President Trump and Joe Biden: Comparing Immigration Policies

BACKGROUNDER

No. 3547 | OCTOBER 21, 2020

CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY POLICY

This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/bg3547

The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org

Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reﬂecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

President Trump and Joe Biden:

Comparing Immigration Policies

Lora Ries

While in oce, President Trump has made

many immigration changes to address

illegal immigrant caravans, terrorist travel

to the U.S., asylum fraud, and more.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

A potential Biden Administration would

almost certainly roll backchangesmade

to both legal and illegal immigration

during the Trump Administration.

The contrast between Trump and Biden’s

immigration policies is stark. If Biden

becomes President, expect a return to

many Obama-era immigration policies.

n 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump

campaigned heavily on border security and immi

gration issues. He promised to build a border

wall, rescind the Obama Administration’s Deferred

Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and

enforce America’s immigration laws. Many Americans

voted for Donald Trump because of his immigra-

tion promises.

While in oce, President Trump has made many

immigration changes to address caravans of illegal

immigrants from Central America, terrorist travel

to the U.S., asylum fraud, and more. Because the

U.S. Congress has been unable and unwilling to pass

meaningful immigration legislation for decades,

the Trump Administration has made policy and

operational changes through executive orders and

regulatory revisions.

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 2

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

Candidate Joe Biden intends to roll back immigration changes made

during the Trump Administration. This would make a Biden Administra-

tion look much like the Obama Administration on immigration matters. The

following is a comparison of major immigration policies between President

Trump’s Administration and Joe Biden’s campaign.

The Wall

Trump. The U.S.–Mexican border is nearly 2,000 miles long, 654 of

which had a border barrier prior to the Trump Administration.

Border

Patrol agents have long said that border wall systems, along with person-

nel and technology, make their jobs easier to stop illegal immigration,

drugs, and human smuggling from crossing our border between the ports

of entry.

The Trump Administration’s goal was to build 450 to 500 miles

of new wall by the end of 2020.

As of October 2020, the Administration

has completed over 350 miles of new wall system, including access roads,

lighting, and sensors.

With over 200 additional miles under construction

and approximately 150 miles under pre-construction, the Administra-

tion appears to be on track to build 450 miles of new wall system by the

end of 2020.

Biden. Joe Biden has stated he would not build another foot of border

wall in his administration.

According to his campaign website, a Biden

Administration would stop using Department of Defense funding to build

the wall. “Building a wall will do little to deter criminals and cartels seek-

ing to exploit our borders,” his website states.

Biden claims that he would

instead direct federal resources to smart border enforcement eorts like

investments in improving screening infrastructure at our ports of entry.

Rather than between the ports of entry, Biden has stated that “all the bad

stu is happening” at the ports of entry.

DACA

Trump. In June 2012, President Obama—without legal authority under

any immigration statute or even public-notice-and-comment rulemaking

under the Administrative Procedures Act —directed the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) to establish the Deferred Action for Childhood

Arrivals program. DACA provided a temporary promise (deferred action)

that the DHS would not deport illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. before

their sixteenth birthday; had resided continuously in the U.S. since June 15,

2007; and were under the age of 31 as of June 2012.

This administrative

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 3

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

amnesty was renewable every two years. It also provided government ben-

eﬁts such as work authorization. Over 825,000 illegal aliens applied for and

received DACA beneﬁts.

Five years later, Attorney General Je Sessions said, when he announced

the six-month wind-down of the program on September 5, 2017, it was “an

unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.”

Predict-

ably, opponents immediately ﬁled numerous lawsuits and successfully

sought nationwide injunctions keeping the program in place for DACA

renewals, though not for new DACA applications. The cases went to the

Supreme Court, where a Justice Roberts 5–4 majority stated that although

DHS has authority to rescind the DACA program, the government did not

do so in a manner acceptable to the court majority.

The Trump Adminis-

tration is currently drafting a revised DACA rescission to address the points

raised by the Court.

Biden. Biden’s campaign website states, “Dreamers and their parents

should have a roadmap to citizenship through legislative immigration

reform. But in the meantime, Biden will remove the uncertainty for Dream-

ers by reinstating the DACA program, and he will explore all legal options

to protect their families from inhumane separation.”

Biden would also

make “Dreamers” eligible for federal student aid (loans, Pell grants) and

debt-free community college.

Note: It is important to note the dierence between DACA recipients

and “Dreamers.”

DACA recipients are those who applied for and received DACA bene-

ﬁts from DHS and number approximately 825,000 people.

