Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law Urges Immigration Reform


The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law is today is sending a letter to President Obama in response to his request to the Department of Homeland Security on how to slow deportations. We do not believe asking for "Deferred Action Status" is enough. Our letter explains how aside from granting Deferred Action Status (temporary status) to the largest possible group of  immigrants, the President could also, with no change in federal laws, grant lawful permanent resident status possibly to as many as two million immigrants -- without requiring any action by Congress. The letter to Obama may be downloaded here and is also attached (if listserv allows attachments).

We urge all advocates to review the Center's letter and to send similar letters to the President, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Attorney General, with copies to all other principle aides and lawyers listed below. A complete list of names and addresses of officials who should receive letters from the community, unions, faith-based groups, city and county councils, CEOs, etc. is at the end of this email.  With "comprehensive" immigration reform in Congress going nowhere, its imperative that as many concerned groups and individuals as possible send letters at this critical time urging that the types of changes suggested in our letter be adopted now. 

As you know, in response to political pressure by immigrant advocates, President Obama recently ordered the Department of Homeland Security to come up with recommendations on how to slow deportations of immigrants with special equities through an expansion of the Deferred Action Status program, the same status the administration recently extended to several hundred thousand DACA immigrants who were brought here by their parents as children and attended school here.

In the Center's letter, we make clear that the administration has the authority to grant Deferred Action Status to as many as two million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. with approved visa petitions. The letter points out that these immigrants are already "in the system" as they are named in employment or family-based visa petitions that have been approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. The government therefore already knows their names, addresses, social security numbers, criminal histories, and other personal data. These immigrants very rarely self-deport  and are highly unlikely to ever be apprehended or deported.

Despite the fact that approximately two million of these immigrants have approved visa petitions, they are unable to become lawful permanent residents because they entered the U.S. long ago without inspection and therefore cannot adjust their status here but must travel to a U.S. consulate abroad to seek lawful permanent resident status. However, very few do so because in 1996 Congress enacted a so-called 10-year bar which states that an immigrant required to leave the country to process his or her permanent resident visa abroad who has lived in the U.S. for more than one year in unauthorized status must remain outside the U.S. for 10 years before becoming eligible for permanent resident status. While some immigrants are eligible for waivers of the 10-year bar, these are not often granted as the immigrant must prove that denying the waiver would cause extreme hardship to a US citizen petitioner, something most immigrants cannot prove. The result, we argue, is that the vast majority of these immigrants with approved visa petitions, as many as two million, simply continue to live in the U.S. in undocumented status. 

Our letter urges President Obama to grant this population Deferred Action Status (DAS), which then allows them to apply for "advance parole" (routinely granted to people on DAS) with which they can briefly travel to their home countries to visit relatives and then reenter the country lawfully on "parole" status.  Once they reenter the US lawfully on parole status, they become eligible to apply for lawful permanent resident status in the U.S. without having to leave to have their status adjusted by a US consulate abroad. The 10-year bar does not apply to immigrants who can adjust their status in the United States, only to those who must go abroad for processing at a US consulate.

We argue that "following this administrative approach, President Obama could legally and without the involvement of Congress promptly extend lawful permanent resident status to about two million currently undocumented immigrants who mostly are long term residents of the U.S. and have unique skills that allowed them to obtain employment-related approved visa petitions or immediate family members here that allowed them to obtain family-based approved visa petitions." 

In addition, current regulations require that thousands of immigrants with outstanding deportation orders who have become eligible to adjust their status must "reopen" their deportation cases to have an Immigration Judge adjudicate their adjustment applications but the vast majority cannot reopen their cases because of strict time limits to do so. Amending this regulation to allow USCIS handle these applications would permit thousands of immigrants to now be granted lawful permanent resident status.

The letter charges that administrative policies over the past six years have "caused the deportation of hundreds of thousands of immediate relatives of US citizens and lawful permanent residents, resulted in tens of thousands of criminal convictions of persons for no more than entry without inspection (making it difficult to impossible for these migrants to ever legalize their status in the future), resulted in hundreds of thousands of migrants being fired from stable jobs (through “worksite enforcement” that largely misses sweatshops) forcing them to turn to sweatshops and unscrupulous employers to find work (less than 1% leave the US), discouraged thousands of immigrants from reporting serious crimes for fear of exposure to deportation, [and] incarcerated more immigrants than ever before at enormous cost to the public and for no sound public safety reasons ..." We argue that by now "it should be clear that these policies have done nothing to advance the goal of comprehensive immigration reform."

