Ready to Stay: A Comprehensive Analysis of the US Foreign-Born Populations Eligible for Special Legal Status Programs and for Legalization Under Pending Bills

I. Introduction

This paper provides estimates of US foreign-born populations that could be eligible for legalization (permanent residence) ¹ under pending bills, whether as principal or derivative beneficiaries. It also analyzes populations eligible for temporary status or a reprieve from removal under special legal status programs. In producing these estimates, the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) seeks to provide policymakers, government agencies, community-based organizations (CBOs), researchers, and others with an important tool to assess the potential impact, implement, and analyze the success of these programs, including in real-time. CMS initiated this study in partnership with Ready to Stay, a national coalition of agencies “working to build field capacities and coordination for effective implementation of a large-scale immigration legalization program” and to facilitate “coordination and resources for implementation efforts” (Ready to Stay 2021).

The lengthy table in Appendix A sets forth the legislative and administrative programs analyzed in the paper, program eligibility criteria, the American Community Survey (ACS) characteristics CMS used to derive its estimates, the status of these programs, and the size of potentially eligible populations. The report analyzes the following special legal status programs and populations:

The original Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

These estimates were derived from detailed data collected in the US Census Bureau’s 2019 ACS. Legal status of each noncitizen in the survey was assigned based on CMS’s methodology described in Warren (2021). Estimates are available for populations eligible for legalization or legal status on a national, state, county, metropolitan, and public use microdata area (PUMA) of roughly 100,000 persons. CMS does not report numbers that round to less than 500 (which reflects roughly five persons surveyed) because the sampling variability is too large for samples below that number.

II. Findings

Populations Eligible for Special Legal Status Programs and for Legalization Under Pending Bills

Table 1 provides estimates and characteristics of populations that would be eligible for general and population-specific legalization programs and for special legal status programs. The authors have selected these characteristics for their relative importance in assisting CBOs, government officials, and others to allocate their limited resources and to craft outreach, public education, self-help, and capacity-building strategies. They can also assist policymakers to assess the potential impact of these programs and researchers to evaluate and to identify key determinants of participation in them.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Estimates of the Number and Characteristics of the Population Affected by Legislative/Administrative Programs: Estimates Derived from 2019 ACS Data.

Program	Total	In the US 15+ years	Speak English well, very well, or only English	Completed high school	Some college, B.A., or higher	Household income above poverty level	Have health insurance	Own or are buying home
Administrative Programs
DACA: Original Program	926,400	83%	90%	97%	45%	85%	53%	38%
Venezuela DED	192,200	8%	62%	95%	77%	79%	66%	25%
Hong Kong DED	9,300	26%	80%	86%	70%	95%	85%	62%
Countries Designated for Temporary Protected Status
Burma/Myanmar	1,800	77%	53%	46%	21%	83%	73%	31%
El Salvador	193,800	100%	50%	37%	13%	88%	56%	48%
Haiti	115,300	32%	75%	77%	40%	82%	63%	33%
Honduras	56,500	100%	49%	50%	17%	82%	46%	35%
Nepal	29,100	6%	74%	69%	51%	89%	83%	28%
Nicaragua	14,300	100%	71%	58%	23%	87%	54%	47%
Somalia	Fewer than 500; data not shown.
Sudan	1,300	0%	100%	95%	67%	33%	67%	0%
Syria	8,800	20%	70%	62%	29%	76%	85%	31%
Venezuela	192,200	8%	62%	95%	77%	79%	66%	25%
Yemen	5,700	17%	51%	68%	27%	81%	75%	31%
TPS-Designated Countries that May be Eligible for (Re)Designation
El Salvador	523,000	19%	45%	49%	19%	78%	39%	30%
Honduras	409,400	19%	41%	46%	18%	67%	26%	20%
Nicaragua	35,500	26%	38%	71%	30%	81%	37%	31%
Sudan	6,800	0%	57%	100%	100%	73%	79%	37%
Countries Not Currently Designated for TPS
Ethiopia	30,000	10%	83%	86%	53%	76%	72%	24%
Guatemala	662,500	34%	38%	37%	14%	71%	30%	22%
Sierra Leone	6,700	21%	92%	98%	53%	68%	57%	16%
American Dream and Promise Act of 2021
Conditional permanent residence
	1,425,900	68%	85%	100%	44%	85%	53%	37%
Removal of conditions on permanent
residence	951,700	77%	84%	100%	44%	91%	56%	37%
Direct adjustment to LPR status for TPS recipients under
the Promise Act	375,200	82%	59%	50%	22%	86%	59%	41%
Direct adjustment to LPR status for DED recipients under
the Promise Act	189,600	9%	64%	95%	77%	83%	70%	27%
Dream Act of 2021
Conditional permanent residence
	2,245,400	45%	86%	95%	42%	80%	58%	37%
Removal of conditions
on permanent residence	595,500	88%	89%	99%	46%	92%	56%	39%
Citizenship for Essential Workers Act
Adjust to LPR status for essential workers and surviving
family members	7,201,700	47%	56%	57%	28%	84%	46%	35%
Essential Workers	5,469,700	50%	56%	57%	29%	87%	47%	35%
Spouses	909,400	53%	40%	49%	24%	72%	36%	37%
Children	719,100	13%	82%	78%	40%	74%	54%	34%
Parents	103,500	57%	29%	42%	20%	87%	36%	41%
Farm Workforce Modernization Act
CAW
status	343,400	51%	28%	33%	10%	83%	39%	26%
Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act
LRIF
program	7,200	3%	96%	92%	56%	100%	61%	22%
US Citizenship Act of 2021
General legalization
program	10,348,900	42%	59%	60%	33%	80%	50%	37%
LPR Status for DACA recipients and
childhood arrivals	951,600	77%	84%	100%	44%	91%	56%	37%
DACA recipients	591,200	88%	89%	100%	46%	92%	56%	39%
Other childhood
arrivals	360,300	58%	76%	100%	39%	89%	55%	36%
Total TPS-DED
recipients	375,200	82%	59%	50%	22%	86%	59%	41%
Spouses	188,900	85%	55%	47%	20%	88%	61%	48%
Agricultural
workers	343,400	51%	28%	33%	10%	83%	39%	26%
Spouses	193,400	54%	29%	29%	9%	82%	44%	29%
Immediate family members of US citizens that might benefit from removal of
3- and 10-year bars	1,282,600	55%	56%	51%	21%	88%	53%	51%