“Dreamers” are a broad label for anyone who came to the U.S. illegally

by up to age 18 on the date a Dreamer bill would be enacted. This

“Dreamer” population is estimated to be at least 3.6 million.

The population of illegal-alien parents in the Deferred Action for Parents

of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program is also esti-

mated to number about 3.6 million. This means that half of all illegal aliens

(11 million) living in the U.S. could receive amnesty via DACA or DAPA.

General Amnesty

Trump. President Trump has indicated a willingness to discuss amnesty

with Congress as part of a negotiation for other immigration amendments

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 4

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

that he deems are needed.

Congress, however, has been unwilling to

negotiate with him. Whether the Trump Administration would agree to

an amnesty for just DACA recipients, for a larger “Dreamer” population, or

an even larger scope of illegal aliens is unclear at this point.

The President’s base of supporters do not agree with an amnesty of any

size for illegal aliens.

If he wins a second term, the pressure of satisfying

the base for a reelection would be behind him. It is possible he would agree

to an amnesty as part of a deal, but it is uncertain right now.

Biden. In contrast, the Biden campaign states that a Biden Administra-

tion would immediately and “aggressively advocate” for legislation to keep

“families together by providing a roadmap to citizenship for nearly 11 million

undocumented immigrants.”

The campaign justiﬁes amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens by stating that

they “have been living in and strengthening our country for years. These

are our mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. They are our neighbors,

co-workers, and members of our congregations and Little League teams. They

contribute in countless ways to our communities, workforce, and economy. In

2015, the IRS collected $23.6 billion from 4.4 million workers without Social

Security numbers—many of whom were undocumented.”

The campaign

states the eligibility requirements for such amnesty are that aliens register,

are up-to-date on their taxes, and have passed a background check.

Illegal aliens who are living in the U.S. using stolen Social Security num-

bers would also likely receive this amnesty. Prosecutors and courts often

turn a blind eye to illegal aliens using stolen Social Security numbers.

such, the oense would likely be waived as part of a Biden amnesty program.

Travel Restrictions

Trump. In 2017, President Trump issued a series of executive orders and

a proclamation seeking to improve vetting procedures for aliens travelling

to the U.S. and to identify shortcomings in the information needed to assess

the national security threats posed by those aliens. After an extensive and

in-depth review of all threats posed by individuals from foreign countries

by the DHS and the State Department, the President restricted entry from

eight countries—Chad (later removed from the list), Iran, Iraq, Libya, North

Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—that were state sponsors of terrorism,

provided safe havens for terrorists, or provided insucient information

to U.S. authorities.

The presidential documents provided exemptions for

permanent resident aliens and case-by-case waivers under certain circum-

stances for alien travelers (such as undue hardship).

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 5

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

The President acted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f ), which gives him the

authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens…or impose

on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” when

he determines that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the

United States.” The proclamation provides that the DHS will assess, on a

continuing basis, whether those entry restrictions should be modiﬁed and

report to the President every 180 days.

Numerous nationwide injunctions were issued by lower federal courts

against the proclamation and executive orders, claiming the President was

acting beyond his authority or had an improper motive—a supposed “bias”

against Muslims. However, in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court dissolved those

injunctions, holding that the President had lawfully exercised the broad

discretion granted to him under § 1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into

the country.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated

that through the “comprehensive evaluation of every single country’s com-

pliance with the information and risk assessment baseline” established by

the DHS to determine the “deﬁciencies in the practices” of foreign govern-

ments, the President “undoubtedly fulﬁlled” the requirement in the statute

that he determine if the entry of covered aliens would be “detrimental” to

the interests of the country and our national security.

These entry restrictions remain in place. Based on the recommendation

of DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf, on January 31, 2020, the President

imposed restrictions on the entry of aliens from six additional countries

that “failed to meet a series of security criteria”: Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyz-

stan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania.

Acting Secretary Wolf explained that

the countries on this short list have the ability to remove themselves from

the list by providing the U.S. basic travel information that countries across

the globe share, such as lost and stolen passport and criminal background

information.

Biden. The Biden campaign website states the following on this subject:

Rescind the un-American travel and refugee bans, also referred to as “Mus-

lim bans.” The Trump Administration’s anti-Muslim bias hurts our economy,

betrays our values, and can serve as a powerful terrorist recruiting tool. Pro-

hibiting Muslims from entering the country is morally wrong, and there is no

intelligence or evidence that suggests it makes our nation more secure. It is

yet another abuse of power by the Trump Administration designed to target

primarily black and brown immigrants. Biden will immediately rescind the

“Muslim bans.”

