Unused Employment Visas Contributed to Green Card Backlog

The green card backlog is significant for employment-based immigrants, particularly for professionals born in India. It’s possible the overall employment-based backlog is close to half a million people. Absent reform of the per country limits and an increase in the annual quotas it will take years – many years – to clear this backlog.

Few people realize there is a surprising cause for at least some of the backlog – unused employment visas. Since the 1990 Act, the annual quota for employment-based green cards has been 140,000. That includes both the principals and dependent family members.

However, even though the annual quota has been 140,000, that does not mean 140,000 green cards were awarded each year. Due to administrative issues within the federal government, in several years the quota was underutilized. This is detailed in the 2010 Annual Report of the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.

As Table 1 illustrates between FY 1992 and FY 2006, more than 506,000 employment-based immigrant visas went unused. The data were provided to the Ombudsman by the U.S. Department of State. In 1995, for example, there were 58,694 employment-based visas that went unused. In 1997, the number that went unused was 40,170. In 1999, the number reached 98,491. As recently as 2003, 88,482 unused visas authorized by Congress were not used due to administrative problems within the federal government.

As the table shows, of the 506,410 employment visas that went unused since the 1990 Act, only 180,039 have been recaptured via special legislation. It is likely most members of Congress do not realize this many green cards authorized by Congress have gone unused. It would take special legislation for the visas to be reauthorized. If Congress were to reauthorize the use of the remaining 300,000-plus unused visas accumulated over the years it would significantly reduce the waiting times for employment-based immigrants and give such immigrants their chance at the American Dream.

Table 1

Unused Employment-Based Visas FY 1992-FY 2009

Fiscal Year

Unused Employment Preference Numbers
1992 21,207
1993 0
1994 29,430
1995 58,694
1996 21,173
1997 40,170
1998 53,571
1999 98,491
2000 31,098
2001 5,511
2002 0
2003 88,482
2004 47,305
2005 0
2006 10,288
2007 0
2008 0
2009 0
2010 0
Total 506,410(180,039 were recaptured by special legislation)

Source: U.S. Department of State; USCIS Ombudsman,

Annual Report to Congress, June 2010, p. 35.

India-Bangladesh Settle Boundary Dispute

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Bangladesh this week has led to the settlement of the complex boundary dispute that had been festering between India and East Pakistan since the British left in 1947 and between India and Bangladesh since the new country was born in 1971. This is a significant milestone in the troubled history of the relationship between the two countries.

The India-Bangladesh border was always in the news as there were frequent clashes between India’s Border Security Force (BSF) and the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) at places like the Teen Bigha corridor. The border has a peculiar problem that is usually referred to as ‘Enclaves and Adverse Possessions’. There are 111 Indian enclaves (17,158 acres) within Bangladesh with a population of 37,334 and 51 Bangladeshi enclaves (7,110.02 acres) in India with a population of 14,215. 34 tracts of Indian land are under the adverse possession of Bangladesh and 40 pieces of Bangladeshi land are in India’s adverse possession. The demarcation of the boundary was done by signing a protocol to the Land Boundary Agreement of 1974. Though this agreement had provisions for the settlement of the issue of adverse possession, it had not been implemented as the problem was considered politically sensitive. The political leadership of the two countries has at last found the courage to invest time and effort towards resolving this sensitive issue. Now that the border dispute has been settled, unseemly clashes, which do no credit to either side, will no longer occur and spoil relations between the two countries.

The Indian Prime Minister was accompanied by four of the five Chief Ministers (CM) of Indian states bordering Bangladesh. Ms Mamata Banerjee, the CM of West Bengal and the stormy petrel of Indian politics, was reportedly upset at the concessions proposed to be made to Bangladesh ‘at the cost of West Bengal’ in the agreement on sharing of the waters of the River Teesta and dropped out virtually at the last minute. PM Manmohan Singh promised Sheikh Hasina, the Bangladesh PM, that the two sides would continue to discuss the Teesta River issue to reach “a mutually acceptable, fair and amicable arrangement…” However, as a quid pro quo response, Bangladesh retaliated by scuttling the treaty on transit rights that was also on the cards and that would have provided easer access to the rest of the country to some of India’s north-eastern states through Bangladesh.