The letter recommends that the largest number of immigrants possible be granted Deferred Action Status even if they are not eligible for adjustment of status under existing law. We also identify about six sub-groups of immigrants with long-term residence and unique equities who should obviously qualify for DAS, including for example, the parents of US citizen children who are unable to petition for lawful permanent resident status until their children turn 21 years of age, unaccompanied abused and abandoned children, the parents of children and youth already granted Deferred Action Status by the administration, etc.. We point out that "granting immigrants Deferred Action Status and temporary employment authorization would immediately benefit US workers by removing the incentive of unscrupulous employers to hire undocumented migrants over equally or better qualified US citizens."

Regarding immigrants with closed deportation cases who are now eligible one way or the other for permanent resident status but cannot get their deportation cases reopened because of time limits on doing so, we point out that Obama could easily amend the regulations to allow the USCIS (instead of Immigration Judges) process these applications for LPR status and this would legalize thousands more people.

We explain why Operation Streamline is a reactionary program that has turned tens of thousands of immigrants into "criminals" merely based upon unauthorized entry, blocking them from legalizing their status in the future, and provide proposals that would reduce border violence and deaths, and reduce ICE involvement with local police which clearly discourages immigrants from reporting crimes.

We hope this letter helps spark a debate that goes beyond Deferred Action Status to include ways to get people lawful permanent resident status now without needing any involvement by the Congress. We have a range of separate ideas on what Congress could be doing that we'll circulated separately fairly soon. For the next few weeks we urge groups to focus on what President Obama and his team could accomplish if they have the political will to do so. 

As mentioned above, the officials to write to are listed below with addresses. It is critically important that groups and individuals concerned with the abysmal failure of current immigration policy PROMPTLY communicate their views to the President that NOW is the time for the Administration to show leadership and put its political capital where its mouth has been on immigration reform. Letters can be short or long. But now is the time to act while the Administration has these issues under serious consideration and before they make decisions. Thanks.

Feel free to email me with comments or questions. 

Peter Schey, 
President, Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law 

King: U.S. immigrants deserve pathway to citizenship



Bill King says ongoing Republican resistance to immigration reform goes against the classic American dream of striving for a better life.
By Bill King | February 12, 2014 show_less_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1facebook_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1twitter_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1email_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1linkedin_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1reddit_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1google_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1

After my column last week outlining the likely detrimental political effects of the Republicans' intransigence on immigration reform, a number of my Republican friends took me to task. They charged that I was being overly cynical about their motivation and understating the subversive effect granting citizenship to those who came here illegally would have on the rule of law.

I concede that the argument that granting a pathway to citizenship for those who came here without visas undermines the rule of law is a rational and reasonable position, even though I disagree with it. However, laying aside the political implications for the moment, I think there are several other flaws with the argument.

First, it assumes that everyone here illegally (i.e., without a current visa) has broken the law. That is not the case. Illegal immigrants fall generally into three categories. The largest (about 40 percent) includes those who came here with a valid visa but did not renew it or did not leave the country when their visa expired. While this group is subject to deportation, overstaying your visa is not a crime. Many in the group actually qualify for a visa extension but merely have not done the paperwork, much like someone failing to renew a driver's license. Would anyone favor permanently taking away someone's driver's license if they don't renew it on time? Of course not.

The next-largest group (a little fewer than 40 percent) includes those who crossed the border surreptitiously without a visa. These individuals did violate a federal criminal statute, albeit a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $2,000 fine and six months in jail. But our legal system routinely grants various forms of leniency for such minor crimes, including deferred adjudication and probation. Why should this group be any different? How is granting leniency for this particular crime so much more corrosive of the rule of law than any other crime?

The last group is made up of those brought here as children (a little more than 20 percent). Because these individuals crossed the U.S. border as minors, they are not legally culpable for entering the country without a visa. Should we have a system that holds these young people responsible for the crimes of their parents? Are we going to "sentence" these young people to live their entire lives without citizenship in the country they consider their home? Again, no.