Source: Center for Migration Studies. Estimates derived from data collected in the 2019 ACS; see Appendix in Warren (2021) for methods of estimation. Source of ACS data: Steven Ruggles, Sarah Flood, Sophia Foster, Ronald Goeken, Jose Pacas, Megan Schouweiler, and Matthew Sobek. IPUMS USA: Version 11.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS, 2021. https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V11.0.

Many populations have overlapping needs and many immigrants are eligible for multiple programs. For example, 91 percent of TPS-eligible persons in 2017, who entered pre-2017, are essential workers, and virtually all the persons eligible for population-specific legalization programs would also be eligible for a general legalization program. That said, the chart also demonstrates that a one-size-fits-all approach to legalization preparedness and implementation would be counter-productive given the substantial differences between these populations in size, length of residency, socio-economic attainment, education, and English language proficiency. For example, about 86 percent of the 2.2 million covered by the Dream Act of 2021 speak English well, very well, or only English (Table 1). By comparison, only 28 percent of those eligible for CAW status under the Farm Workforce Modernization Act are proficient in English. Nearly all childhood arrivals have graduated from high school, but only a third of the CAW-eligible are high school graduates. Seventy-seven percent of Venezuelans eligible for DED have attended college, compared to 13 percent of Salvadorans eligible for TPS. Eighty-three percent of TPS-eligible Nepalis have health insurance, compared to 26 percent of the Hondurans that would be newly eligible for TPS if DHS re-designated Honduras for TPS (Table 1).

Table 1 also provides an opportunity to assess the relationship between the detailed characteristics of different populations. We would expect, for example, for English proficiency to be associated with completing high school, going to college, having household incomes above the poverty level, having health insurance, and buying a home. The correlations in Table 2 confirm these expectations and show the relative strengths of these relationships.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Correlation Between Selected Characteristics of Populations Affected by Proposed Programs. ^a

Characteristic	Fluent in English	Completed high school	Some college, B.A., or higher	Household income above poverty level	Have health insurance	Own or are buying home
In the US 15 years or more	0.22	−0.03	−0.36	0.67	0.11	0.69
Fluent in English		0.89	0.63	0.41	0.65	0.31
Completed high school			0.85	0.32	0.63	0.03
Some college, BA, or higher				0.11	0.70	−0.18
Household income above poverty level					0.41	0.64
Have health insurance						0.34

Source: Center for Migration Studies. Correlation coefficients derived from the data for programs with 30,000 or more are in Table 1.

^a

Caution should be exercised in interpreting the figures in Table 2. The correlation coefficients are based on data from multiple programs; some immigrants are included in more than one proposed program; and the correlations are derived from percentages that have a range limited to − 100 to + 100 percent.

The data and analysis in Tables 1 and 2 show the importance of designing immigration assistance programs tailored to the diverse characteristics of each population. Populations with low levels of English language fluency, education, income, health insurance, and homeownership would need sustained attention before, during, and in the aftermath of a legalization program, while populations on the other end of the spectrum may need more targeted and limited assistance.

Some populations may be able to self-file at higher rates and negotiate legalization or special legal status programs with less or different kinds of support. Researchers and service providers, for example, have recognized the potential advantages of technology in implementing legalization and legal status programs, compared to earlier programs. Kamasaki et al. (2015, 288), for example, argue that improved technology “should make the application assistance process less burdensome today than under IRCA” and the “widespread availability of information via the Internet should ease access to documentation of continuous residence and workforce participation, should facilitate increased outreach efforts, and should enable high numbers of self-filers” (ibid). While undoubtedly true, immigration applications have also become far longer and more complicated than they were during IRCA, and applicants for many immigration benefits must also complete a separate employment authorization form.

Those eligible for the Dream Act of 2021 should have few difficulties because 86 percent speak English well, very well, or only English, 95 percent have completed high school, and 42 percent have attended college (Table 1). Populations that have been in the DACA or TPS programs over the past several years should be familiar with the application and renewal process.

Other immigrants, particularly newly eligible populations and recent arrivals, will need more assistance to understand and negotiate these processes. Only 8 percent from Venezuela and 6 percent from Nepal, for example, have resided in the United States for 15 years or more (Table 1). Agricultural workers and their spouses could also encounter difficulties because fewer than two-thirds speak English well, very well, or only English, and roughly two-thirds have not completed high school.

