'Path to citizenship' roils immigration reform. But what is it, exactly?
The most contentious issue in immigration reform is probably the potential of a 'path to citizenship.' But the heated rhetoric obscures the fact that both sides have many points of agreement.
(Page 2 of 2)
But Republicans, including Representative Labrador and Rep. Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin, agree that creating what Democrats call a “permanent underclass” of noncitizen residents of the US is undesirable.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Instead, Republicans want to channel the currently undocumented through a reformed legal immigration system.
Immigrant advocates point out the difficulties inherent in this approach, which requires each applicant to be sponsored by an employer or a family member. Currently, the US offers 1 million new green cards each year. That means it would take 50 years or longer for all the undocumented immigrants already in the country to reach citizenship. Broadening the current system to expedite those applications would be a tall, if not impossible, order, immigration advocates add.
But while they’d prefer a special path to citizenship, Democrats and immigrant advocates aren’t averse to a program that takes a little longer for the undocumented to reach citizenship. They won’t stand for a program that puts citizenship much farther than a decade out of reach, though.
The undocumented “can’t jump ahead” of applicants already waiting in family backlogs, for example, says Angela Marie Kelley of the liberal Center for American Progress, but the process “can’t be so long that they’re being admitted to nursing homes at the same time they’re applying for citizenship.”
How can this be resolved? It appears the two sides are going to try to figure out how to reconfigure the legal immigration stream to bring the undocumented into the system.
Representative Gutierrez told reporters at a recent breakfast hosted by the Monitor that there would be no “special” path to citizenship. In the principles offered by the Senate’s bipartisan Gang of Eight, illegal immigrants would have a pathway to citizenship, but the group carefully did not specify whether this would be through a unique system or through a revamped pathway to green cards.
Given that general consensus, Washington spends a tremendous amount of time focused on whether this politician or that one actually says the words “pathway to citizenship.”
Republicans, generally, don’t; Democrats, almost entirely, do.
That’s because the term has become politically-loaded, largely because its often set against another explosive concept: amnesty, or the idea that those breaking immigration law will be let off the hook for their crime.
But getting hung up on the word, rather than focusing on what negotiators on either side are actually proposing from a policy perspective, makes the two sides appear farther apart than they actually are.
Senator Paul, a Kentucky Republican and potential 2016 presidential challenger with the adoration of libertarian-leaning conservatives across the country, wouldn’t go anywhere near the term during or after a recent speech in which he offered his broad support for immigration reform.
“I think the whole debate on immigration is trapped in a couple of words,” Paul said, calling out two concepts: path to citizenship and amnesty. “If we get trapped too much in these descriptive terms and make it really simple either for or against, I think what we do is we’re going to polarize the debate and not allow us to move forward with it.”
RECOMMENDED: Could you pass a US citizenship test?