If you think the Senate Judiciary Committee’s markup of the Gang of 8 bill has been intense so far, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. As the SJC moves into Titles II and III of the bill—which cover everything from E-Verify to detention policy to family immigration to agricultural workers, not to mention the path to citizenship itself—we’re highlighting some of the major areas we expect to see addressed, and the amendments we’re particularly hopeful about or upset by within each one. That’s why we’ve started this “Amendments that Matter” blog series. Below we write about family unity amendments in the Senate Gang of 8 bill.
Also view our list of key amendments filed in the Senate Judiciary Committee to S. 744.
One of the pillars of immigration reform that advocates have been fighting for most fiercely is family unity, or the provisions and amendments that will allow immediate family members outside the US to reunite with their loved ones here. This would include dependent children living away from their working parents, and parents, spouses, and DREAMers who have been deported away from their families. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), an immigrant herself, has been a champion in the fight to ensure that immigration reform will bring separated families back together. Here are two amendments we’re supporting from her:
- The Senate Gang of 8 immigration bill, if signed into law, would turn current undocumented immigrants (those who are eligible) into immigrants with Registered Provisional Status (RPIs). RPIs would have to wait at least 10 years before becoming legal permanent residents, and at least three years more to become US citizens. Hirono 13 would allow RPIs who are the immediate relatives of US citizens/permanent residents to shorten their waiting period to become permanent residents, by applying for that status via their family tie rather than through the RPI program.
- Hirono 14 would allow RPIs to petition for dependent children and spouses living outside the United States to obtain RPI status and potentially be reunited with them in the US.
Hirono’s amendments stand in contrast against two that we wrote about earlier, Grassley 8, which would bar certain immigrants from obtaining RPI status because of the state in which they live, and Sessions 24, which would strike the immigration bill’s return provisions altogether and ban all immigrants who have ever been deported (and who have since returned) from legalization.
The latter would bar Felipe Montes and his three US citizen children from ever being able to return to the US. Two years ago, Felipe was detained by immigration authorities and deported for driving violations in the Appalachian town of Sparta, North Carolina. Without Felipe’s income and support, his wife was left unable to keep the family afloat, and the Alleghany County child welfare department took the three children away from her and put them in foster care. It was only after immigrants’ rights groups created petitions and gathered over 20,000 signatures that Felipe was granted a rare humanitarian visa to come back to the US—temporarily—to argue for custody of his own children. The case dragged on for months, but Felipe was eventually able to regain custody of the three. Unfortunately, because Felipe still had no papers to be in the US, he was forced to take his (again, US citizen) children to where he was living in Tamaulipas, Mexico—a place none of them had ever been. Under the current Senate immigration bill and Hirono’s amendments, the Montes children could go back to their home in North Carolina, Felipe could be petitioned for, and the Montes family could be reunited here in the US at long last.
If you think the Senate Judiciary Committee’s markup of the Gang of 8 bill has been intense so far, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. As the SJC moves into Titles II and III of the bill—which cover everything from E-Verify to detention policy to family immigration to agricultural workers, not to mention the path to citizenship itself—we’re highlighting some of the major areas we expect to see addressed, and the amendments we’re particularly hopeful about or upset by within each one. That’s why we’ve started this “Amendments that Matter” blog series. Below is our own Dara Lind writing about avoiding amendments that would create a permanent undocumented population in the US.
Also view our list of key amendments filed in the Senate Judiciary Committee to S. 744.
One of the biggest risks to the path to citizenship is creating a permanent undocumented population–people who can’t apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status, or decide that the risks of applying for status outweigh the rewards. Many of these amendments may sound technical or bureaucratic when the Senate Judiciary Committee takes them up for debate–but in reality, lives, families and communities hang in the balance. Here are some questions that the markup needs to answer:
- What will the cutoff date be? Under the current bill, any immigrant who entered the country after December 31, 2011 is ineligible for RPI status. The cutoff date in the 1986 IRCA law left about 600,000 immigrants ineligible for legal status, creating a permanent undocumented population that would only grow with time; this could repeat history by leaving out hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have entered in the last 18 months. Senator Feinstein’s Amendment 14 would fix this problem by moving the cutoff date to the day the bill is enacted, and Senator Blumenthal’s Amendment 15, which would move the cutoff to the day the bill was introduced (April 17, 2013) would also help. On the other hand, Senator Lee’s Amendment 7 would move the cutoff date to December 31st, 2009—dumping hundreds of thousands more people into the category of “permanent undocumented.”