Some of the other important treaties that were signed included an agreement on Indian aid for development programmes, a pact on overland transit between Bangladesh and Nepal, MoUs on renewable energy and the conservation of the Sunderbans and an understanding on jointly promoting fisheries. India agreed to allow Bangladesh duty free access to 46 textile items to be exported to India. Several MoUs were also signed for cooperation in the fields of education and communications, as also a protocol on conservation of the Royal Bengal Tiger – very few of this majestic species now remain in the wild.

Ever since the government of Sheikh Hasina had cracked down on India’s ULFA insurgents who had been hiding in Bangladesh for long, relations between the two countries had shown signs of thawing. The Hasina government’s policy of counter-terrorism was in stark contrast with the Begum Khaleda Zia government’s policy of providing covert shelter, encouragement and support to various Indian insurgent groups. The signing of the historic boundary agreement has taken the relationship to a much higher trajectory. The two prime ministers deserve to be complimented for their political courage and sagacity in bringing to an end the bitterness of the past.

The Continuing Proxy War in Kashmir

The situation in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) continues to remain a cause for concern to the government of India. Since end-1989, Pakistan has been waging a ‘proxy war’ against India in J&K. It has done this by aiding and abetting disaffected and misguided Kashmiri youth to rise against the Indian state. Despite the cease-fire on the Line of Control (LoC) since November 2003 and the tenuous rapprochement process, Pakistan continues to surreptitiously practice its peculiar brand of state-sponsored terrorism. This is borne out by the continuing attempts at infiltration in Kashmir during the summer of 2011.

Till some years ago, Pakistan’s official position was that it provides only ‘diplomatic, political and moral’ support to ‘freedom fighters’. However, it is now internationally accepted that the Pakistan army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate have been providing military training, weapons, military equipment, ammunition and explosives to the terrorists, besides financial support. The ISI spends approximately Rs 5 to 10 crore (USD 1 to 2 million) per month on its proxy war campaign. Till the present cease-fire came into effect, the Pakistan army actively supported terrorist bids to infiltrate into J&K by engaging Indian posts along the routes of infiltration with artillery and small arms fire.  Though infiltration has now been reduced due to effective counter-infiltration measures by the Indian army, even the present low levels would not be possible but for the encouragement and steady support being given to the Jihadi extremists by the Pakistan army.

Throughout the prolonged period of Pakistan’s proxy war, India has shown tremendous restraint and immense tolerance in the face of grave provocation to its security. It is inconceivable that any other nation would have acted with the sense of responsibility that India has in not launching trans-LoC operations to eliminate militant training camps and interdict known routes of infiltration. Many Indian analysts have been advocating a pro-active trans-LoC and trans-border counter-proxy war policy.

Former RAW analyst B. Raman has written: “The main reason why India has not yet been able to effectively put an end to Jihadi terrorism against it and its civilian population sponsored by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is because India’s counter-terrorism operations are directed only against the terrorists operating in its territory. They are not yet directed against the State sponsoring them despite a persistent demand from growing sections of the Indian population for targeting the State of Pakistan too.”

While Pakistan had reduced the overt infiltration of so-called Kashmiri ‘freedom fighters’ across the LoC during Musharraf’s rule, it continued to do so covertly by looking for smarter methods of inducting more Jihadis; for example, through neighbouring countries like Nepal and Bangladesh. The remaining roots of terrorism in Kashmir now lie in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) and in Pakistan itself and, unless India shows the political will necessary to eliminate these roots, Pakistan’s proxy war is likely to continue unabated even though it may become more sophisticated and covert in its approach.

The Pakistan army is under tremendous pressure from Jihadi elements responsible for internal instability and from the Americans to deliver more in the so-called War on Terror. Despite these pressures, there is unlikely to be any change in the Pakistan army’s hostility towards India and its covert support, even sponsorship, of Islamist fundamentalist terrorism across the LoC and the international boundary (IB) from Pakistan soil. Prime Minister Gilani said recently that Pakistan will continue to provide diplomatic, moral and political support for what he says is a ‘freedom struggle’ in Kashmir.