Table 3 reveals the “readiness” of the largest legalization and legal status populations — as measured by years in the United States and English language proficiency — to apply for programs for which they are potentially eligible.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Percent in the US 15 Years or More and English Proficiency: Selected Programs.

Program	Total	In the US 15 years or more	Speak English well, very well, or only English
US Citizenship Act of 2021	10,348,900	42%	59%
Citizenship for Essential Workers Act	7,201,700	47%	56%
DREAM Act of 2021: conditional permanent residence for childhood arrivals	2,245,400	45%	86%
American Dream and Promise Act of 2021: conditional permanent residence	1,425,900	68%	85%
Immediate family members of US citizens
that might benefit from removal of 3 & 10-yr bar	1,282,600	55%	56%
Farm Workforce Modernization Act: CAW status	343,400	51%	28%

Source: Center for Migration Studies. Estimates based on data from the ACS; see Warren (2021) for methods of estimation.

The populations with shorter tenure in the United States and lower rates of English language proficiency would likely require more outreach and greater support in the event of a legalization program.

Tables 4–6 provide estimates and several characteristics — nationally and for the top 10 states of residence — for the populations eligible for the original DACA program, and for conditional permanent residence and removal of the conditions on permanent residence under the Dream Act of 2021. They demonstrate that these populations are not only ready to integrate successfully, but have mostly already done so.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Estimated Total Eligible for Original DACA and Selected Characteristics for the Top 10 States.

Total and Top 10 States	Total	In the US 15+ years	Speak English well, very well, or only English	Completed high school	Some college, B.A., or higher	Household income above poverty level	Have health insurance	Own or are buying home	Median household income as pct. of the US
Total	926,400	83%	90%	97%	45%	85%	53%	38%	92%
California	238,000	86%	90%	99%	48%	87%	63%	33%	109%
Texas	175,400	81%	90%	96%	45%	83%	38%	45%	84%
Florida	53,500	82%	88%	98%	43%	86%	46%	40%	85%
Illinois	43,500	88%	89%	97%	46%	85%	58%	37%	103%
New York	38,900	80%	88%	95%	53%	86%	62%	20%	121%
Arizona	35,200	86%	91%	96%	35%	86%	45%	47%	71%
Georgia	30,100	81%	91%	97%	31%	84%	44%	34%	93%
N. Carolina	28,300	83%	90%	98%	34%	85%	46%	48%	76%
Washington	25,400	85%	96%	100%	43%	92%	53%	38%	95%
New Jersey	23,500	78%	83%	99%	47%	87%	52%	35%	116%

Source: Center for Migration Studies. Estimates based on data from the ACS; see text for methods.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Estimated Total Eligible for Removal of Conditions on Permanent Residence Under the Dream Act of 2021 and Selected Characteristics for the Top 10 States.

Total and Top 10 States	Total	In the US 15+ years	Speak English well, very well, or only English	Completed high school	Some college, B.A., or higher	Household income above poverty level	Have health insurance	Own or are buying home	Median household income as pct. of the US
Total	595,500	88%	89%	99%	46%	92%	56%	39%	99%
California	157,200	92%	90%	100%	48%	93%	65%	33%	114%
Texas	109,100	86%	91%	99%	47%	89%	46%	46%	92%
Florida	39,300	86%	87%	99%	43%	92%	54%	42%	90%
Illinois	29,300	90%	86%	100%	46%	93%	55%	34%	103%
New York	28,700	88%	85%	99%	54%	90%	58%	18%	131%
Arizona	20,800	95%	94%	99%	39%	92%	45%	52%	71%
Washington	19,900	93%	97%	100%	45%	93%	52%	38%	95%
N. Carolina	18,700	85%	89%	99%	31%	90%	50%	46%	82%
Georgia	17,400	84%	90%	100%	32%	94%	49%	31%	96%
New Jersey	16,600	83%	83%	100%	51%	92%	51%	37%	118%

Source: Center for Migration Studies. Estimates based on data from the ACS; see text for methods.

A high percentage are long-term residents, virtually all have completed high school (or are in school), a third to one-half have attended college, and the overwhelming majority live in households with incomes above the poverty level. The median household income of those eligible for original DACA residing in California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey is, in fact, higher than the US median household income (Table 4). Residents of New York and New Jersey that are eligible for removal of conditions on permanent residence under the Dream Act of 2021 also have median household incomes above the US median household income (Table 5). The total eligible for removal of conditions on permanent residence under the Dream Act of 2021 (Table 6) have median household incomes that are 99 percent of the total US median income. However, two states in Table 6 — Arizona (71 percent) and North Carolina (82 percent) — have median household incomes well below the US average.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Estimated Total Eligible for Conditional Permanent Residence Under the Dream Act of 2021 and Selected Characteristics for the Top 10 States.

