acknowledged that migration can pose threats to international peace and security through economic or social instability or humanitarian disasters. Migration can also build positive relations with other countries and thereby promote national security. As a consequence, migration itself requires bilateral and international attention to help address the causes and consequences of movements of people.

During the Cold War, a foreign policy priority was the destabilizing of Communist regimes. Refugee policy was often a tool to achieve that strategic goal, for instance, by encouraging the flow of migrants from Eastern Europe or Cuba. Elsewhere, political, economic, and military involvement in Southeast Asia and the Dominican Republic had significant migration consequences, as large numbers of Southeast Asians and Dominicans ended up as refugees and immigrants to the U.S. These foreign policy priorities generally have had significant immigration consequences years later.

Alternatively, immigration concerns sometimes have played a significant role in U.S. foreign policy, especially when mass movements to the U.S. are feared. A stated rationale for U.S. Central­American policy in the 1980s was to prevent a mass movement that would occur if anti­American Marxist dictatorships were established in Central America. One of the explicit reasons for the military intervention in Haiti in 1994 was to restrain the flow of migrants onto U.S. shores. And, although the U.S. does not officially maintain relations with Cuba, migration concerns gained priority over diplomatic ones leading to negotiations on the Cuban Migration Agreement and to a reversal of policy regarding the interdiction of Cuban migrants.

Some observers believe that environmental causes now rival economic and political instability as a major source of forced migration throughout the world. There are estimates that as many as one-hundred million people may be displaced, in part, because of degradation of land and natural resources. "That will increase the pressure to migrate to places like the United States." [22] The pervasive deterioration of Mexico's rural drylands may contribute to between 700,000 and 900,000 people a year leaving rural areas. [23] Environmental degradation in Mexico, Haiti, and Central America also are believed to have migration consequences for the U.S. Often environmental problems intersect with other causes. One researcher argues that migrants from Haiti may be considered "environmental refugees" because the root causes of their migrations are land degradation and the Haitian government's unwillingness to act in the interest of the general population." [24]

Stabilizing economic growth and democracy may be an effective means of reducing migration pressures. The Commission for the Study of International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development 25 concluded that, over the long run of a generation or more, trade and investment are likely to reduce migration pressures. Supporters of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] argued that NAFTA­related development eventually will reduce unauthorized Mexican migration. The U.S. has provided the reinstalled democratically­elected government of Haiti with a great deal of rehabilitation assistance that should aid the stability of that country.

Properly­regulated immigration and immigrant policy serves the national interest by ensuring the entry of those who will contribute most to our society and helping lawful newcomers adjust to life in the United States. It must give due consideration to shifting economic realities. A well­regulated system sets priorities for admission; facilitates nuclear family reunification; gives employers access to a global labor market while protecting U.S. workers; helps to generate jobs and economic growth; and fulfills our commitment to resettle refugees as one of several elements of humanitarian protection of the persecuted.

Immigration to the United States has created one of the world's most successful multiethnic nations. We believe these truths constitute the distinctive characteristics of American nationality:

• American unity depends upon a widely­held belief in the principles and values embodied in the American Constitution and their fulfillment in practice: equal protection and justice under the law; freedom of speech and religion; and representative government;

• Lawfully­admitted newcomers of any ancestral nationality -  without regard to race, ethnicity, or religion - truly become Americans when they give allegiance to these principles and values;

• Ethnic and religious diversity based on personal freedom is compatible with national unity; and

• The nation is strengthened when those who live in it communicate effectively with each other in English, even as many persons retain or acquire the ability to communicate in other languages.

The U.S. has fought for the principles of individual rights and equal protection under the law, notions that now apply to all our residents. We have long recognized that immigrants are entitled to the full protection of our Constitution and laws. The U.S. also has the sovereign right to impose appropriate obligations on immigrants. In our 1995 report to Congress, the Commission called for a new commitment to Americanization. In a public speech that same year, Barbara Jordan, our late chair, noted: "That word earned a bad reputation when it was stolen by racists and xenophobes in the 1920s. But it is our word, and we are taking it back." Americanization is the process of integration by which immigrants become part of our communities and by which our communities and the nation learn from and adapt to their presence.

This process enhances our unity by focusing on what is important, through acknowledging that the many real differences among us as individuals do not alter our essential character as a nation.

The Commission reiterates its call for the Americanization of new immigrants.