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 6

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

Sanctuary Jurisdictions and ICE

Trump. Sanctuary jurisdictions are cities, counties, and states that

refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement of immigration laws and, in

some cases, actually attempt to obstruct federal enforcement. At the same

time, these states and localities, like other jurisdictions, receive federal

grant money for law enforcement and homeland security programs, equip-

ment, training, and more. States and localities must apply for federal grants;

they are not a right. In addition, states and localities apply for grants with

the understanding that they must provide federal agencies with speciﬁed

information, including criminal alien information.

Receiving federal

grant money is part of an agreement: Recipients have responsibilities as

well as beneﬁts.

President Trump issued an executive order on January 25, 2017, directing

the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to “ensure

that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. §1373 (sanctu-

ary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants.”

Opponents of

the executive order ﬁled multiple lawsuits against the Administration. Due

to the conﬂicting opinions of the U.S. circuit courts of appeal and, with no

U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Department of Justice is able to enforce

the conditions against sanctuary jurisdictions in some parts of the country,

but not others.

Biden. The Biden campaign makes no mention of sanctuary jurisdic-

tions on its website. It does, however, discuss Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE). Under the heading, “Restore Sensible Enforcement

Priorities,” his website states:

Targeting people who have never been convicted of a serious criminal of-

fense and who have lived, worked, and contributed to our economy and our

communities for decades is the deﬁnition of counterproductive. Biden will

direct enforcement eorts toward threats to public safety and national secu-

rity, while ensuring that individuals are treated with the due process to which

they are entitled and their human rights are protected. President Biden will

end workplace raids to ensure that threats based on workers’ status do not

interfere with their ability to organize and improve their wages and working

conditions. He will also protect sensitive locations from immigration en-

forcement actions. No one should be afraid to seek medical attention, go to

school, their job, or their place of worship for fear of an immigration enforce-

ment action.

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 7

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

In addition, a Biden Administration would “[e]nsure that ICE and Cus-

toms and Border Patrol (CBP) personnel abide by professional standards

and are held accountable for inhumane treatment. Biden will increase

resources for training and demand transparency in and independent over-

sight over ICE and CBP’s activities.”

Asylum

Trump. To address the caravans of illegal aliens traveling toward the U.S.

from Central America and the abuse of the asylum system by aliens seeking

to enter and remain in the U.S., the Trump Administration implemented

several regulatory and operational changes. The Migrant Protection Pro-

tocols (MPP) were the most signiﬁcant of the changes. Also known as the

“Remain in Mexico” initiative, the Administration implemented a section

of the Immigration and Nationality Act ignored by prior Administrations,

which states that asylum applicants who arrive “on land (whether or not

at a designated port of arrival) from a foreign territory contiguous to the

United States” can be returned “to that territory” while their claims for

asylum are pending.

In addition, the Administration published the “Safe Third Country”

rule to encourage aliens to apply for asylum in the ﬁrst safe country

in which they arrive—rather than traveling through multiple coun-

tries to apply for asylum in the U.S.

To help implement this, the

Administration negotiated agreements with Mexico and Central Amer-

ican countries to accept immigrants back into their country to pursue

asylum applications there. Unsurprisingly, many applicants chose to

return home rather than seek asylum in a neighboring Central Ameri-

can country.

Biden. According to the Biden campaign website, Biden would end many

of President Trump’s asylum policies, starting with the MPP. Instead of

returning asylum applicants to Mexico to await their court dates, Biden

would “direct the necessary resources to ensure asylum applications are

processed fairly and eciently, while treating families and children with

compassion and sensitivity.”

Biden would dramatically increase U.S. government resources to sup-

port aliens awaiting assessment of their asylum claims and the network

of organizations such as faith-based shelters, nongovernmental aid orga-

nizations, legal nonproﬁts, and refugee assistance agencies providing for

their needs.

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 8

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

Refugees

Trump. When President Trump ﬁrst came into oce, the executive branch

was operating under President Obama’s ﬁscal year (FY) 2017 refugee admis-

sions ceiling, set at 110,000—the highest refugee admissions ceiling in 20

years.

The new Administration was concerned because of the large number of

refugees ﬂeeing the armed conﬂict in Syria, the diculty of vetting individuals

from a war-torn area, and the rapidly growing asylum application backlog.

President Trump immediately suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions

Program (USRAP) for 120 days, pending a review of the procedures for

screening refugee applicants.

He directed the Secretary of State to resume

USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary

of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National

Intelligence jointly determined that such additional procedures were

adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States. He also

lowered the FY 2017 admissions ceiling to 50,000 as a more manageable

number to provide adequate vetting.