Total and Top 10 States	Total	In the US 15+ years	Speak English well, very well, or only English	Completed high school	Some college, B.A., or higher	Household income above poverty level	Have health insurance	Own or are buying home	Median household income as pct. of the US
Total	2,245,400	45%	86%	95%	42%	80%	58%	37%	89%
California	510,700	54%	86%	97%	45%	83%	70%	32%	99%
Texas	388,000	47%	84%	95%	41%	77%	39%	47%	82%
Florida	171,800	36%	88%	91%	41%	82%	59%	34%	77%
New York	137,500	37%	83%	92%	44%	82%	72%	22%	105%
Illinois	87,700	59%	87%	97%	44%	87%	63%	43%	98%
New Jersey	78,300	34%	84%	97%	39%	82%	58%	26%	112%
Georgia	70,800	43%	87%	96%	32%	79%	43%	41%	87%
Arizona	63,600	59%	90%	97%	38%	83%	51%	47%	71%
N. Carolina	56,700	50%	87%	96%	31%	79%	46%	45%	75%
Virginia	54,400	31%	88%	90%	51%	78%	57%	37%	71%

Source: Center for Migration Studies. Estimates based on data from the ACS; see text for methods.

Table 7 provides estimates and characteristics of TPS-eligible Venezuelans for the five US states in which more than 81 percent of this population reside, with Florida home to 53 percent of this population. As shown in Table 7, only 8 percent have resided in the United States for more than 15 years. CMS estimates for 2019 (Warren 2021) show that 150,000, or 78 percent, of the 192,200 total TPS-eligible population from Venezuela arrived after 2013. Table 7 also illustrates the geographic concentration of select populations and the need to focus preparedness and implementation resources for federal programs in particular areas.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 7.

Estimated Total Eligible for Venezuelan TPS and Selected Characteristics for the Top Five States.

Total and Top 5 States	Total	In the US 15+ years	Speak English well, very well, or only English	Completed high school	Some college, B.A., or higher	Household income above poverty level	Have health insurance	Own or are buying home	Median household income as pct. of the US
Total	192,200	8%	62%	95%	77%	79%	66%	25%	73%
Florida	102,000	7%	68%	95%	76%	83%	76%	27%	73%
Texas	33,300	5%	59%	98%	80%	61%	47%	21%	70%
Georgia	10,800	11%	43%	94%	89%	83%	65%	27%	83%
Utah	6,100	0%	50%	94%	81%	89%	34%	11%	45%
New York	4,500	23%	56%	96%	69%	96%	82%	13%	95%

Source: Center for Migration Studies. Estimates based on data from the ACS; see text for methods.

Table 8 provides estimates of the populations that are eligible or may be eligible — nationally and in the three top states — for TPS. The table includes two countries that have not been designated for TPS, but that meet the criteria for a designation (Guatemala and Sierra Leone) and four countries that should be re-designated for TPS (El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Sudan). The table illustrates the concentration of TPS and potential TPS populations in states such as California, Florida, and Texas, as well as the small size of several populations. It also suggests the dramatic effect of a TPS designation for Guatemala (662,500 would be eligible), and of re-designating El Salvador (523,000 would be newly eligible, in addition to the 193,800 now eligible) and Honduras (409,400 would be newly eligible, in addition to the 56,500 now eligible). If the DHS Secretary designates Guatemala and re-designates El Salvador and Honduras, more than 1.8 million nationals from these three Central American countries — which have been the source of significant migration to the United States in recent years — would be TPS-eligible.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 8.

Estimated Population Eligible for TPS, by Country: Total and Top Three States.

Rounded to 100s; values that round to less than 500 are not shown.
Country	US total	Top state		Second state		Third state
TPS Designated Countries Venezuela	192,200	FL	102,000	TX	33,300	GA	10,800
Burma	1,800		-		-		-
Syria	8,800	CA	4,100	AZ	1,200	NY	800
Sudan	1,300	MI	800		-		-
Nicaragua	14,300	FL	6,800	CA	2,000	TX	1,400
Nepal	29,100	PA	4,100	TX	4,100	CO	2,400
Honduras	56,500	TX	13,400	FL	8,100	CA	7,500
Haiti	115,300	FL	43,400	GA	33,600	PA	7,100
El Salvador	193,800	CA	52,300	TX	34,600	MD	16,700
Yemen	4,500	CA	1,500	MI	900	NY	800
Not Designated for TPS Guatemala (if designated)	662,500	CA	137,600	FL	70,300	TX	51,000
Sierra Leone (if designated)	6,700	PA	1,800	MD	1,700	OH	700
Not Yet Re-designated for TPS Sudan (if re-designated)	6,800	NE	1,900	TX	1,200	MN	1,100
Somalia (if re-designated)	Fewer than 500; data not shown.	-	-		-		-
Nicaragua (if re-designated)	35,500	FL	12,800	CA	6,100	TX	3,800
Honduras (if re-designated)	409,400	TX	95,600	FL	54,200	NC	32,000
El Salvador (if re-designated)	523,000	CA	119,700	TX	104,500	MD	55,400

Source: Center for Migration Studies. Derived from ACS data; see text for method of estimation.

Metropolitan Areas

Tables 9–12 provide information by metropolitan area for four of the programs shown in Table 1. It is not surprising that the large metropolitan areas around New York, Los Angeles, and Miami consistently appear at the top of these tables. However, this concentration should not obscure the fact that potential participants in these programs are widely dispersed geographically. For example, the metropolitan area that ranks 94th in the total number of undocumented residents — Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA — has just 13,500 undocumented residents, but a high number, 5,600 or 41 percent of them, would be eligible for legalization under the Farm Worker Modernization Act.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 9.