This Americanization process depends on a set of expectations that the United States, which chooses to invite legal immigrants, legitimately has of newcomers. It applies equally to the expectations immigrants legitimately have of their new home.

The Commission proposes that the principles of Americanization be made more explicit through the covenant between immigrant and citizens. These principles are not mere abstractions. They can form a covenant between ourselves and immigrant newcomers. As President Johnson eloquently stated in 1965:

They came here - the exile and the stranger... They made a covenant with this land. Conceived in justice, written in liberty, bound in union, it was meant one day to inspire the hopes of all mankind; and it binds us still. If we keep its terms, we shall flourish.

Voluntary.

Immigration to the United States - a benefit to both citizens and immigrants - is not an entitlement and Americanization cannot be forced. We as a nation choose to admit immigrants because we find lawful immigration serves our interests in many ways. Likewise, no one requires immigrants to come here or to become citizens; they choose to come and, if they naturalize, they choose to become a part of our polity.

Mutual and reciprocal.

Immigration presents mutual obligations. Immigrants must accept the obligations we impose - to obey our laws, to pay taxes, to respect other cultures and ethnic groups. At the same time, citizens incur obligations to provide an environment in which newcomers can become fully participating members of our society. We must not exclude them from our community nor bar them from the polity after admission. This obligation to immigrants by no means excuses us from our obligations to our own disadvantaged populations. To the extent that immigration poses undue burdens on our communities, our citizenry, or immigrants themselves, we have an obligation to recognize and address them.

Thus the United States assumes an obligation to those it admits, as immigrants assume an obligation to this country they chose. Having affirmatively admitted the newcomer, the federal government necessarily extends civic and societal rights. Unfortunately recent legislative changes effectively have excluded immigrants from the public safety net until such time as they become naturalized citizens. This Commission previously recommended against such action. We believe it is likely that these changes will lead to greater problems both for immigrants and for the communities in which they live. Legislation that leads immigrants to seek citizenship to protect eligibility for social benefits, rather than out of commitment to our polity, provides the wrong incentive. The effect is not to exalt citizenship, but to diminish it.

Individual, not collective.

The United States is a nation founded on the proposition that each individual is born with certain rights and that the purpose of government is to secure these rights. The United States admits immigrants as individuals (or individual members of families). As long as the United States continues to emphasize the rights of individuals over those of groups, we need not fear that the diversity brought by immigration will lead to ethnic division or disunity. Of course, the right to assemble and join with others is a fundamental right of all Americans, immigrants included. However, unlike other countries, including those from which many immigrants come, rights in the United States are not defined by ethnicity, religion, or membership in any group; nor can immigrants be denied rights because they are members of a particular ethnic, religious, or political group.

The Commission recommends that the federal, state, and local governments take an active role in helping newcomers become self­reliant: orienting immigrants and receiving communities as to their mutual rights and responsibilities, providing information they need for successful integration, and encouraging the development of local capacities to mediate when divisions occur between groups.

Information and orientation must be provided both to immigrants and to their receiving communities. The experience of "newcomer schools" is that providing coordinated information and advice on life in the United States accelerates the integration of newcomers, which, in turn, decreases the negative impacts on communities. Information on expected impacts and successful programs can help localities foster immigrant integration and mediate differences to avoid community conflicts.

More specifically, to integrate into American society, immigrants need information on their legal rights and obligations, on American core civic beliefs, on how to access services, and on immigration­related requirements. Communities require information on the numbers and characteristics of immigrants arriving in their midst, the eligibility of newcomers for various services, the legal responsibilities of state and local government agencies, and similar matters.

The Commission believes the federal government should help immigrants and local communities by:

• Giving orientation materials to legal immigrants upon admission that include, but are not limited to: a welcoming greeting; a brief discussion of U.S. history, law, and prin­ ciples of U.S. democracy; tools to help the immigrant locate and use services for which they are eligible; and other immigration­related information and documents. All immigrants would receive the same materials. The packets would be available in English and the main immigrant languages. It is not the Commission's intent to prescribe all parts of an orientation packet but, rather, to suggest the most important information and key resources that should be included.

• Welcoming statement.
  The Welcoming Statement would congratulate immigrants on their decision to become permanent residents of the United States. It also would summarize the basic principles that all Americans embrace.