In the end, the GOP argument has several holes of logic. It is not true that all of those here illegally have violated the law, and only a minority has violated a criminal statute. Even then, it is a relatively minor infraction, the sort of crime for which judges usually grant leniency. Therefore, granting something akin to probation for those who did enter the country illegally hardly is inconsistent with or would likely subvert our respect for the rule of law. But laying aside for a moment the various policy arguments and the political implications, what troubles me the most is that it is antithetical to the American experience to deprive those who came here illegally from any hope of ever becoming citizens.

Our legal system has always incorporated the concept of mercy. It is a concept taught by every great faith tradition and, of course, is a core teaching of Christianity. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy." (Matthew 5:7.)

In the aftermath of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said, "I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice." His comment was directed toward those who had committed treason.

My personal experience with those who are here illegally is that the vast majority have come here from some hellhole in some Third World country hoping for a better life for themselves and their children. Most were not able to come here legally because of our dysfunctional legal immigration system. They are mostly hard-working, law-abiding, dedicated family folks. Most are devout Christians.

If this is not a case where we should show some mercy and bend the rules slightly, then there are none.

 See the entire article here.

Justice Department’s Losing Battle Over Deportation Waivers for Permanent Residents




Written by Mary Kenney

For more than five years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has defended a policy that deprives long-term lawful permanent residents (LPRs) of the opportunity to apply for a waiver that would allow them to remain in the United States. The waiver—known as the 212(h) waiver (referring to section 212(h) of the immigration statute)—permits permanent residents who were convicted of certain crimes to avoid deportation if they can show that their U.S. citizen or lawful resident family member would suffer extreme hardship if they were deported. The policy at issue—announced through a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision—significantly narrows the group of LPRs who are eligible for this waiver. Many of those LPRs who have been excluded from applying for the waiver have gone to court. To date, the count is LPRs – 6, DOJ – 0, the most recent decision coming just last month. Yet, despite an obviously flawed BIA decision, DOJ continues to defend it, at great expense to LPRs and their families.

The 212(h) waiver is particularly important because it is one of the few remaining situations in which an immigration judge can consider all aspects of the noncitizen’s life, such as family ties, length of time in the United States, and rehabilitation, as weighed against the person’s wrongdoing. In contrast, as a result of immigration laws enacted in the mid-1990s, immigration judges largely have been stripped of their ability to act like judges and make individualized determinations about whether deportation is appropriate. In far too many cases, a crime, even a nonviolent one, can lead to automatic deportation and banishment from the United States. Given the limited avenues immigration judges have to ensure that the punishment fits the crime, it is difficult to comprehend why DOJ insists on defending a rule that not only limits immigration judge’s discretion, but also, according to 6 courts, is unlawful.

The technical legal issue in these cases focuses on a provision in the waiver that excludes individuals who were admitted to the United States as LPRs and who subsequently committed an aggravated felony. The BIA has interpreted this bar to include all LPRs who have committed aggravated felonies, regardless of whether they were LPRs when they entered the United States or became permanent residents only after they had entered. The courts all agree that the bar on the 212(h) waiver only applies to the first group of LPRs (i.e., those who initially entered as LPRs). They have unanimously rejected the BIA’s broad reading of the bar, explaining that it imposes a limit on eligibility for a 212(h) waiver beyond that which Congress included in the statute.

Unfortunately, this protracted fight over who is eligible for a 212(h) waiver is not simply a battle over words. It can have real-life consequences for long term permanent residents. For example, Robert Michel Stanovsek first came to the United States on a visitor visa in 1990. Later that year, while living here, he became a lawful permanent resident through his marriage to a United States citizen. They have been married for over 23 years and have six children, all U.S. citizens. He now is facing deportation from the United States based on a single crime, a theft offense. His only chance to remain in the United States is if an immigration judge grants him a 212(h) waiver. Under the BIA’s restrictive ruling, he is not eligible to apply for the waiver. Mr. Stanovsek’s case currently is on appeal before a federal court.

Over the past five years since the the first federal court struck down the BIA decision, the BIA’s policy has been binding in all immigration courts in jurisdictions where the federal court has not yet ruled on the issue. Mr. Stanovsek is fortunate that he was able to retain a lawyer and has brought his case to court. Countless others, however, have not been able to do so, and as a result, have been deprived of the opportunity to apply for a 212(h) waiver, both because of where they live and because DOJ has refused to accept that the federal courts are correct and the BIA wrong. Now that a clear majority of the courts of appeals has spoken, DOJ should withdraw its continued opposition to the court’s reading of § 212(h) and right this wrong.

