tags: , , , , , AVEF, Blog, Press Releases

Enough Already: There is No “Special Pathway” to Citizenship

Share This:

House GOP Out of Excuses on Immigration Reform

This weekend, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) again voiced his opposition to “a special pathway to citizenship” for undocumented immigrants, noting that he would not push legislation in which “people who are here unlawfully get something that people who have worked for decades to immigrate lawfully do not have.”  Of course, that’s not even on the table.  Just like the protracted discussion over border security in the Senate bill and arguments that reform would be costly to taxpayers, any “concerns” about a “special pathway” have already been addressed.

According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice:

Republicans have run out of excuses and good arguments against immigration reform.  There is no special path to citizenship in the Senate bill.  Those who are currently undocumented get on the path to residence by qualifying alongside similarly-situated immigrants.  There is no unfairness to legal immigrants.  Undocumented immigrants who qualify for provisional status are not able to become permanent residents until all those outside the country and waiting in line enter the country and receive permanent residence first.  There is no negative fiscal impact.  The CBO score shows that reform will cut the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars over two decades.  There is no softness when it comes to enforcement.  The Senate bill contains the largest expansion of immigration enforcement in U.S. history – on top of the largest buildup of immigration enforcement over the past two decades.

For those interpreting Chairman Goodlatte’s comments as trying to carve out space for a “less than citizenship” policy that would result in a permanent underclass, such a provision is against our national interest and values, unpopular with the American people and a non-starter in Congress.  Even some conservative Republicans have spoken out against this concept.  For example, Reuters quotes Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), saying “I am for a path to citizenship because I don’t believe in second-class citizens.”  Earlier this year, conservative Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) stated, “I think all of us Republicans know that we don’t want a class of residents that will never be offered an opportunity for citizenship…We’re the party of Lincoln, and the party of Lincoln would not accept people living in our country and not being citizens, or not being given the opportunity to become citizens.”

Already, attention is focusing on the specific Republican House members whose congressional districts’ demographic makeups and political landscapes compel the Members to be open to reform prospects: see this assessment by the Wall Street Journal as well as this detailed look in National Journal at Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV).  These targeted Members know that fears of how the largely Latino undocumented population might vote in the distant future are much less important than how the current immigration debate informs and influences the party preferences of the much larger group of current Latino voters.

Concluded Sharry:

A bipartisan majority in the House stands ready to pass immigration reform with a path to citizenship, just as the bipartisan majority of Americans are demanding: 87% of Americans in a recent Gallup Poll support a path to citizenship.  And 68 Senators of both parties, representing 81% of the American people, voted for a path to citizenship in the Senate.  Only a small slice of America – disproportionately represented in the House GOP caucus – keeps piling up excuses to try and stop reform.  For the sake of the national Republican Party and the dozens of Members in targeted districts, it’s time for leaders in the House to stop relying on arguments that have been addressed and rebuked, and to start finding ways to move reform legislation forward for passage.