- Will immigrants who have re-entered the country be eligible? Earlier this year we told you the story of Maria Arreola, who returned to the United States after being deported so that she and her young children could flee an abusive home. Senator Sessions’ Amendment 24, in addition to eliminating the “right of return” provision in the path to citizenship (which this series will address in another post), would keep her off the path to citizenship along with anyone else who had reentered the country after deportation.
- Will immigrants who are eligible for legalization be protected from deportation? Under the current bill, immigrants who are put into deportation proceedings before they have received official documentation can avoid being deported as long as they can show they are eligible for legal status. Both Senator Sessions’ Amendment 21 and Senator Grassley’s Amendment 11 would eliminate that, and set up an ICE race to deport as many people as possible before they had the chance to submit their applications. Furthermore, Grassley 11 would make anyone who had ever been in deportation proceedings ineligible for legal status. The sad irony is that Sen. Grassley is one of those who believes that the Obama Administration hasn’t been enforcing immigration law, and his amendment would hurt the very people who know best just how wrong that is.
- Will the application process itself put immigrants at risk, or scare them out of applying at all? Senator Cornyn’s Amendment 5 hollows out the confidentiality protections in the current bill, and the prospect of telling ICE who you are and where you live would be enough to scare plenty of immigrants out of applying for the path to citizenship. (Similarly, Senator Hatch’s Amendment 3, which would require any immigrant applying for RPI status to submit a DNA sample, is an invasion of privacy that could intimidate immigrants from applying.) And Senator Grassley’s Amendment 10 explicitly mandates that any immigrant who applies for RPI status and whose application is rejected should be deported. With that kind of sick guarantee, it’s easy to see why many immigrants would decide that the path to citizenship wasn’t worth the risk.
Today, America’s Voice Education Fund and fellow immigration experts held the twelfth in a series of weekly press briefings, or Immigration Reform “Office Hours.” Each week, a different and diverse group of speakers shares the latest information on the players, politics, legislation and other developments in the debate in Washington and around the nation.
Moderated by Patty Kupfer, Managing Director, America’s Voice Education Fund, today’s call featured Christina Jimenez, Managing Director, United We Dream; Angie Kelley, Vice President for Immigration Policy and Advocacy, Center for American Progress; Kica Matos, Director of Immigrant Rights and Racial Justice at the Center for Community Change; Mee Moua, President and Executive Director, Asian American Justice Center; Josh Stehlik, Employment Attorney, National Immigration Law Center and Patrick Oakford, Research Assistant, Economic Policy Department, Center for American Progress.
Today’s call included a discussion of the Senate Judiciary Committee mark-up of Title III and Title IV this past week; and a preview of the Title II mark-up this coming week, which will focus on legal immigration and the path to citizenship. As we head into the third week of markup, speakers highlighted how the heart of the legislation remains intact and that despite the sideshows and attempts by the far right to derail the reform effort entirely, the bipartisan center continues to hold and strengthen.
Speakers also commented on the announcement that the House of Representatives’ own bipartisan “Gang of 8” has reached an agreement in principle on immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The speakers agreed this is a major breakthrough. The fact that a bipartisan group in the House – one that includes several conservative Republicans, two Congressional Hispanic Caucus members, the Ranking Member of the Immigration Subcommittee and a red-state Democrat – has forged agreement on a reform package that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is not only historic, but it takes the prospect of enacting reform another step closer to reality.
During the call speakers also discussed the Center for American Progress’ brief “National and State-by-State Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform”. This brief is a follow-up to the Center for American Progress’ report “Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants.” The brief breaks down the economic gains of passing immigration reform with a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants for 24 individual states.
As we look towards next week, we will be looking forward to more details from the House agreement and the final details of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s amended bill. The movement in both chambers signals that—amidst the furies and partisanship in Washington—bipartisan lawmaking is still, in fact possible.
Here are a few other notable developments that are adding to the momentum and boosting prospects for passage this year:
- Broad Immigration Reform in Senate Remains Intact: Early this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee cast a near-unanimous vote against an amendment from Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to restrict future legal immigration, underscoring the growing irrelevance and isolation of the anti-immigrant movement in this year’s debate. Fawn Johnson captured the dynamic in a National Journal article titled, “Republican Immigration Critic Gets Slapped Down,” writing, “The committee’s overwhelming ‘No’ vote shows that the battle for Republicans’ souls on immigration has shifted away from groups that want to reduce the influx of foreigners, like the Heritage Foundation, NumbersUSA, and Fairness for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), toward free-market groups that applaud increased immigration, such as Americans for Tax Reform and the CATO Institute.”