See the entire article here.

DREAMers Strive for Higher Education


DREAMers Strive for Higher Education

Undocumented Students Share Their Struggles



Thursday, February 13, 2014


Every Dreamer has a story about the moment they learned the truth. For Julia, it happened when she was a student at La Cumbre Junior High School. Planning to join her 8th grade class on a trip to Washington, D.C., she went to talk to her parents about buying a plane ticket. That’s when her parents sat her down to deliver the news: She was not a U.S. citizen.

Julia was shocked. It turned out that she was born in Mexico. Her mother, fleeing an abusive relationship, crossed into the United States with her one-year-old baby. She told the immigration officials she was attending a funeral but instead came to Santa Barbara where she had relatives. Julia has no memory of living anywhere else.

These truths made Julia’s mother and stepfather afraid of allowing her to fly to D.C. Her mother and father knew this day would come. To make it up to her, they gave her a beautiful quinceaƱera, the ritual coming-of-age ceremony that many girls of Latin American descent celebrate on their 15th birthdays, a celebration that is planned years ahead of time and often at great expense. She had a wonderful party, but she has still never boarded a plane.

“It’s such a strange feeling,” said Julia of learning that she has no documents regarding her citizenship. “It was like getting a bucket of cold water poured over me. … It makes me feel like I’m in a state of limbo. Yeah, I was born in Mexico, but the way I grew up here is totally different. Where do I fall on the spectrum? I’m not completely American, I’m not Mexican. What’s my identity?”

The term Dreamer has become the nomenclature for undocumented students brought to the United States through no choice of their own when they were young children. It’s shorthand for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, the title of a federal bill that has been kicking around Congress since it was introduced by Senators Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch ​— ​Democrat and Republican, respectively ​— ​in 2001. Despite Durbin and Hatch’s display of bipartisanship, Congress as a whole has not yet been able to meaningfully address immigration. As a result, California has taken steps of its own.

At the same time, the term DREAM entered the American lexicon in 2001, California passed AB 540....

Click here see the entire article at the Santa Barbara Independent. 
http://independent.com/news/2014/feb/13/dreamers-strive-higher-education/

For House Republicans, new momentum on immigration reform



Published: January 24

Recent signals from House Republican leaders that they will pursue their own vision of immigration reform have presented the White House with an opening to achieve a major legislative deal this year that has eluded lawmakers for decades.

Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is expected to release a brief outline of immigration principles to his caucus as soon as its annual retreat next week. The goals would include strengthening border security and creating new visas for foreign workers, while providing a path toward legalizing the status of the nation’s 11 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants, according to people briefed on the deliberations.

Obama administration officials and congressional Democrats expressed optimism that new momentum in the House could yield results after months in which the issue languished in the lower chamber. But they cautioned that it is far too early to determine whether a compromise could be reached between the House and Senate, which approved a bipartisan plan to overhaul border-control laws last June.

“It’s a very big deal, and there’s a path here that could get it done,” Cecilia Munoz, the White House’s director of domestic policy, said of the potential for an immigration agreement.

White House officials view immigration as the best chance President Obama has to pass a major piece of domestic legislation in his final three years in office, largely because some GOP leaders believe their party must broaden its appeal to Latinos and Asian Americans. Obama won reelection in 2012 with the support of more than 70 percent of those voters.

At the same time, the president is facing mounting pressure from immigration advocates to halt deportations, which are on pace to soon top the 2 million mark during his tenure — more than the George W. Bush administration deported in eight years.

Five House Democrats from Obama’s home state of Illinois, led by Rep. Luis V. GutiĆ©rrez, announced they will each bring an immigration advocate as their guest to the president’s State of the Union speech in the House chamber Tuesday. The AFL-CIO, which has supported Obama’s immigration push, called on him to use the speech to announce administrative action “to ease the deportation crisis that is wrecking workforces, families and communities.”

But White House aides and Democratic allies said that Obama is mindful of the challenge Boehner faces in coalescing his caucus around an immigration plan and that the president is unlikely to harshly criticize House Republicans or make unilateral demands. Instead, he is expected to highlight the economic benefits of immigration reform, tying it to his broader goal of boosting the middle class and framing the debate in a light that might appeal to Capitol Hill conservatives.