Clearly, the rapprochement process is a tactical ploy to tide over current domestic difficulties and there has not been a strategic change of heart. Pakistan’s proxy war with India will go on because the Pakistan army will not allow the civilian leadership to change its fundamental policy towards India. Hence, lasting peace in Kashmir and between India and Pakistan will remain a distant dream.

Back to Basics

With the intergovernmental drivers of the US-India partnership now in a period of languor, it is time for the economic relationship to return to the forefront. This is the moment for business leaders in both countries to once again step forward.

As earlier posts have argued, relations between Washington and New Delhi – which not too long ago seemed destined to reach for the stars – are now feeling the heavy tug of gravity. In place of soaring rhetoric and high-profile undertakings, ties between the two capitals are weighed down by bureaucratic inertia and small-bore ideas.

Image back to basicsTwo recent episodes confirm this downward trajectory. The annual US-India economic and financial partnership talks took place this past June in Washington, though few beyond the personal staffs of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee took any notice. The anodyne communiqué that was issued highlighted the deepening of “institutional relationships” as a major achievement of the talks, but the lack of specific commitments contrasted unfavorably with the detailed work plan that emanated from the US-China economic dialogue occurring just six weeks earlier. Indeed, the Washington-Beijing nexus has a way of upstaging US-India economic exchanges. When Geithner traveled to New Delhi in April 2010, for the launch of the bilateral economic partnership, all of the media attention was focused on whether he would fly off on a spur-of-the-moment trip to China, to engage in talks over the relative value of the yuan. (To nobody’s surprise, he subsequently did end up in Beijing.)  Similarly the US-India Strategic Dialogue that took place six weeks ago in New Delhi was an exercise in modest output and mutual frustration.

Given the serious domestic problems diverting the attention of both capitals, it is difficult to imagine how the government-to-government relationship can be advanced significantly in the next few years.  Nonetheless, the outlook for bilateral affairs is not entirely dim.  One exceedingly bright spot is the accelerating pace of economic engagement.  A decade ago, then-U.S. ambassador to India Robert Blackwill lamented that the volume of bilateral trade was as “flat as a chapati.” But trade levels have risen markedly in the years since.  Indeed, even with the global economy in the doldrums and the torpor in official ties, 2010 was a banner year for the trade relationship, with two-way goods exports surging nearly 30 percent to $48.8 billion. Merchandise exports are also up significantly in the first half of 2011 compared to the same period last year. All told, India is now America’s 12th largest good trading partner and the country constitutes one of the fastest-growing destinations for U.S. exports.

It is true that the economic relationship is very far from achieving critical mass and that US-China trade flows eclipse the US-India figures many times over. Still, the trend lines are quite hopeful and they illuminate the vital role that economic engagement plays in securing the growth of a resilient partnership over the long term.  This last point is persuasively set out in a new book, The Eagle and the Elephant, by Raymond E. Vickery, Jr.  A former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration and now a leading figure in the US-India Business Council, Vickery argues that “economic engagement is fundamental to the ability of the United States and India to cooperate politically.” He demonstrates in great detail how over the past decade the private sectors on both sides forged the foundation for the diplomatic rapprochement that eventuated in the path-breaking civilian nuclear accord and an ever-closer security relationship. (Importantly, too, the book illustrates how mismanaged episodes of economic interaction can have far-reaching negative impact, such as the Dabhol debacle in the mid-1990s that continues to impede bilateral cooperation on energy and environmental matters, as well as impairing India’s international credibility as a respecter of contractual rights.)

So how can policymakers in Washington and New Delhi leverage the vitality of the economic relationship in order to re-energize the overall partnership? Two of the usual answers – concluding a broad-based free trade agreement and an investment treaty – are problematic, at least for the next few years. Considering that the two countries are at loggerheads in the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations, plus the neuralgic agricultural issues that must be dealt with, the prospects for a comprehensive trade accord are well off in the distance. And although U.S. and Indian policymakers recently agreed to accelerate discussions over an investment treaty, its full value is really contingent upon additional reforms within India – such as liberalizing foreign direct investment in the retail and financial sectors, deregulating labor markets, regularizing the land acquisition process, and dramatically addressing infrastructure bottlenecks. With decision-making in New Delhi all but paralyzed these days, it is anyone’s guess when these key reforms will be enacted.