- Pro-Reform Conservatives Are United: In the second week of Senate Judiciary markup, immigration reform backers from both parties stood strong in the face of a battery of amendments aimed to derail the carefully constructed agreement between labor groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In response to Sen. Sessions’ argument that legalizing those without status would be damaging to the country, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, “I would suggest that the strength of this country is not the degree one holds, but the character the individual possesses. So I’m very confident and hopeful that out of this 11 million who today have low skills will come some of the brightest in the future.” Even Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) stood in agreement with Graham saying, “legal immigration is a fundamental pillar of our country.” Additionally, a “productive meeting” between President Obama and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) signaled yet again that the pro-reform movement is winning and that immigration is moving full steam ahead.
- The Anti-Reform Movement Becomes Further Isolated and Irrelevant: In addition to the Senate proceedings this week, a rogue’s gallery of anti-immigrant House Republican held a Hill press conference to rail against immigration reform. The six man press conference was led by Rep. Steve King (R-IA), the notorious xenophobe who has compared immigrants to dogs and cattle, and once called immigration a “slow motion Holocaust.” Also in attendances was Rep. Louie “Terror Babies” Gohmert. They were joined by Rep. Mo Brooks, who said at a 2011 constituent town hall in reference to undocumented immigrants that he thinks it’s right to “do anything short of shooting them.” Brooks also has showed his tenuous grasp of history by stating that President Ronald Reagan would “insist” on deporting undocumented immigrants (despite Reagan signing the 1986 immigration reform bill into law and his avowedly pro-immigrant beliefs, captured by his valedictory address to the nation). Additionally, the group repeatedly cited the discredited and toxic Heritage Foundation report, proving that they’re the last group of Republicans trying to shine a positive light on this flawed study. Like the Senate markup, the House press conference underscored the fact that these opponents are rapidly losing influence. As Kate Nocera of BuzzFeed noted in an article, “Small Turnout for ‘Anti-Amnesty’ Leaders in Congress,” the event was “striking as much for its small numbers as for the intensity of its views.” And adding insult to injury, conservative Washington Post blogger, Jennifer Rubin, reminded pro-reform conservatives that they “shouldn’t be cowed by the screeching from figures like King.”
If you think the Senate Judiciary Committee’s markup of the Gang of 8 bill has been intense so far, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. As the SJC moves into Titles II and III of the bill—which cover everything from E-Verify to detention policy to family immigration to agricultural workers, not to mention the path to citizenship itself—we’re highlighting some of the major areas we expect to see addressed, and the amendments we’re particularly hopeful about or upset by within each one. That’s why we’ve started this “Amendments that Matter” blog series. Below is a guest post from David Leopold, general counsel and past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, writing about amendments using “criminal” bars to restrict the path to citizenship in the Senate Gang of 8 immigration bill.
Also view our list of key amendments filed in the Senate Judiciary Committee to S. 744.
Hopefully, the result of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s S.744 markup will be an immigration bill that keeps America’s families safe and together and gives American business the tools it needs to compete in the global economy. As the committee turns its attention to Title II, which includes a tough but reasonable road to citizenship, the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in America’s shadows will come into the nation’s focus. Let’s remember that the hardworking mothers, fathers and students who lack immigration papers are not the reason the system is broken. They are the most tragic symptom of its dysfunction. Title II is intended to fix that, to provide the undocumented the chance to earn their way to citizenship. To be sure, the road will be long and arduous–full of rigorous, yet even-handed, requirements. S.744 gives nothing to anyone. The right to remain permanently in the U.S. will have to be earned.
But that’s not enough for Senators Grassley, Cornyn and Sessions. They’ve offered amendments to Title II designed to keep as many undocumented immigrants as possible in the shadows. Here are three I hope the Judiciary Committee rejects:
Grassley 8—This is one of a series of amendments offered by Grassley which are intended to severely limit who is eligible for Registered Provisional Status–by making the application process as daunting and expensive as possible. Grassley 8 is particularly insidious because it’s directly aimed at people who have been unfairly criminalized by laws like Arizona’s SB1070, which go far beyond the federal immigration statute by defining foreign nationals criminals based on their lack of immigration documents. Grassley seeks to extend what’s left of the patchwork of draconian state immigration laws to bar undocumented immigrants who have suffered convictions under state immigration laws from obtaining RPI status. Not only is his amendment unfair—the Supreme Court declared the core of such laws unconstitutional last summer in U.S vs. Arizona—but Grassley’s amendment, if passed, would lock scores of undocumented immigrants into permanent unlawful status because of the state in which they live, not because of anything they’ve done.