“The White House understands that the House is moving in a positive direction, and they’re playing this very smart. They’re not going to be heavy-handed,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a key architect of the Senate’s immigration bill.

Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary during the George W. Bush administration who is leading a GOP immigration reform group, said he is “encouraged” by signals from the House.

“They’re coming up with principles, and both parties are saying the right thing,” Gutierrez said during an immigration discussion in Washington on Friday that also included former New York mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) and U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vice President Randel Johnson. “This is the right time, and we hope that they seize the moment.”

The next steps are largely up to Boehner, who has continued to insist that the House will pursue small-scale immigration bills that independently address many of the major components of the Senate’s comprehensive plan.

Democrats and immigration advocates said they are cautiously optimistic that Boehner and other House leaders are serious about trying to get bills onto the House floor for a vote in late spring, after the filing period for most of the Republican primaries in congressional races.

The question, however, is what Republicans are prepared to propose on the critical question of how to treat immigrants who entered the country unlawfully.

Last year, House committees approved five bills to increase border security, add visas for high-skilled foreign workers and agricultural workers, and improve verification systems to ensure companies do not hire undocumented immigrants.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, have said they are working on a proposal called the Kids Act, which would offer a path to legal status and, potentially, citizenship for young immigrants brought to the country by their parents as children. That population is estimated to be up to 1.7 million.

House Republicans have not said how they would address the remaining undocumented immigrants, but Boehner’s “principles” are expected to call for trying to find a way to legalize their status under conditions that could include paying taxes and fines, learning English and ensuring the federal government meets increased border-security benchmarks.

The crux of the issue for Democrats is how many of those immigrants would be able to earn citizenship. The Senate plan would put undocumented immigrants on a path to achieving legal status, known as a green card, within 10 years and citizenship three years later. Federal agencies have estimated that 7 million to 8 million immigrants would reach that goal.

But that number could be reduced significantly under the House proposals, immigration advocates said.

Obama and congressional Democrats have said they want as many immigrants as possible to have a chance at an “earned path” to citizenship.

“The question is, are Democrats willing to kill legalization without a special path to citizenship?” said Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, which supports immigration reform.

Aguilar pointed to a Pew Hispanic Center poll last month that which found 61 percent of immigrant Latinos believe ending deportations is more important than a path to citizenship.

If Democrats oppose a Republican offer to legalize most undocumented immigrants under the belief that Latino voters will blame the GOP, Aguilar said, “that could backfire.”

For the entire article, click here.

Obama to Dems: Boehner will pass immigration reform in 2014



By Alexander Bolton - 01/17/14 06:00 AM EST

President Obama has told Senate Democrats he expects Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to pass immigration reform this year, defying predictions the issue is dead for 2014.

Obama believes Republicans will feel politically vulnerable, if they fail to advance the issue, a high priority among Hispanic voters, according to Democratic senators who met with the president this week.

Obama sees immigration reform as a source for optimism in what has otherwise shaped up as a tough year for Democrats.

“He predicted the House would pass something this year,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who attended the meeting.

Obama cautioned senators to brace themselves for difficult negotiations with House Republicans later this year.

“He said we’re then all going to have a challenging conversation,” Kaine added. “He said it was more likely than not the House would do something.”

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the lead sponsor of the Senate-passed immigration bill, described Obama as “cautiously optimistic” after the meeting.

Boehner has made several recent moves giving Obama and his Democratic allies hope, such as hiring Rebecca Tallent to serve as his new director of immigration policy. She previously worked for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a co-sponsor of the Senate immigration bill.

Boehner plans to unveil a set of Republican principles for immigration reform before Obama’s Jan. 28 State of the Union address.

He and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told House colleagues at a closed-door meeting early this month immigration reform would be a priority in 2014. 

A spokesman for Boehner declined to comment.

A Senate Democratic aide said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would take the lead on the trickiest element of reform, legislation to legalize an estimated 11 million illegal residents.

“The path will likely be a legalization bill that offers a path to citizenship through existing channels,” said the aide.

Senior Republicans, such as Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), are working on plans to grant legalization through existing channels, such as H-1B visas, agricultural worker permits and family connections.

Issa, however, expressed pessimism earlier this year that immigration reform could pass before 2015 because of the partisan atmosphere in Congress.