Estimated Population Eligible for Legalization Under the Citizenship for Essential Workers Act, by Metropolitan Area of Residence: Top 20 Metro Areas.

Estimates derived from 2019 ACS data. Areas ranked by a number of essential workers.
Metropolitan Area	Total undocumented population	Citizenship for Essential Workers Act	Percent of undoc. pop.
US total	10,348,900	7,201,700	70%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA	960,300	647,800	67%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA	927,900	612,300	66%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX	581,100	433,900	75%
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX	576,500	408,800	71%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL	413,300	274,300	66%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI	374,600	267,300	71%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV	367,800	267,000	73%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA	251,600	181,400	72%
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA	255,000	160,200	63%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	217,600	142,600	66%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ	196,000	138,900	71%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA	168,100	106,500	63%
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV	151,900	101,100	67%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH	149,000	97,000	65%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD	138,100	89,900	65%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	156,100	89,800	58%
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA	137,800	88,000	64%
Austin-Round Rock, TX	116,900	84,200	72%
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL	122,300	82,200	67%
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO	97,200	76,400	79%

Source: Center for Migration Studies. See text for data sources and methods of estimation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 12.

Estimated Number of TPS-Eligible that Would Be Eligible for Permanent Residence Under the US Citizenship Act, by Metropolitan Area: Top 20 Metro Areas.

Estimates derived from 2019 ACS data. Areas ranked by number eligible under the US Citizenship Act.
Metropolitan Area	Total undocumented population	US Citizenship Act	Percent of undoc. pop.
US total	10,348,900	375,200	4%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL	413,300	43,700	11%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA	927,900	42,900	5%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA	960,300	37,400	4%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV	367,800	35,000	10%
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX	576,500	25,600	4%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX	581,100	19,500	3%
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL	122,300	11,200	9%
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA	255,000	10,100	4%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA	251,600	7,200	3%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH	149,000	6,900	5%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	217,600	5,700	3%
Raleigh, NC	58,100	4,400	7%
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV	151,900	4,000	3%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD	138,100	3,900	3%
Austin-Round Rock, TX	116,900	3,700	3%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI	374,600	3,400	1%
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO	25,000	3,400	13%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ	196,000	3,300	2%
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO	97,200	3,300	3%
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC	91,500	3,300	4%

Source: Center for Migration Studies. See text for data sources and methods of estimation.

The Citizenship for Essential Workers Act would establish the largest population-specific legalization program discussed in the paper and would have the greatest impact on the undocumented population: 7.2 million or 70 percent of the undocumented population would be eligible to legalize under the Act (Table 9). Approximately two-thirds of the undocumented essential worker population reside in the 20 largest metropolitan areas shown in Table 9.

Table 10 shows estimates of the number of farm workers that would be eligible for legal status under the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. Forty-one percent (140,000) reside in California. In fact, California has as many eligible workers as the sum of the next 11 states, and it has 11 of the top 20 metropolitan areas for farm workers (Table 10).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 10.

Estimated Population Eligible for Certified Agricultural Worker Status Under the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, by Metropolitan Area: Top 20 Metro Areas.

Estimates derived from 2019 ACS data. Areas ranked by a number of eligible farm workers.
Metropolitan Area	Total undocumented population	Farm Workforce Modernization Act	Percent of undoc. pop.
US total	10,348,900	343,400	3%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA	960,300	17,300	2%
Salinas, CA	60,300	17,100	28%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA	927,900	16,700	2%
Bakersfield, CA	51,500	15,200	30%
Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA	41,700	12,300	29%
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA	51,200	11,000	22%
Fresno, CA	52,800	9,900	19%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL	413,300	9,500	2%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	217,600	8,000	4%
Yakima, WA	24,900	7,800	31%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI	374,600	7,300	2%
Visalia-Porterville, CA	21,900	7,100	33%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX	581,100	6,300	1%
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA	81,000	5,900	7%
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA	13,500	5,600	41%
Merced, CA	26,400	5,600	21%
Stockton-Lodi, CA	39,700	5,500	14%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD	138,100	4,200	3%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	66,500	3,700	6%
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	19,100	3,500	18%

Source: Center for Migration Studies. See text for data sources and methods of estimation.

Table 11 illustrates the dispersal of childhood arrivals eligible for conditional permanent residence under the American Dream and Promise Act. Unlike populations eligible for country-specific legal status programs (TPS and DED) and the TPS-eligible that would be eligible for permanent residence under the US Citizenship Act (Table 12), childhood arrivals can be found in significant numbers and concentrations in communities throughout the United States, particularly in metropolitan areas.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 11.

Estimated Number Eligible for Conditional Permanent Residence under the American Dream and Promise Act, by Top 20 Metro Areas.

Estimates derived from 2019 ACS data. Areas ranked by a number of immigrants eligible.
Metropolitan Area	Total undocumented population	American Dream and Promise Act	Percent of undoc. pop.
US total	10,348,900	1,425,900	14%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA	927,900	158,500	17%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA	960,300	118,800	12%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX	581,100	85,300	15%
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX	576,500	70,600	12%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI	374,600	64,700	17%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL	413,300	43,500	11%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	217,600	41,800	19%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ	196,000	36,300	19%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV	367,800	36,200	10%
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA	255,000	36,100	14%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA	251,600	31,600	13%
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV	151,900	24,900	16%
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA	137,800	24,400	18%
Austin-Round Rock, TX	116,900	20,600	18%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA	168,100	18,900	11%
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO	97,200	17,700	18%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH	149,000	16,100	11%
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX	99,700	15,900	16%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD	138,100	15,300	11%
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL	122,300	15,100	12%

Source: Center for Migration Studies. See text for data sources and methods of estimation.