In each subsequent year, President Trump lowered the refugee ceiling

further. For ﬁscal years 2018, 2019, and 2020, the ceilings were set at 45,000,

30,000, and 18,000, respectively.

The Administration justiﬁed the decreases

for the refugee program with the resource demand needed to address the

mammoth asylum application backlog that had formed due to lower prioriti-

zation under the Obama Administration, as well as the ballooning volume of

new credible-fear claims and asylum applications made by Central Americans

streaming to our southwest border. In its FY 2020 report to Congress, the State

Department cited the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees’ statistic that the

U.S. led the world in new asylum applications in calendar years 2017 and 2018.

The Trump Administration also terminated a distinct, but related, ref-

ugee and parole program created by the Obama Administration via a fact

sheet. The Central American In-Country Refugee/Parole Program in El

Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras was created “to provide a safe, legal,

and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey that some children” were

taking to the United States.

This Central American Minor (CAM) pro-

gram allowed parents who were lawfully present in the U.S., though not a

lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen (and therefore not eligible to ﬁle

an immigrant visa petition for the family member), to request access to the

USRAP for their under-21, unmarried children still in one of those three

countries. The program went further. Children found ineligible for refugee

admission, “but still at risk of harm,” were considered for parole into the

U.S. to be reunited with a parent in the United States.

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 9

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

The Trump Administration announced its termination of the CAM

Parole program in an August 2017 Federal Register Notice for several

reasons.

The CAM Parole program was created outside the public-no-

tice-and-comment Administrative Procedures Act process; it violated the

deﬁnition of parole, which is only to be provided on a case-by-case basis for

urgent humanitarian reasons or signiﬁcant public beneﬁt; few applicants

were found to be refugees; and the program required considerable resources.

Biden. If elected President, Biden would set the annual refugee admis-

sions cap to 125,000, and seek to raise it over time “commensurate with

our responsibility, our values, and the unprecedented global need.”

would also revive the CAM program for children seeking to reunify with

U.S. relatives, allowing them to apply for entry from their home countries,

and expand eorts to register and process refugees in the Central American

region for resettlement in the U.S. and other countries.

Further, Biden

would send humanitarian aid and assistance to Central American countries

that are receiving refugees. His website states, “As a leader in the region,

the U.S. has a responsibility to help our neighbors and partners process

and support refugees and asylum seekers. This will also help relieve the

pressure at our own border.”

Public Charge Rule

Trump. In August 2019, the DHS published a ﬁnal rule amending regu-

lations to deﬁne whether an alien applying for admission or adjustment of

status will be deemed inadmissible because the alien is likely to become a

“public charge.”

A “public charge” is an individual who is unable to support

himself, and instead relies on public beneﬁts such as welfare assistance. The

public charge rule is based on a long-standing principle of U.S. immigration

law, ﬁrst implemented at the federal level in 1882.

The rule deﬁnes a “public charge” as one who receives one or more des-

ignated public beneﬁts for more than 12 months, in the aggregate, within

any 36-month period (such that, for example, receipt of two beneﬁts in

one month counts as two months).

The rule deﬁnes “public beneﬁt” to

include any federal, state, local, or tribal cash beneﬁts for income mainte-

nance (including Social Security, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,

and General Assistance), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,

most forms of Medicaid, Section 8 Housing/Rental Assistance, and public

housing. Adjudicators use a “totality of the circumstances” test, meaning

an adjudicator weighs all factors, including health, age, skills, etc.—not just

use of public beneﬁts.

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 10

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

Beneﬁts not considered include emergency medical assistance; disas-

ter relief; national school lunch programs; Women, Infants and Children

nutrition program; Children’s Health Insurance Program; foster care and

adoption subsidies; government-subsidized student and mortgage loans;

energy assistance; food pantries; homeless shelters; and Head Start.

The rule does not apply to humanitarian-based immigration programs

for refugees, asylum seekers, victims of sex tracking, or other special cases

(such as victims of qualifying criminal activity, including domestic violence).

It does not apply to aliens who serve in the U.S. military or to pregnant

women and aliens under the age of 21 who receive Medicaid beneﬁts. It also

does not apply to Medicaid beneﬁts paid for emergency medical or school-

based services (such as provided under the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act). Additionally, if the DHS decides that an immigrant is not

admissible because of the public charge rule, in limited circumstances, the

DHS will oer the alien the opportunity to post a public bond.

Biden. A Biden Administration would reverse Trump’s public charge

rule. The campaign states the rule “runs counter to our values as Amer-

icans and the history of our nation.”