  Example of a Welcoming Statement

  Congratulations on your decision to immigrate to the United States of America. Best wishes for a successful settlement in your new home. This is a proud country of individual freedom, opportunity, and diversity with a long tradition of immigration. Finding success and opportunity in the United States can be difficult. We realize that immigrants face many challenges as they become self­reliant, such as learning a new language and adjusting to new circumstances. The U.S. has learned from its tradition of immigration that patience, tolerance, and adaptability are required from each and every one of us. Basic American principles that you are asked to embrace include: a commitment to serve the best interests of the United States and the community in which you live; knowledge of and respect for our laws and democratic institutions; respect for freedom of speech and religion; and a commitment not to discriminate against others on the basis of nationality, race, sex, or religion. The excerpts from the U.S. history and law section of your orientation packet should serve to illustrate the meaning of these important principles. We the people of the United States welcome you.

  Example of Documents on the Founding Principles

  On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted a Declaration drafted by Thomas Jefferson that defined the commitment of a new nation to the principles of liberty and justice for all:

  We hold these Truths to be self­evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...

  The greatest contradiction in the new nation's founding was the institution of human slavery, which ended only after a bloody civil war (1860­1864). After the decisive battle at Gettysburg, in 1863, Abraham Lincoln dedicated the cemetery, ending with these words:

  [W]e here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain  -  that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom  -  and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

  After the Civil War, the effort to live up to the promises of the founding principles intensified. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony was arrested for attempting to vote in a Presidential election. Her speech on the rights of women was an important step toward gaining women the vote:

  The preamble of the federal Constitution says . . . It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not the half of ourselves and our posterity; but to the whole people  - women as well as men.

  Way into the twentieth century, the founding principles continue to challenge Americans. In 1963, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. led a peaceful March on Washington, and spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in the cause of civil rights.

  When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

  I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self­evident; that all men are created equal... I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character ... And if America is to be a great nation this must become true."

  U.S. history , law, and principles of democracy

  This would include a brief history of the United States and of the principles listed in the welcoming statement, followed by excerpts from relevant historical documents. It would stress that American civic culture is based on a trust in ordinary people's ability to govern themselves through their elected representatives who are then accountable to the people, on the right of all members of the polity to participate in public life as equals, and on the freedom of individual members of the community to differ from each other in religion and other private matters.

  Tools for settlement.

  This section would emphasize the development of self­reliance. It would include general information and checklists to aid immigrants in finding and using services in their community that may help them in developing economic independence.

  Example of Tools for Settlement

  What to expect upon immigration: information to orient newcomers on federal policies and services, such as a pre­/post­arrival checklist on admissions, information for those adjusting status on new rights and responsibilities as permanent residents, reminder to register for military service if necessary, the role of government agencies and service providers; consumer protection and tax policies; How to secure basic needs: information on housing, employment, education and language training, health, transportation, police and fire protection, managing finances, and cultural adjustment; Finding assistance and advice: telephone numbers for the local information clearinghouses, government agencies; documents listing weight and measurement conversions, U.S. holidays, instructions in using the telephone and postal systems; a U.S. map; Getting involved in the community: listings of community organizations (e.g., civic, sports, arts) and volunteer opportunities.

  Immigration information and documents. This section would provide necessary immigration forms, information on naturalization, and a card for non­English­speaking immigrants to indicate their need for an interpreter.

  Encouraging state governments to establish information clearinghouses in major immigrant-receiving communities.

  The Commission recommends that the federal government provide modest incentive grants to states to encourage them to establish and maintain local resources that would provide information to immigrants and local communities. For example, local information clearinghouses could provide information to immigrants on rights and responsibilities, naturalization, education and training, and the world of work. They could have materials available on tenant law and renter/landlord rights and responsibilities. They could spell out how U.S. family law (regarding marriage and prohibiting spouse and child abuse, polygamy, and female genital mutilation, etc.) may differ from other cultures. They could provide information on public life (driving, insurance, hunting/fishing licences, law enforcement, consumer protection, etc.). They could also provide information to local public and private organizations about immigrants, e.g., documentation, culture/background, eligibility status for programs, work authorization verification.

  The resource centers could develop, translate and disseminate materials; foster partnerships among immigrant interest groups, ethnic churches, and service providers (advisory boards, taskforces, planning boards, coalitions); and develop volunteer networks in immigrant communities to help newly­arriving immigrants. These efforts could help reduce community tensions arising from immigration by providing accurate information and helping communities find ways to mediate these tensions. The resource centers could also provide information on model programs implemented by businesses, service agencies, and others.