Table 12 shows the number of TPS-eligible that would be eligible for permanent residence under the US Citizenship Act by the top 20 metropolitan areas. About 225,000, or 60 percent, live in the top eight metropolitan areas, again emphasizing the importance of having data distributed by geographic area. The four metropolitan areas with the largest numbers are Miami, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC.

III. The Case for Immigration Reform and a Broad Legalization Program

The case for a general legalization program or a series of population-specific programs rests on two interrelated points; first, the positive impact of legalization on beneficiaries, their families, and US communities; second, the negative effects of lack of status, which a legalization program would obviate for millions of US residents.

IV. Recommendations

This paper highlights the need for timely data on populations eligible for legalization and special legal status programs on national, state, and sub-state levels. To that end, CMS’ Democratizing Data project makes detailed estimates of the US undocumented and eligible-to-naturalize populations available through a publicly accessible data tool (CMS 2021). The paper also recognizes the underlying need for effective legislation and a strong commitment by government at all levels and by local communities to the success of these programs. It offers the following recommendations on immigration reform legislation and on community-based implementation efforts.

Congress should pass broad immigration reform legislation that includes a general legalization program or, in the alternative, a series of population-specific legalization programs for essential workers, childhood arrivals, agricultural workers, persons eligible for TPS and DED, and long-term residents. In the interim, the Biden administration should designate and re-designate additional countries for TPS.

As it stands, Congress has failed to pass a general legalization program for 35 years or the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act for the last 20 years. It has not meaningfully reformed the US legal immigration system for 31 years since the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990. ²¹ It has not overhauled the US legal immigration laws for 56 years since the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. ²² For 25 years, Congress has failed to fix the most glaring problems created for immigrants and their families by a triumvirate of 1996 laws on immigration enforcement, ²³ national security, ²⁴ and public benefit policies ²⁵ (Kerwin 2018).

Each year that Congress fails to pass meaningful reform legislation, the US undocumented population becomes more entrenched. Between 2010 and 2019, the percentage of undocumented residents living in the United States for 15 years or more grew from 25.2 percent to 42.5 percent (CMS 2021), including large numbers of persons stranded for years in family-based visa backlogs (Kerwin and Warren 2019b). Eighty-three percent of the DACA-eligible had lived in the United States for at least 15 years, according to the 2019 ACS (Table 1).

The US immigration system has also become more dysfunctional with each passing year of legislative inaction. As of November 2, 2020, for example, nearly 3.8 million applicants for numerically limited family-based visas languished in backlog (DOS 2020), with projected backlogs for some applicants exceeding their life expectancies (Kerwin and Warren 2019b). Immigration court backlogs had reached 1.34 million as of May 2021 (TRAC 2021), and pending affirmative asylum cases exceeded 386,000 by the fourth quarter of 2020 (USCIS 2020).

While passage of immigration reform legislation would be far preferable, the Biden administration should also utilize its authority to designate and re-designate additional countries for TPS. Table 8 provides a non-exclusive list of countries that should be considered. Conditions would clearly justify, for example, a TPS-designation for Guatemala and a re-designation of El Salvador and Honduras. CMS estimates that these steps would make more than 1.8 million nationals from these three countries eligible for TPS, which would benefit recipients, their families, and their communities in both the United States and abroad.

Immigration reform legislation should allow the great majority of US undocumented residents to legalize, should reform the underlying legal immigration system, and should provide for the legalization of future long-term undocumented residents through a rolling registry program.

Congress should pass legislation that would legalize the overwhelming majority of US undocumented residents. General legalization would achieve this goal and yield the most benefits for the legalized population, their family members, and US communities.

However, general legalization programs have been exceedingly rare in US history (Kerwin 2020). Moreover, such a program — as IRCA illustrated — should be coupled with the reform of the underlying legal immigration system. IRCA failed to anticipate future labor needs, leaving the nation with no way to accommodate its subsequent need for additional workers, except through illegal migration. It also failed to legalize sufficient numbers of undocumented persons, which led in part to the re-emergence of a large undocumented population (Chishti and Kamasaki 2014, 6; Kerwin and Warren 2017, 316). Finally, it did not extend derivative status to family members of beneficiaries. As a result, when IRCA beneficiaries obtained LPR status, they needed to petition for visas for their immediate family members (Kerwin 2010, 8), thus laying the groundwork for visa backlogs that now extend for decades for certain national groups in heavily subscribed family-based preference categories.

The US Citizenship Act of 2021 and other pending legalization bills also lack mechanisms to legalize prospective long-term residents. Congress established the “registry” program in 1929, ²⁶ to create admission records for the growing number of persons with “sympathetic cases,” many of whom had US families and were “interwoven” in their communities, but nonetheless lacked documents to regularize their status (Boswell 2010, 113). Registry offers permanent residence to undocumented residents who have continuously lived in the United States for very long periods, have good moral character, are not ineligible for citizenship, and are not inadmissible on security and other grounds.