Cornyn 3—This amendment would bar immigrants from obtaining RPI status if they have been convicted of certain misdemeanors— including, in some cases, a single domestic violence or DUI—and prohibits immigrants with three misdemeanor convictions from receiving a waiver under any circumstances. These harsh bars and waiver prohibitions would apply regardless of the circumstances of the offense—for example a non-English-speaking abused spouse whose abusive husband lies to the police and gets her charged with domestic violence–the passage of time, rehabilitation, a person’s family ties, work history, or civic and church involvement. S.744 is already tough on criminals, as it should be. But Cornyn’s amendment would substitute a well-balanced provision with an unnecessarily inflexible and punitive bar.
Sessions 24—For the past decade, and in particular over the past four years, record numbers of people have been deported from the U.S. Among those are noncitizens who were forced to leave behind their US citizen husbands, wives and children. The deported include young DREAMers, brought to the U.S. as children through no fault of their own. They were raised and schooled in America only to be removed from the only country they’ve ever known.
S.744 seeks to correct an injustice by including a very narrow waiver which allows the deported parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and green-card holders, as well as DREAMers, to apply for RPI status.
Yet Senator Sessions, in his never ending quest to strip the bill of any semblance of humanity, has offered his amendment 24, which not only strikes the narrow family unity provision, but goes on to bar legalization to anyone who has reentered the country without papers after deportation.
In drafting S.744, the Gang of Eight has proposed some of the toughest enforcement provisions in immigration history. The bill adds new grounds of inadmissibility for gang-related convictions and DUI offenses. It includes an arduous road to citizenship for the undocumented, and makes it clear that those who don’t respect America’s laws need not apply. Grassley 8, Cornyn 3, and Sessions 24 are not offered to make the country safer, as Senators undoubtedly will argue, but as a pretext to keep as many aspiring Americans as possible from beginning the long journey toward earned citizenship.
On her radio show yesterday, conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham said that immigration reform would turn the US into a “third world,” if passed.
Ingraham was commenting on a clip of Marco Rubio describing the IRS news as “things you typically see in the third world.” Ingraham added, “Well, we’re going to become a third world if we have 30 million new people who are just given the right to vote 10 years after being here, get Obamacare.”
Listen to audio here.
The comment came shortly after Ingraham hosted an interview with Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, who used a homophobic slur to describe Marco Rubio’s relationship with the Senate Gang of 8 immigration bill.
“Without Rubio, there is no bill, I mean, it just can’t happen,” Krikorian said, “because Rubio’s job basically was to be the beard for this bill.”
Ingraham’s comments echo that viciously anti-immigrant former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said in 2009, when he (as a then-sitting Congressman) said that immigration and diversity has led Miami to “become a third world country.”
Ingraham, meanwhile, has also recently said that immigration would lead to the US becoming a “hellhole,” called the US-citizen children of undocumented immigrants “anchor fetuses,” and said that the US should stop allowing people from Muslim countries to immigrate completely.
The news that a bipartisan working group in the House of Representatives has reached an agreement in principle on immigration legislation, alongside the continued steady legislative progress on the Senate’s immigration bill, underscores our optimism about immigration reform’s prospects in 2013.
According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice:
This is a major breakthrough. The simple fact that a bipartisan group in the House – one that includes several rock-ribbed conservatives, two Congressional Hispanic Caucus members, the Ranking Member of the Immigration Subcommittee and a red-state Democrat – has forged agreement on a reform package that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is nothing short of historic. We look forward to seeing the details of the House legislation and we will continue fighting for a bill with a path to citizenship that is inclusive and achievable.
We congratulate the Group of Eight in the House of Representatives, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY), Rep. John Carter (R-TX), Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) for their leadership.
Now it is up to Speaker Boehner and Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte to find a way forward. We hope they keep in mind that the fundamentals powering the drive for reform remain very strong. Immigration is a defining issue for Latino and immigrant voters. Many of these voters are willing to give Republicans credit for helping to pass reform and another look politically if they do. The immigration reform movement is strong, broad and deep, and getting more powerful by the day. The American people strongly support reform. And Democrats support bipartisan reform that includes elements Republicans want. The big question going forward is what choice Republicans in the Senate and House make. Are most going to follow their colleagues who are courageously standing up for reform or will most stay wedded to a dysfunctional status quo? The future of immigration reform and the GOP’s viability as a national party depend on them getting the answer right.