  The Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Department of Health and Human Services, which already provides funding for refugee services, could administer this grant program. Each state receiving funds would designate the local structure through which the funding would be administered as part of its application for funds. Some states are likely to designate the state refugee coordinator's office, but others may designate the state education department. States had similar flexibility when they received funds under the State Legalization Impact Assistance Grant [SLIAG] program. These already­existing structures could easily integrate the proposed services with only modest financial increments.

  Based on its consultations, the Commission believes that an annual appropriation of $30­35 million would cover development of orientation materials and underwrite services in forty to fifty targeted communities. The monies should be administered flexibly, not as a formula to each state. Targeted areas should include those with historically significant numbers of immigrants as well as communities experiencing a sudden growth in immigrant arrivals. (In Garden City, Kansas, for example, the Commission observed how the arrival of new meatpacking plants changed the population from one with few foreign­born residents a decade ago to one with a sizeable immigrant component today.)

  Promoting public/private partnerships to orient and assist Promoting public/private partnerships to orient and assist immigrants in adapting to life in the United States.

  The Commission previously has called for a renewed public/ private partnership in the Americanization of immigrants. While the federal government makes the decisions about how many and which immigrants will be admitted to the United States, the actual process of integration takes place in local communities. Local government, schools, businesses, religious institutions, ethnic associations, and other groups play important roles in the Americanization process.

  The Commission urges the federal government to assemble leaders from the public and private sectors at the federal, state, and local levels to discuss ways to invigorate a public/private partnership to promote Americanization. The participants should include representatives of state and local educational systems, businesses, labor, local governments, and community organizations. The meeting would address ways to enhance resources for instruction in English language acquisition, civic understanding, and workplace skills. The federal grant program described above also could help promote more coordinated efforts at the local level by establishing advisory structures representing the various public and private institutions with interest in immigration matters.

The Fannie Mae Foundation built a model public/ private initiative with community­based organizations, public officials, and lenders to facilitate home ownership and naturalization for immigrants. Project Vida in El Paso provides medical services to the Latino border community. Funded by the Presbyterian Church and public/private grants and contracts, Vida developed "one­stop shopping" for primary health care, education, housing, and other social services. It built 20 affordable rental units; and helped to generate an increase in local elementary school reading scores.

In addition to the problems other students have, immigrant children face particular problems in gaining an education - often because of language difficulties. The 1990 Census shows that 87 percent of immigrant children attended high school as compared to 93 percent of natives. More than one­fourth of Mexican immigrant youth be­ tween ages 15 and 17 were not in school in 1990. While some dropped out, others never "dropped in" to school in the first place.

Immigrant children often come from countries with customs, traditions, and social and governmental structures that differ from those they encounter in the U.S.; some have little or no formal education and no understanding of the American school system; some arrive with personal experiences of trauma and war; many older children come from countries where school ends at a younger age; many experience lengthy delays in being mainstreamed into regular English-speaking classes; and some do not receive appropriate­level instruc­ tion in other academic subjects while they are learning English.

Immigrant children also bring strengths to American society. For example, their native­language skills contribute to building the fu­ ture multilingual workforce needed in a global economy; sharing of their cultural heritage will promote the sensitivity of that workforce as it interacts in a worldwide marketplace. Many immigrant children who enroll in school and then remain to graduate do well academically. These immigrant children are more likely than natives to prepare for, attend, and complete college. [2] The key, however, is helping them achieve sufficient English proficiency to be able to participate.

The Commission emphasizes that rapid acquisition of English should be the paramount goal of any immigrant language instruction program English is the most critical of basic skills for successful inte­ gration. English can be taught to children in many ways. Effective programs share certain common characteristics. Based on a review of these programs, the Commission emphasizes the need to:

• Conduct regular evaluations of students' English competence and their ability to apply it to academic subjects.
  Such evaluations will ensure placement of immigrant children into regular English­speaking classes as soon as they are prepared. Regular evaluation also will highlight strengths and weaknesses in educational programs and provide insight on improvements that are needed to ensure timely English acquisition.

  Collect and analyze data regularly on students, their linguistic and academic performance, and the method of instruction.

  Presently, federal, state, and local governments fail to collect and analyze adequate, uniform, data on bilingual and other forms of English instruction. Such failure hinders overall evaluation and the responsible allocation of government funds. A 1997 National Research Council report [3] pointed out the need for new systems to support data collection and research in this area. The NRC recommended establishment of a new Department of Education Advisory Committee on Research on English­Language Learners, urged the National Center for Education Statistics to take the lead in collecting data on students and programs, and recommended that the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs take the lead in developing and evaluating programs to enhance teacher development.