Since registry was created, Congress has advanced the entry cutoff date for eligibility several times. Most recently, IRCA moved ahead of this date to January 1, 1972. As it stands, undocumented residents must have been continually present for nearly 50 years to qualify. While registry has become a dead letter in recent decades, it was available historically to undocumented residents who lived in the United States from between eight to 18 years (Kerwin and Warren 2017, 322–323). Congress should advance this date as a one-time fix to legalize persons who have lived in the United States for at least 10 years. This step would make 58 percent of the US undocumented population eligible to legalize, including virtually all DACA-eligible US residents. It should also provide that the registry date move up automatically each year thereafter by one year. A rolling registry provision of this kind would obviate the need for future legislation to legalize very long-term residents.

Advancing the registry eligibility date would also recognize that no legalization program can cover everyone that may be prima facie eligible for it, or that Congress intends to cover. Eligible undocumented residents will invariably slip through the cracks. Some will not qualify for technical reasons or because of oversights or deficiencies in the law or problems with its implementation. As IRCA, DACA, and other legal status programs show, some legalization-eligible immigrants will not be able to afford application fees or meet documentary requirements. Others will not come forward due to fear of removal, insufficient knowledge, misinformation, or a combination of reasons. Over time, these undocumented residents will build further equitable ties to the country, but may not be able to obtain legal status through the standard pathways. A rolling registry program would promote the nation’s interest in immigrant integration and seek to depoliticize a phenomenon (long-term undocumented residency) that can be minimized, but not eliminated (ibid.). It would also acknowledge the deep and longstanding connections of these residents to US society.

Congress, the relevant federal agencies, and advocates should ensure that any legalization program be properly structured and sufficiently funded, particularly the work of CBOs, states, and localities.

Effective implementation of a legalization program will depend, in part, on technical issues related to the program’s structure, such as the length of the application period (the longer, the better), documentary requirements, whether to establish a one-step or two-step legalization process, and well-defined statutory terms and eligibility criteria (Kerwin and Laglagaron 2010).

The federal government must also be able to accommodate the increased workload. A general legalization program might generate 6 million applications. These applications would be added to the high volume of applications, petitions, and requests for benefits that USCIS receives each year (8.1 million on average between 2018 and 2020) (USCIS 2021b, 3), and its pending applications (6.1 million by the fourth quarter of 2020) (USCIS 2020).

Past legalization and special legal status programs have demonstrated the need to mobilize and leverage community resources for legal screening, community outreach, public education, application and fee assistance, and other services. The success of such programs requires that federal, state, and local government and private foundations support capacity building in all of these areas, and that they also fund national and regional coordination and community-based planning efforts.

Kamasaki et al. (2015), representing the Committee on Immigration Reform Implementation (CIRI) during the early years of the DACA program, produced one of the most thoughtful assessments of the need for government and private support for the legalization preparedness and implementation work of CBOs and national support organizations. The study analyzed the cost to CBOs of implementing the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expanded DACA program, which was announced by President Obama in 2014. CMS estimated that more than 5 million persons would have been eligible for these two programs, had they gone into effect (Kerwin and Warren 2016).

The study offers a valuable typology of the legal capacity available to low-income applicants from federally recognized organizations and their accredited non-attorneys, law school clinics, pro bono and low-cost attorneys, and “non-traditional” immigrant legal service providers, such as libraries, community centers, and places of worship (ibid., 293–297). ²⁷ It also considered the important contributions of “community navigators,” which offer public education, outreach, referrals, and other non-legal services to immigrants.

Based on the experience of IRCA and DACA, the authors estimated that 3.75 million (75 percent of 5 million) would apply for DAPA and expand DACA. Most low-income immigrants opt to apply for such programs on their own and some use private attorneys. CBOs educate and assist large numbers of potential program beneficiaries, but they formally represent far fewer. During IRCA, for example, about one-fifth of applicants filed their applications through Qualified Designated Entities (QDEs). However, these community-based groups assisted roughly one-half of applicants in a wide variety of ways (Chishti and Kamasaki 2014, 8). The CIRI authors then estimated that from 960,000 to 1.2 million DAPA and expanded DACA applicants would need assistance from charitable immigrant-serving agencies due to their low incomes and inability to afford private attorneys.

The analysis took into account non-government sources of funding for this work, particularly fees-for-service, which the authors viewed as both an essential source of revenue and a tool to build charitable legal service capacity. It then estimated the staffing and funding needed from government sources based on different scenarios related to staff costs and time spent with applicants. It concluded that CBOs would need between $34.4 million (its lower-end estimate) and $132.5 million (its midpoint) estimate, to assist 1.08 million expanded DACA and DAPA applicants. Of course, a larger program, whether general legalization or some combination of population-specific programs would require significantly more funding.

As the CIRI authors recognized, CBOs lack sufficient capacity to meet the existing demand for their services, much less to accommodate a legalization program (ibid., 302). This challenge has become more acute in the interim, as under-resourced CBOs struggle to assist immigrants to negotiate all the anomalies and pathologies of the US immigration system in the aftermath of the Trump administration. CBOs need significantly more support to prepare for a large legalization program, such as the general legalization set forth in the US Citizenship Act of 2021. This program could legalize more persons than the sum of all other legalization programs in US history (Kerwin 2010, 13).