Basing the adjudication of a visa or

permanent resident application on the applicant’s “use of government ser-

vices such as SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] beneﬁts

or Medicaid, their household income, and other discriminatory criteria

undermines America’s character as land of opportunity that is open and

welcoming to all, not just the wealthy.”

Temporary Protected Status

Trump. The Trump Administration sought to return Temporary Pro-

tected Status (TPS) to its original intent, consistent with the law. TPS may

be designated when a country experiences:

1. Ongoing armed conﬂict;

2. A natural disaster; or

3. There exist extraordinary and temporary conditions in the country

that prevent nationals of the country from returning in safety.

Prior Administrations regularly extended and expanded TPS desig-

nations. The majority of the 10 countries with TPS designations at the

beginning of the Trump Administration had designations, extensions, and

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 11

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

expansions for at least 10 years.

The countries with the longest designa-

tions were Honduras and Nicaragua, which were ﬁrst designated by former

Attorney General Janet Reno for devastation they experienced from Hur-

ricane Mitch—in 1998.

These and other TPS countries have successfully lobbied past and cur-

rent Administrations for extensions—showing their reliance on the beneﬁt

to boost their own economy, both in not having to receive their nationals

back into their own weak economies, and more important, the remittances

the TPS beneﬁciaries send back to their families in the home country. The

Secretary of DHS, in consultation with the Secretary of State, decided to

terminate TPS for six of the 10 countries with TPS: El Salvador, Haiti, Hon-

duras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan. The Administration has extended TPS

for Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Biden. A Biden Administration would “order an immediate review of

TPS for vulnerable populations who cannot ﬁnd safety in their countries.”

The Biden campaign states that the Trump Administration’s “political-

ly-motivated decisions” to rescind protected status for these countries is a

“recipe for disaster.”

Biden promises his administration would protect TPS

and Deferred Enforced Departure holders from being returned to countries

that are unsafe and oer them a path to citizenship through legislation.

Merit-based/Family-based Immigration and Diversity Visa

Trump. The Trump Administration’s goal is to transition the U.S. immi-

gration system from a predominantly family-based chain migration system

to a more merit-based one. In an October 2017 letter to House and Senate

Leaders, the President wrote how this should be accomplished:

End family-based chain migration as it currently exists by limiting

family-based green cards to immediate family members (spouses and

minor children of U.S. citizens), and replacing it with a merit-based

system with a special emphasis on “skills and economic contributions”

to the U.S. economy;

Establish a point system for green cards;

Eliminate the “visa lottery” (also known as the Diversity Visa) pro-

gram, which provides 50,000 immigrant visas annually to random

individuals from countries with low rates of immigration to the

United States; and

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 12

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

Limit the number of refugees to “prevent the abuse of the generous

U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and allow for eective assimilation

of admitted refugees into the fabric of our society.”

To qualify for a visa in the Diversity Visa Program, an applicant need only

have either a high school education (or its equivalent) or at least two years of

recent qualifying work experience.

Importantly, the program is run as an

annual lottery. In other words, 50,000 immigrants to our country are chosen

by chance each year, rather than for needed skills or to reunify family.

The ﬁrst three changes above would require legislative changes by

Congress. Due to Congress’ unwillingness to pass focused immigration

legislation or to negotiate with the Trump Administration on immigration

matters, a merit-based immigration system is a goal that would have to

be pursued in a second presidential term. The Trump Administration has

lowered the number of refugee admissions admitted to the U.S. each year,

as discussed above.

Biden. Joe Biden not only disagrees with pursuing a merit-based

immigration system, but would expand family-based chain migration. A

Biden Administration would allow any approved family visa beneﬁciary,

whose green card is not yet available due to the annual country cap, to

receive a temporary visa and enter the U.S. anyway until the permanent

visa (“green card”) becomes available.

In addition, Biden would support

legislation that:

1. Expands the deﬁnition of “immediate relative” beyond spouses; minor,

unmarried children; and parents of U.S. citizens to add spouses and

children of green card holders, exempting them from caps; and

2. Allows parents to bring their minor children with them at the time

they immigrate into the U.S.

Biden would continue the Diversity Visa program, stating it brings

needed diversity. Biden’s website states of President Trump:

He has disparaged the system as a ‘horror show’ and repeatedly misrepresents

how the lottery is administered, while demonizing and insulting with racist over-

tones those who receive the visas. Diversity preferences are essential to preserv-

ing a robust and vibrant immigration system. As president, Biden will rearm

our core values and preserve the critical role of diversity preferences to ensure

immigrants everywhere have the chance to legally become U.S. citizens.