  The Commission emphasizes that rapid acquisition of English should be the paramount goal of any immigrant language instruction program.

  Include appropriate grade­level instruction in other academic disciplines

  Coordination with teachers, curricula, and instruction outside of English acquisition will promote students' mastery of regular subject matter while they learn English.

  Involve parents of immigrant students in their schooling.

  A characteristic of many of the most successful language acquisition programs is the active involvement of parents in the education of their children. Such "family literacy" models include programs that promote frequent parent­teacher conferences and that also encourage non­English­speaking parents to enroll in English as a Second Language [ESL] programs. Some of the adult programs are offered at the local school in the evenings.

  The Commission encourages programs that are responsive to the needs of immigrant children and an orientation to United States school systems and the community, such as we have seen in "newcomer schools." Newcomer schools must not isolate immigrant newcomers. Instead, they must be transitional and actively promote the timely integration of students into mainstream schools. Successful programs recognize the special needs of immigrant children, particularly refugees. They share information among resettlement programs and school administrators and among English acquisition and regular classroom teachers. Along with English and other academic subjects, newcomer schools teach basic school survival and living skills (such as how the local transportation system works and how to shop for food) and develop intercultural communications. Some also provide access to a wide range of support services, such as health screenings and immunizations.

  The Commission encourages programs that are responsive to immigrant children's needs and an orientation to United States school systems and the community.

  Seattle's Sharples Center teaches refugee students with limited or no English proficiency in grades six through twelve. They are grouped by English language ability, not age. Because of high demand, they usually can stay for only six months or less. The program focuses on preventing subsequent low academic performance and also preventing the high dropout rates that occur when students with limited English proficiency are mainstreamed too soon.

  The Commission recommends the revival and emphasis on evival and emphasis on instruction of all kinder garten through grade twelve students in the common civic culture that is essential to citizenship.

San Francisco's Newcomer High School was the nation's first high school devoted entirely to immigrants. Students with less than six years of education and/or poor English skills may attend for up to a year of intensive instruction based on their English ability rather than on their age. Before they are mainstreamed, students are taken to see their new school and meet their new teachers.

The Commission emphasizes the urgent need to recruit, train, and provide support to teachers who work with immigrant students.

There is a disturbing shortage of qualified teachers for children with limited English proficiency, of teacher training programs for producing such teachers, and of other support for effective English acquisition instruction.

More than 50 percent of teachers in current bilingual education programs have no formal education in teaching students with limited English skills. Teachers are often unprepared and untrained in understanding how the cultural background and experiences of immigrant children may affect their ability to learn. They need to understand that while many students quickly acquire skill in using and understanding English in social situations, acquiring academic proficiency in English takes longer.

All teachers of immigrant students - those who teach English and those who teach other academic subjects - need training to develop the most effective tools for imparting knowledge to students with limited English proficiency. Teachers also need help in understanding how best to involve immigrant parents who may themselves be limited in their command of English. Schools that have been effective in involving immigrant parents in their children's education tend to be more effective in retaining and educating students. To promote such involvement, teachers must be sensitive to differences in language and culture that may impede an immigrant parent's ability to participate in school activities.

The Commission supports immigrant education funding that is based on a more accurate assessment of the impact of immigration on school systems and that is adequate to alleviate these impacts. Urban and rural schools often require federal assistance when confronted with large numbers of immigrant students. Current federal support comes through several unrelated funding streams: some is geared to particular instructional models; some is directed to address impacts of large numbers of new arrivals; however, most comes indirectly through monies targeted to schools with economically disadvantaged children who are performing poorly.

There are costs and responsibilities for language acquisition and immigrant education programs that are not now being met. We urge the federal government to do its fair share in meeting this challenge. The long­run costs of failure in terms of dropouts and poorly­educated adults will be far larger for the nation and local communities than the costs of such programs.

More specifically, we urge the federal government to:

• Provide flexibility in federal funding for the teaching of English to immigrant students to achieve maximum local choice of instructional model.
  The federal government should not mandate any one mode of instruction (e.g., bilingual education, English as a Second Language programs, immersion). Research indicates that no one pedagogical model for English instruction works more effectively than any other. What makes for success are: the commitment of the local school system to educate its English learners; well­trained teachers who are adept at English language instruction; involvement of parents; frequent evaluation of student language acquisition; and a plan for timely placements in mainstream programs.