Since many of the costs and responsibilities of federal programs fall on local communities (Kamasaki 2019, 231–232), states and localities should likewise receive significant legalization preparedness and implementation funding. Congress and private funders should support research to assess community-based needs in order to inform funding decisions and additional research to evaluate the implementation of legalization and special legal status program. A national analysis of the capacity of charitable immigrant legal service organizations, compared to the size and density of the undocumented population on a sub-state level, could significantly inform where investments are most needed to build community-based capacity.

Local communities should continue to build the partnerships, capacities, skills, and resources needed to implement a legalization program. They should do so, in part, by collaborating on special legal status programs such as DACA, TPS, and naturalization campaigns, as well as through the steady-state work of assisting immigrants in their individual immigration cases and in funding legal representation in removal proceedings.

Since 2007, different configurations of groups on local, regional, and national levels have prepared for legalization. They have integrated services, divided responsibilities, collaborated on special legal status programs, recruited new partners, and advocated for reform.

Beyond establishing important community-based partnerships, CBO networks have charted how agencies from different sectors should interrelate locally, across geographic areas, and nationally. Select states and localities have also prioritized legalization preparedness. Preparation is essential given relatively short application periods, the size and diversity of affected populations, and the life-altering consequences of these infrequent programs. In particular, CBOs would need to pre-screen potential applicants, provide application assistance, offer technical support to self-filers, advocate on how the program should be structured, and educate the public on eligibility criteria, consumer rights, and community resources. Legal training and support agencies would need to mobilize to train CBOs in the complexities of the law, regulations, and procedures.

Some argue that the steady-state work of securing immigration benefits, employment authorization, and relief from removal is less impactful than high-profile advocacy for immigration reform. In fact, the two are complementary. Community-wide collaboration in expanding public education and legal support to low-income immigrants may be the best way to prepare for a general or other large-scale legalization program. In addition, direct legal assistance should be viewed as a kind of continuous legalization program in its own right — in fact, the only large legalization program that has been available for more than 35 years. ²⁸ In its systematic efforts to dismantle legal pathways to permanent residence and citizenship (Aleinikoff and Kerwin 2021; Guttentag 2021), the Trump administration paid a kind of backhanded compliment to the efficacy of this work. In making the flawed US immigration system work for immigrants, communities can both legalize the undocumented and prepare for a formal legalization program.

In 2016, a team of researchers from CMS and the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism and the Sol Price School of Public Policy initiated an intensive study of the implementation of the DACA program (Kerwin et al. 2017). The study aimed to “assess the progress of the NGO/CBO community in building legal, public education, and organizing capacity in order to ensure maximum participation in DACA, to prepare for a future legalization program, and to enlist DACA beneficiaries and others in service, advocacy, and community organizing work” (ibid., 7). The research team interviewed 66 individuals from 40 agencies that were heavily involved in the program’s implementation.

The DACA report found that collaboration on the day-to-day provision of legal services and on large-scale legal status programs, such as DACA, TPS, and naturalization campaigns, not only allowed immigrants to advance in status, but helped “to build many of the skills, partnerships and capabilities” needed to implement a large legalization program (ibid., 12). The study viewed DACA’s implementation not as a one-off effort, but as part of a multi-year process to build community-based capacity through diverse partnerships, services, and programs.

The report highlighted two processes that particularly contributed to capacity building during DACA. First, legal screening of potential DACA recipients allowed CBOs to establish relationships with immigrants that could be re-activated in response to a legalization program. The report characterized legal screening as an “access to justice” tool and a legalization program in its own right. In fact, several studies have found rates of undocumented persons, ranging from 14 to 25 percent, who may be eligible for immigration benefits or relief that would put them on a path to permanent residence, independent of a formal legalization program (Wong et al. 2014; Kerwin et al. 2017, 9; Atkinson and Wong 2018).

Second, the report found that community-based groups had built significant legal and other capacities in implementing DACA. In particular, they had strengthened their ability to serve undocumented immigrants through:

Expansion of federally recognized charitable legal programs and offices for immigrants, and of their non-attorney accredited representatives that can represent immigrants before DHS/USCIS and fully accredited representatives that can represent immigrants in removal proceedings;

The DACA study examined the program’s implementation in five communities. The resulting case studies highlight the importance of building on pre-existing partnerships, and of tailoring their responses to the unique needs and challenges of diverse communities. They point to the need for a broad, integrated response in each community to include:

Public education, particularly on the benefits of the program, eligibility requirements, and combatting notario fraud;

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) produced a manual in 2006 based on interviews with 20 “veterans” from the IRCA program on the steps immigrant legal service agencies should take to prepare for a legalization program, both before legislation passes and afterward (Shea 2006). The manual, which CLINIC updated in 2010 and 2013 (CLINIC 2013), addresses many of the issues raised in subsequent DACA implementation reports, albeit with an eye toward planning by individual charitable legal service programs. It also sets forth several elements of a successful legalization preparedness campaign. ²⁹

The CLINIC report also recognizes the need to continue to grow community infrastructure in order to support immigrant communities after the program ends. In particular, federal, state, and local governments, the private sector, and CBOs should prioritize the expansion of English classes, educational opportunities, upskilling initiatives, career counseling, and other programs that legalized immigrants and their children will want to access at high rates. In short, these reports view legalization preparedness and implementation as an important step in a longer national process of incorporation, integration, and empowerment of US residents that are ready to stay.