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 13

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

“High-Skilled” (H-1B) Visas

Trump. In a “Buy American, Hire American” initiative and Executive

Order, President Trump addressed the H-1B visa program. The Executive

Order states: “[T]o create higher wages and employment rates for workers

in the United States, and to protect their economic interests, it shall be the

policy of the executive branch to rigorously enforce and administer the laws

governing entry into the United States of workers from abroad.”

He further requested reforms to help ensure that H-1B visas are awarded

to the most-skilled or highest-paid petition beneﬁciaries “to promote the

proper functioning of the H-1B visa program.”

The Trump Administration

has also sought to combat H-1B abuse and fraud and to protect both U.S.

workers and foreign workers.

Biden. The Biden campaign website states that “high skilled temporary

visas should not be used to disincentivize recruiting workers already in the

U.S. for in-demand occupations. An immigration system that crowds out

high-skilled workers in favor of only entry level wages and skills threatens

American innovation and competitiveness.”

He would seek to protect

high-skilled wages and workers and expand the number of visas oered,

according to his campaign.

Employment-Based Permanent Visas

Trump. As part of its merit-based immigration request, the Trump

Administration has recommended that the ratio of employment-based

immigrant visas increase in relation to family-based visas. However, the

Administration has not indicated support for increasing the total number

of permanent visas.

With respect to providing science, technology, engineering, and math

(STEM) PhD graduates with green cards upon graduation, the Adminis-

tration has not indicated support for such legislation. The Hire American

philosophy discussed above for H-1B visas applies to permanent employ-

ment visas as well. The Administration has favored American STEM

graduates in the context of the COVID-19 economic fallout by temporar

ily limiting foreign student and employment visas to prioritize American

employment.

It is unclear whether the Trump Administration would

support providing green cards to foreign STEM PhD graduates upon grad-

uation in a second term.

Biden. The Biden campaign states that if he is elected President,

he would work with Congress to increase the number of permanent

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 14

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

employment-based visas based on macroeconomic conditions. The cam-

paign states that the current annual employment visa cap of 140,000 hinders

a market approach to respond to demand.

He also favors eliminating the

country caps on employment-based visas, stating they create “unacceptably

long backlogs.”

He would also exempt from any cap recent graduates of PhD programs in

STEM ﬁelds in the U.S. According to his campaign website, Biden believes

that foreign graduates of a U.S. doctoral program should be given a green

card with their degree and that losing these highly trained workers to for-

eign economies is “a disservice to our own economic competitiveness.”

Conclusion

The contrast between President Trump and Biden’s immigration poli-

cies is stark. In a second term, President Trump would pursue merit-based

immigration reform with Congress, navigate rescinding DACA while nego-

tiating an amnesty with Congress (for anywhere from 800,000 to up to

11 million illegal aliens), and continue to secure the border in the face of

strong COVID-economy immigration push factors. If Biden were to become

President, he would return to many of the same immigration policies in

place during the Obama Administration. This would include protecting and

expanding the DACA program, admitting at least 125,000 refugees annually,

and seeking amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens.

Lora Ries is Senior Research Fellow for Homeland Security in the Center for Technology

Policy, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign

Policy, at The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation does not endorse or oppose

any candidate for public oce.

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 15

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

Endnotes

 See Government Accountability Oce, Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions

to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps, February 2017, p. 1, https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/

search?q=cache:Ao17PAxwmYkJ:https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682838.pdf+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=ﬁrefox-b-1-d (accessed

September 23, 2020).

 News release, “Walls Work,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, December 12, 2018, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work (accessed

October 5, 2020). The Border Patrol has seized markedly larger volumes of cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl in ﬁscal year 2020, for example.

See U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “CBP Enforcement Statistics Fiscal Year 2020,” https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-

statistics (accessed September 23, 2020).

 Chantal da Silva, “Trump Has Built Nearly 100 Miles of Border Wall by End of 2019, With 350 Miles to Go in 2020,” Newsweek, December 31, 2019,

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-border-wall-u-s-mexico-2020-goal-1479821 (accessed October 5, 2020).

 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Border Wall System,” https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-wall-system (accessed

October 6, 2020).

 See Chief Rodney Scott, Tweet, October 5, 2020, https://twitter.com/USBPChief/status/1313167096080216065 (accessed October 5, 2020).

 Barbara Sprunt, “Biden Would End Border Wall Construction, But Wouldn’t Tear Down Trump’s Additions,” NPR, August 5, 2020, https://www.npr.

org/2020/08/05/899266045/biden-would-end-border-wall-construction-but-wont-tear-down-trump-s-additions (accessed September 28, 2020).