House Republicans have signaled they would not support any proposal that creates a special path to citizenship for millions of illegal residents. House conservatives rejected the Senate bill because it includes a special 13-year pathway.

Left-leaning advocates of immigration reform say a proposal that would use existing processes to grant citizenship to a greater number of immigrants could serve as a viable alternative.

“Yes, with the provision that the existing channels are large enough,” said Brent Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

“The analogy would be, if you have a crowded store, and the fire marshal says you have to create a new exit or enlarge the existing one, but the bottom line is everyone has to get out,” he said.  

Boehner has stipulated the House would not act on a comprehensive bill but instead pass a series of measures.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a co-sponsor of the Senate bill, says enacting a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants is far from a slam dunk, but he believes the House could build up momentum by passing a series of piecemeal bills.

Wilkes said that would be acceptable to proponents of comprehensive reform, as long as the House addresses each of the areas covered by the Senate legislation. 

“These things may sound arbitrary, but they give different members in tough districts the ability to vote against different parts of immigration reform,” he said. “If some members need to take a walk on certain aspects of it, House leaders will let them do it.”

Obama expects these bills would add up to a series of reforms that could then be negotiated with the Senate.

“He feels good. He thinks we’re going to be able to get something on immigration,” said a Democratic senator who met with Obama at the White House Wednesday. “He just thinks that Republicans are not going to want to be hanging out on that.”

The lawmaker requested anonymity to discuss the private meeting. 

Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas), the former chairman of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, thinks the GOP could probably succeed in the 2014 election without passing immigration reform but would face problems in 2016.

“We can win in 2014 without resolving it. We can’t win in 2016 without resolving it,” he told National Journal.
Read more here.

Republican Ideas on Immigration Could Legalize Up to 6.5 Million, Study Says


January 14, 2014



Between 4.4 million and 6.5 million immigrants illegally in the United States could gain an eventual pathway to citizenship under proposals being discussed by Republicans in the House of Representatives, according to an estimate published Tuesday by the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonpartisan research group in Washington.
 
The estimate is based on policy ideas that have been put forward by Representative Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, a Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Goodlatte has said he would not support legislation with a “special” or direct pathway to citizenship for 11.5 million immigrants in the country without legal papers, such as the 13-year pathway in a broad bill the Senate passed last June.
 
House Republicans have rejected the sweeping approach of that bill and said they would handle immigration in smaller pieces. Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio has said that Mr. Goodlatte is helping him to prepare principles that will guide House action on this issue this year.
 
Mr. Goodlatte has said he would instead offer a provisional legal status to illegal immigrants, then allow those who can demonstrate they are eligible to apply for permanent residency — a document known as a green card — through the existing system, based on sponsorship by a family member or an employer. Obtaining a green card is the crucial step toward American citizenship.
 
The foundation’s report, prepared by Stuart Anderson, its executive director, finds that even without major changes to current immigration law, 3.1 million to 4.4 million immigrants now illegally in the United States would be eligible for green cards because they are parents of American citizens. As many as 600,000 could gain green cards as spouses of citizens and legal residents, and up to 45,000 could receive green cards within two decades as low-skilled workers.
 
The estimate assumes the House would pass legislation creating new green cards for young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, who call themselves Dreamers. Mr. Anderson calculates that 800,000 to 1.5 million of those immigrants would gain a pathway to citizenship.
 
Mr. Anderson’s calculation, based on figures from the Department of Homeland Security among other sources, is the first effort to put numbers on proposals emerging from House Republicans. On a conference call Tuesday with reporters, Mr. Anderson stressed that the estimates were imprecise because no Republican has so far offered a specific legalization bill.
 
Under the foundation’s projection, at least two million immigrants would have to wait a long time — as much as two decades — before they could apply for naturalization. As many as five million immigrants would remain here with legal status but no prospect of becoming citizens.
 
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that eight million illegal immigrants would gain a pathway to citizenship under the Senate bill. Many Democrats and immigrant advocates have rejected any legislation that excludes large groups of residents from citizenship.
     
Tamar Jacoby, a Republican who is president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a small-business organization that supports an overhaul of immigration laws, said on Tuesday that proposals for a bill with no separate path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants were gaining ground among House Republicans, as the basis for negotiations with the Senate. She said Mr. Anderson’s estimates were higher than many immigration analysts have predicted.
 
“The half a loaf is more substantial than many people would have thought,” she said.
 
See the entire article here.