Proposal 1
Replacing the 3-Year and 10-Year Bars with the Employment Compliance Identifier (ECI)
Transforming unresolved presence into supervised compliance
The three-year and ten-year reentry bars were designed to discourage unlawful presence by attaching consequences to departure. Over time, however, they have produced a systemic administrative effect: individuals who could otherwise resolve their immigration situation are discouraged from leaving the country because departure itself triggers exclusion. The result is a growing population that remains inside the adjudication system not to obtain benefits, but because exiting the process becomes legally risky.
The Employment Compliance Identifier (ECI) proposes a voluntary administrative pathway that allows individuals to leave the adjudication queue without evading accountability, replacing unresolved procedural presence with monitored compliance participation.
1. How Reentry Bars Create Long-Term Backlog Pressure
Reentry penalties apply only after departure from the United States. Because the penalty is activated by leaving rather than by eligibility, individuals who might otherwise pursue lawful immigration options frequently avoid departure even when they have potential pathways available.
This produces a structural outcome: the immigration system accumulates cases that cannot realistically be resolved.
The administrative burden appears in three different stages of government operations:
First — Case Retention
A person remains in a pending process for years because leaving triggers exclusion. The case stays open even if adjudication will not produce immediate resolution.
Second — Monitoring Burden
Agencies must track address changes, notices, scheduling updates, and compliance requirements for individuals who cannot finalize their status.
Third — Court Congestion
Cases remain scheduled even when both the applicant and the government know the outcome cannot be executed due to the departure penalty structure.
The system therefore processes files not because adjudication is necessary, but because departure is impractical.
The penalty discourages closure rather than discouraging presence.
This transforms what was intended to be an enforcement tool into a procedural bottleneck generator. Individuals remain inside the system longer than the adjudication timeline itself.
Over time, this converts immigration processing from a decision-making structure into a case-maintenance structure.
2. The Compliance-Based Alternative
The Employment Compliance Identifier changes the incentive structure without altering immigration eligibility laws.
Instead of requiring departure followed by a multi-year prohibition, the individual may voluntarily transition from a pending case into supervised compliance registration.
Participation requires affirmative action:
- Withdrawal of the pending humanitarian claim
- Identity verification and biometric capture
- Criminal background screening
- Entry into monitored employment reporting
Once registered, the individual exits the adjudication pipeline. The government no longer processes the person as a pending decision but as a registered participant subject to compliance requirements.
This distinction is central.
Adjudication Model
The government must review evidence, conduct interviews, schedule hearings, and maintain files over multiple years.
Compliance Model
The government verifies identity, monitors participation, and enforces conditions when violated.
The administrative workload shifts from evaluating narratives to verifying behavior.
The program does not provide immigration status, permanent residence, or citizenship eligibility. It simply replaces unresolved procedural presence with regulated administrative presence.
The objective is resolution, not legalization.
3. Immediate Backlog Effects
Many pending cases exist not because eligibility is unclear but because departure consequences prevent resolution.
When a safe administrative exit exists, individuals who are not pursuing protection-based relief can leave the protection queue voluntarily.
This produces measurable administrative changes:
Reduction of pending cases
Each enrollment removes one case from adjudication immediately.
Officer time concentration
Officers review fewer non-protection claims and spend more time on genuine protection cases.
Court demand decrease
Fewer cases advance into the hearing system, reducing scheduling pressure.
The result is not faster denials but fewer necessary adjudications.
Instead of completing a full adjudication cycle lasting years, the system closes the case at the entry stage through voluntary withdrawal.
Backlog reduction occurs at intake rather than at final decision.
This is operationally significant because the majority of government labor occurs before the final decision, not after.
The ECI therefore reduces workload volume rather than accelerating workload speed.
4. Economic Reporting and Labor Transparency
Individuals with unresolved immigration situations frequently participate in the workforce regardless of adjudication stage.
The administrative question is not whether participation occurs, but whether participation is visible.
Under the current structure, employment activity may be inconsistent in documentation and reporting due to uncertainty in authorization categories.
Under a monitored compliance structure:
Employment participation becomes structured reporting activity. Participants must maintain documented income records and verified identity association. Government agencies obtain consistent labor data rather than fragmented records.
Reliable identity-to-employment linkage
Each worker is connected to a single compliance identifier.
Predictable tax participation
Income reporting becomes standardized.
Employer clarity
Employers interact with one defined provisional category instead of multiple ambiguous document combinations.
The program does not expand the workforce. It formalizes participation of individuals already present in administrative proceedings.
The shift is from uncertain economic participation to supervised economic participation.
5. Enforcement Integrity and Administrative Efficiency
Enforcement credibility depends on the ability to produce outcomes, not only penalties.
A rule that cannot realistically be executed encourages avoidance behavior. A rule that provides a monitored resolution path encourages participation.
The ECI maintains enforcement authority because participation is conditional.
Non-compliance triggers removal from the program:
- Criminal violations
- Failure to report employment activity
- Identity fraud
- Repeated administrative violations
Enforcement therefore becomes targeted.
Instead of supervising millions of unresolved pending cases, the government supervises compliance conditions and intervenes only when violations occur.
Resources move from passive case maintenance to active rule enforcement.
This improves both operational efficiency and public confidence in administrative processes.
The immigration system stops tracking people waiting for decisions and begins tracking people meeting conditions.
EB Visa Backlog by the Numbers
Current employment-based immigration backlog statistics from USCIS, State Department, and Cato Institute data.
785K
Approved petitions waiting for visa numbers
1.8M
Total people in EB green card backlog
134 yrs
Projected India EB-2 wait time
February 2026 Visa Bulletin — Final Action Dates
| Category | India | China | Mexico | Philippines | Rest of World |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EB-1 | Aug 1, 2023 | Aug 1, 2023 | Current | Current | Current |
| EB-2 | Dec 1, 2013 | Jan 1, 2022 | Oct 15, 2024 | Oct 15, 2024 | Oct 15, 2024 |
| EB-3 | Aug 15, 2014 | Jan 1, 2022 | Oct 1, 2023 | Oct 1, 2023 | Oct 1, 2023 |
India EB-2 priority date of Dec 1, 2013 represents a 12+ year backlog. Over 1.1 million of the 1.8M total are from India (63%).
Processing Times
Current USCIS and DOL form processing timelines.
| Form | Processing Time | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| I-140 (Premium) | 15 business days | 45 days for EB-1C / NIW |
| I-485 (Employment) | ~7 months | After priority date current |
| PERM Labor Cert | ~483 days | DOL analyst review |
11.3M
Overall USCIS case backlog (Sept 2025)
67%
EB-1A approval rate (Q3 FY2025)
50%
EB-1A filing increase year-over-year
Economic Cost of Delays
GDP impact projections and economic consequences of immigration backlogs.
Green = projected economic gain · Red = projected economic loss
55%
of billion-dollar U.S. startups have at least one immigrant founder — collectively worth $1.2T
43%
of Fortune 500 companies founded by first- or second-generation immigrants — $5.3T in global revenue
23%
of all U.S. patents produced by immigrants, who represent 16% of inventors
32%
of immigrants in backlogs seriously considering returning home; 70% considered moving to other countries
The three-year and ten-year bars were intended to discourage unlawful presence, yet operationally they discourage resolution. The Employment Compliance Identifier restores closure by allowing individuals to transition from pending adjudication to supervised compliance without bypassing enforcement authority.
The result is a smaller docket, clearer monitoring, and a system aligned with practical administrative behavior rather than procedural stagnation.