  Make funding contingent on performance outcomes -  that is, English language acquisition and mastery of regular academic subject matter by students served in these pro­academic subject matter by students served in these programs.

  School systems receiving funds because of large numbers of children with limited English proficiency and immigrant children should be held to rigorous performance standards. Incentives should promote - not impede  -  expeditious placement in regular, English­speaking, classes.

Washington, DC's public Bell Multicultural High School offers secondary and adult day/evening intensive English classes, vocational programs, career development, dropout prevention, technical preparation, and comprehensive math and science.Bell students have high attendance rates, high advanced placement exam scores, and high rates of continuing on to higher education. Last year counselors assisted more than 30 students to become citizens. Many staff are both immigrant and multilingual and, thus, can both empathize with students' transitions and support Bell's strong native language­maintenance program.

The Commission urges the federal, state, and local governments and private institutions to enhance educational opportunities for adult immigrants.

Education for basic skills and literacy in English is the major vehicle that integrates adult immigrants into American society and participation in its civic activities. Literate adults are more likely to participate in the workforce and twice as likely to participate in our democracy. Literate adults foster literacy in their children, and parents' educational levels positively affect their children's academic performance.

According to the 1990 Census, a total of 5.8 million adults reported that they speak English "not well" or "not at all." This number continues to grow because of the entry of non­English­speaking immigrants. Researchers estimate that 600,000 adults with only limited or no English now enter the United States each year. Immigrants who are illiterate even in their native language or who have only a few years of schooling consequently are confined to employment in dead­end jobs.

Adult education is severely underfunded. Available resources are inadequate to meet the demand for adult immigrant education, particularly for English proficiency and job skills. Enrollment in adult English as a Second Language classes increased 183 percent from 1980 to 1990; neither classes nor funding have kept pace with demand. In Massachusetts, a state widely recognized for its excellent adult education programs, an estimated 11,000 of the 16,000 on the waiting list for adult basic education are waiting for ESL ser­ vices. Three principal problems impede the capacity to expand opportunities for adult education. First, funding to subsidize courses is limited. Many adult immigrants are willing and able to pay some tuition for courses, expecting a positive return on this investment. However, given average income levels of uneducated, unskilled immigrants, they are unlikely to be able to cover the total costs of adult education courses.

The Carlos Rosario Adult and Career Center in Washington DC. was for 25 years the only DC public school teaching English to adult foreigners, graduating classes as large as 650 students. Closed due to funding constraints, it reopened with private funding in a church in Chinatown. Courses are offered in computer use, nursing assistance, and GED.

Second, teacher training programs are limited, resulting in shortages in the number of qualified teachers. For example, in Massachusetts, there are only two training programs for teachers of ESL to adults and no Masters­level program for teachers of adult basic education. Many schools utilize volunteers to serve as tutors, but there is an insufficient number of trained teachers to provide guidance to these volunteer aides.

The third impediment relates to the general quality of adult education programs. The General Accounting Office [GAO] reported in 1995 that adult education and literacy programs funded by the U.S. Department of Education have no defined objectives, valid assessment instruments, or accurate program data.

In the early part of the twentieth century, state departments of education and local school boards played an active role in the Americanization of immigrants. They committed resources to adult education in evening and weekend classes because they recognized the importance of economic and civic incorporation into their communities. Similarly, many turn­of­the­century businesses participated in the Americanization movement, recognizing the benefits to their operations accruing from a literate, educated workforce.

There has been a shift away from this once widely­held public perception of immigrant adult education as a local responsibility, with its local community­and school­based programs. The source of funding is federal and state (as compared to kindergarten through grade twelve education that is financed primarily through local taxes). While many local school districts continue to provide classrooms and other resources, others do not. In this setting of excess demand for adult education, volunteers and low­cost options do exist. Access to relatively inexpensive classroom space often is a major impediment to program implementation. But  - even though publicly­owned classroom space is often available and unused during evening and weekend hours  -  such limitations persist.