 Joe Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values as a Nation of Immigrants,” https://joebiden.com/immigration (accessed September 15, 2020).

 Sprunt, “Biden Would End Border Wall Construction, But Wouldn’t Tear Down Trump’s Additions.”

 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),” https://www.uscis.gov/archive/

consideration-of-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-daca (accessed October 6, 2020).

 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Number of Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Status, by Fiscal Year,

Quarter, and Case Status: Aug. 15, 2012–Mar. 31, 2020,” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/document/data/DACA_performancedata_fy2020_

qtr2.pdf (accessed October 7, 2020).

 Je Sessions, “Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on DACA,” September 5, 2017, https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-

sessions-delivers-remarks-daca (accessed October 5, 2020).

 Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-

587_5iﬂ.pdf (accessed September 28, 2020).

 Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values.” On November 20, 2014, President Barack Obama announced a new program in addition to DACA—

the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA)—that would provide illegal-alien parents of U.S. citizens and

lawful permanent residents temporary relief from deportation and employment authorization for three years. The implementation of DAPA was

challenged in federal court by Texas and 25 other states, and eventually overturned. Jie Zong and Jeanne Batalova, “Frequently Requested Statistics

on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States in 2014,” Migration Policy Institute, April 14, 2016, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/

frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states-2014 (accessed October 16, 2020).

 Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values.”

 Alan Gomez, “Who Are the DACA DREAMers and How Many Are Here?” USA Today, February 13, 2018, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/

politics/2018/02/13/who-daca-dreamers-and-how-many-here/333045002/ (accessed October 8, 2020).

 Zong and Batalova, “Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States in 2014.”

 Annie Karni and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Trump Oers Temporary Protections for ‘Dreamers’ in Exchange for Wall Funding,” New York Times, January 19,

2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/us/politics/trump-proposal-daca-wall.html (accessed October 7, 2020).

 John T. Bennett, “‘Amnesty Don’ Returns? Trump Curiously Challenges his Conservative Base,” Roll Call, January 23, 2019, https://www.rollcall.

com/2019/01/23/amnesty-don-returns-trump-curiously-challenges-his-conservative-base/ (accessed October 7, 2020).

 Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values” (emphasis added).

 Ibid.

 Ibid.

 Ronald W. Mortensen, “Illegal But Not Undocumented,” Center for Immigration Studies, June 19, 2009, https://cis.org/Report/Illegal-Not-

Undocumented (accesed October 16, 2020).

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 16

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

 Donald Trump, “Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by

Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats,” Presidential Proclamation 9645, September 24, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/

presidential-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-processes-detecting-attempted-entry-united-states-terrorists-public-safety-threats/

(accessed September 29, 2020); Donald Trump, “Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” Executive

Order 137569, January 27, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-

states/ (accessed September 29, 2020); and Donald Trump, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” Executive

Order 13780, March 6, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-

states-2/ (accessed September 29, 2020).

 Trump, “Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or

Other Public-Safety Threats,” § 4.

 Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. 2392 (2018).

 Ibid., at 2408.

 Donald Trump, “Presidential Proclamation on Improving Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry,” Presidential

Proclamation 9983, January 31, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-improving-enhanced-vetting-capabilities-

processes-detecting-attempted-entry/ (accessed September 28, 2020).

 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Raising the Global Travel Security Bar: DHS Announces New Travel Restrictions on Six Countries and Updated

Process for Evaluating Foreign Country Compliance,” January 31, 2020, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/01/31/raising-global-travel-security-bar-dhs-

announces-new-travel-restrictions-six (accessed October 6, 2020).

 Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values.”

 Lisa Soronen, “2nd Circuit Rules Against Cities and States in Sanctuary Jurisdictions Case,” National Conference of State Legislatures, February

27, 2020, https://www.ncsl.org/blog/2020/02/27/2nd-circuit-rules-against-cities-and-states-in-sanctuary-jurisdictions-case.aspx (accessed

October 1, 2020).

 Donald Trump, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” Executive Order 13768, January 25, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/

presidential-actions/executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united-states/ (accessed October 1, 2020).

 Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values.”

 Ibid.

 8 U.S. Code § 1225(b)(2) (2008).

 Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 136 (July 16, 2019), pp. 33829–33845.

 Kirk Semple, “Asylum Seekers Say U.S. Is Returning Them to the Dangers They Fled,” New York Times, March 17, 2020, https://www.nytimes.

com/2020/03/17/world/americas/immigration-guatemala-us-asylum.html (accessed October 1, 2020).

 Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values.”