There are several initiatives that have more promising prospects, however. As spelled out in earlier posts, Washington and New Delhi should aim to build upon their striking record of engagement in the innovation economy sectors by crafting a free trade mechanism relevant to advanced technology products and drafting an immigration accord that allows high-skilled Indian professionals to work in the United States. Both undertakings would capitalize on important economic complementaries and would build up economic capacities that are so significant to the long-term prospects of both countries.

Continuing to think outside the box, negotiators also might explore whether India would be willing to address manifold U.S. concerns about its regime for protecting intellectual property in exchange for a totalization agreement covering Indian technology workers posted to the United States on temporary assignments (as Derek Scissors suggests, or for the special restoration of trade privileges (amounting to $3.5 billion in value in 2010) that expired when the U.S. Congress failed to reauthorize the Generalized System of Preferences at the end of last year.

Finally, taking page from its successful campaign several years ago to bring India into global nonproliferation institutions, the United States should use the upcoming APEC Summit, which takes place this November in Honolulu, to lobby for New Delhi’s admission into the group.  Given that India is poised to become one of the world’s top economies in the coming years, its absence is a serious lacuna for the organization.  (My next post will deal with this issue in greater detail.)

With the intergovernmental drivers of the US-India partnership now in a period of languor, it is time for the economic relationship to return to the forefront.  This is the moment for business leaders in both countries to once again step forward.

Building Trust in South Asia through Cooperative Retirement of Obsolescent Missiles

(Mr. Feroz Khan also contributed to the piece.)

Nuclear deterrence is growing roots in South Asia. India and Pakistan have both incorporated nuclear capabilities into their defence planning. Both are guided by a philosophy of minimum credible deterrence, although within this context modest growth is expected to achieve desired force postures. It is natural that asymmetries exist in the forces held by India and Pakistan. These will persist along with different perceptions of strategy and tactics. Despite these differences, we believe India and Pakistan have both reached a point where they should share perceptions about deterrence and nuclear stability in the region.

indiapakThe time is right for India and Pakistan to expand shared understandings through cooperative exchanges of information about their respective deterrence postures. Such understanding could be critical in a crisis. Both India and Pakistan have mutually resolved to enhance strategic stability in our region, as affirmed in the Lahore Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in February 1999.  One possibility for furthering this goal is to consider retiring their oldest, first generation, nuclear capable, short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), which are at the end of their natural lifespan. Pakistan’s HATF 1 & 2 and India’s Prithvi 1 & 2 have served their purpose and will be eventually retired unilaterally according to each nation’s normal decommissioning process.  We propose a plan of mutual transparency measures that would share information about the retirement of these missiles on a reciprocal, bilateral basis — without impinging on the continuing modernisation of both sides’ strategic forces. The retirement of other nuclear capable, obsolescent ballistic missiles can then follow in the same cooperative spirit.

We have participated in an in-depth study and also recently in a mock exercise to explore how information exchanges between our two countries could be conducted. We are confident that such an exchange could be achieved with minimal risk and costs and yet provide important reassurance about significant changes in deterrence postures.

The Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan have recently reaffirmed their commitment to pursue confidence building measures (CBM) in connection with their ongoing Composite Dialogue. A working group on peace and security matters is charged with exploring CBMs in the security area. One candidate CBM would be to conduct a Joint Transparency Exercise (JTE) to exchange information about retired missiles. With the voluntary retirement of these obsolescent missiles already imminent, New Delhi and Islamabad could make a virtue of a necessity by adding reciprocal transparency to the retirement process. Our studies show such a joint CBM is ripe for consideration and could be conducted in the near term. A first step might be to declare these nuclear capable missiles to be non-nuclear delivery systems. Then, as these missiles are removed from the nuclear arsenal, our two countries can build trust and understanding as our respective experts expand cooperation in the drawdown of obsolete forces.

This is a small step. It has been endorsed by several prestigious expert groups. We have studied the practical details of how such ideas could be implemented. We concluded that such exchanges could be powerful tools in enhancing mutual confidence and signal maturity as responsible nuclear powers. The costs and risks for India and Pakistan are small, but the potential benefits are great. It is a step whose time has come.

(Feroz Khan and Gurmeet Kanwal, both retired Brigadiers, are with the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA, and the Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi, respectively. Views are personal.)