The Resources Occupational Training Program in Brooklyn, New York, a nonprofit adult vocational training program, operates as an affiliate of the Catholic Migration Office of the Diocese of Brook­lyn. Launched in 1994 with seed money from an Italian businessman, it trains and places 98 percent of its immigrant students in well­paying jobs without government assistance. Responding to requests from its limited English­speaking employees, the United Electric Control Corporation in Watertown, Massachusetts in 1992 launched an educational and vocational skills training program. Employees are given time off from work to take courses in a program that is so successful that it led to the formation of a consortium of Boston area high­technology companies to provide the same services. In this case, the program was given a jump start by a federal workplace literacy program grant.

In recognition of the benefits they receive from immigration, the Commission urges leaders from businesses and corporations to participate in skills training, English instruction, and civics education programs for immigrants. Religious schools and institutions, charities, foundations, community organizations, public and private schools, colleges and universities also can contribute resources, facilities, and expertise. All of these sectors benefit from having skilled, English­speaking workers and residents. For example, local school systems could open schools after hours to community groups providing English instruction on a volunteer basis, and businesses could provide employees the opportunity for such classes at the jobsite. Such public/private partnerships can contribute in many ways to a greater range of educational opportunities for immigrants.

Naturalization is the most important act that a legal immigrant undertakes in the process of becoming an American. Taking this step confers upon the immigrant all the rights and responsibilities of civic and political participation that the United States has to offer (except becoming President). The Commission reiterates its belief that no action should be taken that detracts from the appeal of citizenship as an opportunity to become a member of the polity. The naturalization process must be credible, and it must be accorded the formality and ceremony appropriate to its importance.

The Commission believes that the current legal requirements for naturalization are appropriate, but improvements are needed in the means used to measure that an applicant meets these requirements.

To naturalize, legal immigrants must meet certain threshold requirements; these have remained remarkably consistent throughout our history. At present, to naturalize, a legal permanent residents must reside in the United States for five years (three years for spouses of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who serve in the military); demonstrate the ability to read, write, speak, and understand English; pass a U.S. history and civics exam; be of good moral character; and take an oath of allegiance.

The Boeing Company and the International Association of Machinists provide training and skills development to current and laid­off workers that includes English as a Second Language and professional English development. Boeing also provided in­kind production services for a community­based organization naturalization video series in eight languages. Maid Bess, a contract apparel business in Salem, Virginia provides free on-site English instruction to its refugee employees with the help of a local refugee resettlement agency. Among its more than 400 employees, 17 national and ethnic groups are represented. On its annual "International Day," all employees are encouraged to dress in the traditional costume of their native country or that of their ancestors.

With regard to the specific legal requirements, the Commission sup­ ports:

• Maintaining requirements that legal immigrants must reside in the United States for five years (three years for spouses of U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents who serve in the military) before naturalizing.
  We believe five years is adequate for immigrants to embrace, understand, and demonstrate their knowledge of the principles of American democracy.

  Improving the mechanisms used to demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history, civics, and English competence.

  The Commission believes that the tests used in naturalization should seek to determine if applicants have a meaningful knowledge of U.S. history and civics and are able to communicate in English. The current tests do not adequately assess such understanding or abilities. The civics test, for example, relies on memorization of discrete facts rather than on substantive understanding of the basic concepts of civic participation.

The Arlington County, Virginia, Wilson Center provides education and training for immigrants using federal refugee program funds for language and employment services. It offers citizenship and English as a Second Language classes (focusing on child rearing and family violence). As the school registration center for foreign­born children, it can readily inform immigrants of its services. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company in India Hill, Illinois, learned the lengthy naturalization process was of major concern for its employees. It worked with the Chicago INS office to distribute naturalization applications and study guides to employees and provided space for officials to conduct interviews and naturalization ceremonies. A total of 400 employees and their family members became citizens.

These new standards will be meaningful only if applied eq­ uitably and there is a much greater capacity to monitor the agencies that give the tests. [See below.]

A more predictable and standardized testing process also must include consistent and rational exemptions for elderly legal permanent residents. At present English language exemptions are granted to legal permanent residents aged 50 years or older who have lived in the United States at least twenty years and to those 55 years of age who have resided in the U.S. for at least fifteen years. Special consideration on the civics component is given to naturalization applicants aged 65 or older who have resided in the U.S. for at least twenty years. The Commission supports these exemptions. However, it makes little sense to confer such exemptions on long­term legal residents, yet not on more recent elderly legal residents who have had less time to acquire English proficiency. The Commission calls for a thorough review of the current testing exemptions and urges the Congress to consider additional, narrowly­tailored exemptions to the English requirement for qualified elderly immigrants who have resided in the U.S. for fewer years than required by the current exemptions.