What the US ‘EAGLE Act’ means for Southeast Asia

Two months after its introduction to the US House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, the ‘Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement (EAGLE) Act’ has passed the mark for it to be introduced in the House for a vote at a later stage. Southeast Asia should sit up and take note.

Despite failing to secure bipartisan compromise for this bill, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that Washington has to deal with China from the position of strength. This is true whether through the Democrats’ restrained approach or the Republicans’ hard-line slant on Indo-Pacific security, human rights and global governance.

The inclusion of ASEAN within Section 205 of the proposed Act speaks to the importance of Southeast Asia to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Altogether, there are 17 provisions within the Statement of Policy on Cooperation with ASEAN, with most of them pointing to the reaffirmation of Washington’s support for ASEAN. Still, two specific provisions warrant particular attention from ASEAN in its future engagement with the United States.

The fourth provision hints at the Foreign Affairs Committee’s desire to see ASEAN foster integration with like-minded powers that are aligned with Washington, either as security allies or partners. It calls for ASEAN to unite with Japan, South Korea, Australia, India and the European Union in the three domains of cooperation — namely, political, economic and security. As China is the most important trade partner for ASEAN and the foremost rival for the United States and its allies, it is clear the provision is made with thoughts of containing Beijing in mind.

Such a provision, should it be ratified, poses an unprecedented challenge to ASEAN’s long-held centrality principle. The centrality principle is predicated upon the Southeast Asian bloc being the driver of regional architecture — the processes for economic and security cooperation within the region and beyond.

The fourth provision of Section 205 will provide Washington with the legal pretext to lobby and pressure ASEAN to support the US-led Quad’s Indo-Pacific strategy that counters China. Thus, ASEAN should pay special attention to the progress of this omnibus bill and, if possible, engage with the Congressional political establishment. This may ensure the provision will not place the Southeast Asian bloc at a disadvantage in fostering equidistant relations with great powers.

The bipartisan act seeks to phase out the seven per cent per-country limit on employment-based immigrant visas and raises the per-country limit on family-sponsored visas from seven per cent to 15 per cent. It provides for a nine-year period for the elimination of this limit.

The seven per cent limit was introduced in the mid-20th century, which has led countries with relatively small populations to be allocated the same number of visas as a relatively large-population country, states a press release by the Representatives.

“A person from a large-population country with extraordinary qualifications who could contribute greatly to our economy and create jobs waits behind a person with lesser qualifications from a smaller country,” the statement further reads, adding that the act seeks to ‘de-emphasize birthplace’.

Think-tank Cato Institute had reported in March 2020 that 75 per cent of the backlog for employment based visas was made up of Indians.

“Backlogged Indian workers face an impossible wait of nine decades if they all could remain in the line,” the report states. “More than 200,000 petitions filed for Indians could expire as a result of the workers dying of old age before they receive green cards.”

With the EAGLE Act, the per-country cap would be removed, which may expedite the petitions for those applying for employment-based green cards.

However, since the highest number of applicants are from India and China, the EAGLE Act also seeks to reserve visas for ‘Lower Admission States’ for nine fiscal years (FY).

While 30 per cent of employment-based visas will be reserved in FY1, this would be reduced to five per cent in FY 7, 8 and 9.

The bill also ensures that “no country may receive more than 25 per cent of reserved visas and no country may receive more than 85 per cent of unreserved visas,” in the nine fiscal years.

A similar Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act (HR1044) was passed by the House of Representatives in July 2019 with a resounding margin 365 to 65 votes. A total of 224 Democrats and 140 Republicans had voted in favour of the Bill.

The bill sought to implement similar provisions which would remove the seven per cent cap on per-country employee-backed immigrant visas.

Another version of the bill (S386) was passed by the Senate in the 116th session of the Congress. Some of the co-sponsors of the bill include now-Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican Mitt Romney. However, according to the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association, the legislation failed because “the differences between the two versions were not reconciled prior to the end of the session,” which meant that a bill would have to be re-introduced.

According to the Washington Street Journal, Senator Rick Scott had inserted two measures which were not included in the House’s version of the bill. These included “a new cap of sorts for the next decade on the overall number of immigrants on H-1B visas who can receive green cards” and tighter restrictions for Chinese nationals seeking immigration.

Close to 45 organisations, including civil rights and immigration-related bodies, had written to Jerrold Nadler and Lofgren seeking removal of such provisions which were “reminiscent of the Chinese Exclusion Act”.

The EAGLE Act bill which has now been introduced makes no such provisions. It would have to be passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then signed by the President of the United States for it to become a law.

The eighteenth provision further outlines Washington’s commitment to allocate resources to ASEAN as part of its Indo-Pacific strategy that supports the bloc’s crucial role in the region. While this provision is welcome for ASEAN, it directly contradicts with the fourth provision that downplays the Southeast Asian bloc’s centrality. What is more worthwhile to note is the US pledge to continue allocating resources to the Southeast Asian bloc — an opportunity that ought to be utilised effectively to realise a powerful and functional ASEAN in the Indo-Pacific.

There are also sections within the proposed EAGLE Act that warrant special attention for individual Southeast Asian countries. Section 223, or the Statement of Policy on Maritime Freedom of Operations in International Waterways and Airspace of the Indo-Pacific and Artificial Land Features in the South China Sea, is a clear example of this. Its twelfth provision calls for the development of multilateral mechanisms to ‘prevent destabilising behaviours and deter risky and dangerous activities by certain parties’, obviously referring to China’s activities in the South China Sea.