 Ibid.

 Nahal Toosi and Seung Min Kim, “Obama Raises Refugee Goal to 110,000, Infuriating GOP,” Politico, September 13, 2016, https://www.politico.com/

story/2016/09/obama-refugees-228134 (accessed October 1, 2020).

 Donald Trump, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” Executive Order 13769, January 27, 2017, § 5(a), https://www.

whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states-2/ (accessed April 13, 2020).

 Ibid., §5(d).

 Andorra Bruno, “FY2020 Refugee Ceiling and Allocations,” Congressional Research Service, November 7, 2019, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/

IN11196.pdf (accessed October 1, 2020). President Trump has proposed 15,000 refugee admissions for the FY 2021 ceiling. See U.S. Department of State,

“Transmission of the President’s Report to Congress on the Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021,” September 30, 2020, https://www.state.

gov/transmission-of-the-presidents-report-to-congress-on-the-proposed-refugee-admissions-for-ﬁscal-year-2021/ (accessed October 1, 2020).

 U.S. Department of State, “Report to Congress on Proposed Refugee Admissions for FY 2020,” Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration,

November 4, 2019, https://www.state.gov/reports/report-to-congress-on-proposed-refugee-admissions-for-fy-2020/ (accessed October 1, 2020).

 U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Program for Minors in El Salvador,

Guatemala, and Honduras With Parents Lawfully Present in the United States,” November 14, 2014, https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/prm/releases/

factsheets/2014/234067.htm (accessed October 6, 2020).

 Ibid.

 Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 157 (August 16, 2017), pp. 389926–38927. The termination notice did not terminate the CAM portion of the program,

though CAM was later terminated as part of the U.S. government review of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for FY 2018. See U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services, “In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala (Central American Minors—CAM),”

https://www.uscis.gov/CAM (accessed April 16, 2020).

OCTOBER 21, 2020 | 17

BACKGROUNDER | No. 3547

heritage.org

 Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values.”

 Ibid.

 Ibid.

 Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 157 (August 14, 2019), pp. 41292–41508, and Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 191 (October 2, 2019), pp. 52357–52363.

 Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 157, p. 41299.

 Ibid.

 Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values.”

 Ibid.

 Immigration and Nationality Act, Public Law No. 89–236, § 244(b)(1).

 Sudan was designated in 1997, Honduras and Nicaragua in 1999, El Salvador in 2001, Haiti in 2010, South Sudan in 2011, Syria in 2012, and Nepal

and Yemen in 2015. See U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services, “Temporary Protected Status Designated Countries,” https://www.uscis.gov/

humanitarian/temporary-protected-status (accessed April 9, 2020).

 See Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 108 (June 5, 2018), pp. 26074–26080.

 Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values.”

 Ibid.

 Ibid.

 See Donald Trump, “Letter to House and Senate Leaders & Immigration Principles and Policies,” October 8, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/

brieﬁngs-statements/President-donald-j-trumps-letter-house-senate-leaders-immigration-principles-policies/ (accessed September 28, 2020).

 U.S. Department of State, “Diversity Visa Program,” https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/diversity-visa-program-entry/

diversity-visa-if-you-are-selected/diversity-visa-conﬁrm-your-qualiﬁcations.html (accessed October 6, 2020).

 Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values.”

 Ibid.

 Ibid.

 Donald Trump, “Buy American and Hire American,” Executive Order 13788, April 18, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/

presidential-executive-order-buy-american-hire-american/ (accessed April 18, 2020).

 Ibid., § 5(b).

 For example, in October 2020, the Department of Labor published an interim ﬁnal rule to update the computation of prevailing wage levels under

the existing four-tier wage structure to better reﬂect the actual wages earned by U.S. workers similarly employed to foreign workers. The Labor

Department stated, “This update will allow DOL to more eectively ensure that the employment of immigrant and nonimmigrant workers admitted or

otherwise provided status does not adversely aect the wages and job opportunities of U.S. workers.” See Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 196 (October

8, 2020), pp. 63872–63915. The same day, the Department of Homeland Security published an interim ﬁnal rule to strengthen the integrity of the H-1B

program during the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 public health emergency to more eectively ensure that the employment of H-1B workers

would not have an adverse impact on the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. See Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 196

(October 8, 2020), pp. 63918–63965.

 Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values.”

 Ibid.

 Donald Trump, “Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak,”

Presidential Proclamation 10052, June 22, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspending-entry-aliens-present-

risk-u-s-labor-market-following-coronavirus-outbreak/ (accessed October 6, 2020).

 Biden, “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values.”

 Ibid.

 Ibid.