state sponsored nonimmigrant program

Summary#

This bill creates a new federal nonimmigrant visa category for people sponsored by a State to live and work in that State to help its economy. It lets any State set up a program, subject to federal approval, to recruit, place, and regulate these “State‑sponsored nonimmigrants.” The goal is to give States a tool to attract workers, investors, or founders and to let States set rules about where those people live and work.

Key changes:

• Adds a new nonimmigrant category (called 101(a)(15)(W) in the bill) for aliens sponsored by a State and their spouse and minor children.
• States must apply to DHS for program approval. The Secretary of Homeland Security must approve any State application that meets the bill’s listed requirements.
• States control many program details: who is sponsored, employment and residence rules, bonds, wage assessments, complaint mechanisms, and appeals within the State system.
• The bill sets a numerical system for visas per State (a base plus a population share and a 245,000 figure used in distribution). Numbers can rise or fall with GDP and with State compliance measures.
• State‑sponsored nonimmigrants are ineligible for Federal means‑tested benefits. Employers must make certain payments into the Treasury that the bill describes as equivalent to some Federal payroll taxes.
• States may require bonds from sponsored aliens; if more than 3% of a State’s sponsored people violate rules, mandatory bonds start ($4,000 and rising). Bonds are refundable under listed conditions.
• The bill allows certain applicants who were physically present in the U.S. on December 31, 2016 to seek waivers of particular inadmissibility or deportability grounds, subject to fees, background checks, and fraud penalties.

What it means for you

• States and state governments

  • Can apply to run a State‑sponsored nonimmigrant program if the legislature approves it.
  • Will design residency, employment, licensing, wage checks, complaint systems, and appeals for sponsored people.
  • Must report annually on where sponsored people live and work and may be charged federal oversight fees by DHS.
  • Could face suspension of admissions if they fail to reimburse other States or refund bonds as required.

• Prospective foreign workers and their families

  • Could be admitted to the U.S. if a State sponsors them to live and work in that State.
  • May get employment authorization while in this status, and can apply for occupational licenses and credential recognition.
  • Cannot receive Federal means‑tested benefits while in this status.
  • May have to post a bond set by the State; bonds are refundable under certain conditions.
  • Must pass background checks and meet admissibility rules unless eligible for a waiver described in the bill.

• Employers

  • May hire State‑sponsored nonimmigrants if the State’s rules allow it.
  • Must follow federal, State, and local tax laws for these workers.
  • Must pay into the Treasury an amount the bill describes as equivalent to certain Federal payroll taxes for wages paid to these workers.

• U.S. workers

  • States must create procedures to assess labor needs, investigate complaints about displacement, and attest that hiring a sponsored person does not displace a U.S. worker. How effective these steps are will depend on each State’s rules.

• Federal agencies (DHS, State Department, Labor, Treasury)

  • DHS and State Department must approve visas and admissions and carry out required reporting, vetting, and enforcement processes.
  • DHS must promulgate regulations within 180 days of the law taking effect.

• Legal rights and review

  • Denials by a State to participate or State requests to terminate a sponsored person are not reviewable by federal agencies or courts under the bill.
  • Denials or revocations of certain waiver applications have limited federal judicial review (must be filed in the District of Columbia and limited to constitutional claims).

Expenses

No direct public cost estimate is provided in the bill text or the accompanying material.

Known fiscal elements in the bill:

• The Secretary may charge each participating State a federal fee to cover the cost of DHS oversight. The bill does not set dollar amounts.
• States may assess fees for workforce investment; DHS must waive its fee if a State uses its fee for workforce investment activities.
• Employers must pay into the general fund an amount described as equivalent to specified Federal payroll taxes on wages paid to sponsored nonimmigrants. The bill does not show how this will be calculated or collected in practice.
• The bill requires annual reports by the Inspectors General and the Comptroller General; this implies administrative costs but no estimates are provided.
• Applicants seeking certain waivers must pay an adjudication fee and a separate penalty of at least $1,000 that goes to the Treasury.
• States may require bonds from sponsored nonimmigrants; those are paid by individuals and may be refundable.

Proponents' View

The bill appears intended to:

• Give States tools to attract and place workers, investors, and entrepreneurs tailored to local economic needs.
• Let States set rules about residence and employment to match State labor market goals and regulatory regimes.
• Tie visa numbers to economic measures (GDP) and State compliance, which could encourage good program performance.
• Provide employers and sponsored people with clearer paths to work authorization and occupational licensing within the sponsoring State.
• Include guardrails such as background checks, bonds, employer payments to the Treasury, and fraud penalties.

Opponents' View

Possible concerns based on the bill’s design:

• The bill gives States broad control over eligibility, termination, and appeals, and it states that some State decisions are not reviewable in federal court. This raises questions about federal oversight and uniformity of rights and due process.
• The waiver provision for people who were in the U.S. on December 31, 2016 may create a narrowly defined path for people with past unauthorized presence; the bill requires fees and penalties but the policy effects are unclear.
• The employer payment requirement described as “equivalent” to payroll taxes is vague on mechanics and could create compliance complexity or affect employer costs.
• The effectiveness of State wage assessments and complaint mechanisms is unclear. The bill does not specify how States must prevent wage depression or ensure enforcement across employers.
• Fiscal impacts are not estimated. The bill leaves many fee and cost amounts to be set later by DHS or by States, so total costs and revenues are uncertain.
• The mandatory bond rules (triggered when more than 3% of a State’s sponsored people violate terms) could impose sizable upfront costs on individuals and might vary greatly by State.

What is unclear:

• How federal oversight fees will be calculated and whether they will cover all DHS costs.
• How employer “payments into the general fund” will interact with existing payroll tax systems.
• How States’ enforcement and appeals systems will protect sponsored people’s legal rights in practice.
• How the numerical distribution formula will work year to year in practice and how it will interact with other visa categories.