Of all the sticking points in immigration reform, the stickiest is what to do about the estimated 11 million people already living illegally in the United States.

The Senate, in its bipartisan reform bill approved last June, opted to grant a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants. In the House, many Republicans call that “amnesty,” and want none of it. Now, however, House Republicans are discussing this alternative: Provide a pathway to legal status, but not citizenship. 

So far, that idea is just a talking point on a list of immigration reform principles that House Republicans are considering at a retreat on Maryland’s Eastern Shore Jan. 29-31. Even so, it could mark the road to an actual law or laws, so the distinction is important. Below we answer questions about legal status versus citizenship, and the arguments on both sides of the debate.

What does “legal status” entail?

Gaining legal status would likely mean three things for people now living in the US illegally, according to Doris Meissner, director of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that studies global migration.

First, they would no longer be subject to deportation solely because they’re in the country illegally, as long as they are law abiding in other ways. Second, they would be authorized to work. Third, they would have the ability to travel in and out of the United States. At least 60 percent of the illegal population has been in the US for more than 10 years, says Ms. Meissner, and are unable to return to their home countries to visit family or for other reasons.

Republicans would want immigrants to meet certain conditions to qualify for legal status, such as admitting they entered the country illegally, passing background checks, paying fines and back taxes, and becoming proficient in English and American civics.

How would legal status differ from citizenship?

The Senate bill allows for a 13-year path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. As naturalized citizens, they would be eligible to receive government benefits, such as unemployment insurance and Social Security. They could vote. And they would be eligible for special immigration privileges, such as being able to bring family members into the country. If they commit a crime, they can’t be deported.

These privileges of citizenship would not apply to people with legal status.

Why do many Republicans object to citizenship?

They view citizenship as “amnesty” that rewards people who broke the law. It unfairly gives illegal immigrants a “head start” over people trying to enter the country legally, they say. And granting citizenship to such people – even if the process takes 13 years – would only serve to convince future illegal migrants that they, too could eventually get citizenship if they just pressure Congress long enough. 

Actually, some conservatives consider both citizenship and legal status to be “amnesty.” Both, they say, reward lawbreakers, give illegal immigrants an advantage, and signal to future illegal entrants that the door is open to them, too.

Conservatives do want other aspects of immigration reform: tighter border security, greater immigration enforcement at the workplace, and a functioning visa system. Only after these goals are achieved, they argue, will it be time to look at the undocumented who are already here. 

For some conservatives, however, the time for immigration reform will never be ripe as long as President Obama is in office. They see him as lax on immigration enforcement, despite buttressing of the border patrol and increased workplace sweeps. “If the president cannot be trusted to enforce existing immigration laws, why should he be trusted to enforce new immigration laws?” asks Rep. Lamar Smith (R) of Texas.

Why do many Democrats back citizenship?

They, too, see this as a fairness issue. It is unfair and un-American for the government to institute two classes of people in the US, a class with full rights and a lesser class without full rights, they argue. One part of immigration reform must be to bring the undocumented fully out of the shadows so that they can openly contribute to the economy and civic life, they argue. A full contribution is possible only with full citizenship.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D) of California champions this view. “There has to be a path to citizenship,” she reiterated Jan. 29. And it must be comprehensive, including children of illegal immigrants (so-called “Dreamers”) and adults, she said.

Why might legal status work as a compromise?

Immigrant groups themselves rank legal status as more important than citizenship, by pluralities of Hispanics and Asian-Americans – who make up two-thirds of the 28 million immigrants in the US. That may be the strongest argument on behalf of legalization. 

Fifty-five percent of Hispanic adults in the US say that “being able to live and work in the US legally without the threat of being deported” is more important for unauthorized immigrants than “having a pathway to citizenship for those who meet certain requirements,” according to a December survey by the Pew Research Center. Among Asian-American adults in the US, 49 percent hold that view. Both groups still overwhelmingly favor a pathway to citizenship, but they say protection from deportation is the greater need.

Rep. John Yarmuth (D) of Kentucky, who worked on bipartisan immigration legislation in the House last year, believes that if getting immigration reform across the finish line in the House were to depend on giving up on citizenship and accepting legal status, enough Democrats would compromise to pass reform.

“If that were the only thing holding up a comprehensive measure, there would be a majority of votes in the House for passage [of legal status], but with fewer Democrats,” he said in an interview this week.

There’s also the purely political consideration. Because “legal status” would not give these 11 million people the right to vote, some Republican lawmakers might be more receptive to it. That’s because ethnic minorities currently vote Democratic by a large margin, and the new citizens would be presumed to do the same, at least initially. Democratic lawmakers may resist such a compromise for the same reason, not wanting to forgo an infusion of Democratic voters.

Related stories

• Could you pass a US citizenship test?
• Immigration reform: Why are House Republicans poised to act now? (+video)
• Cover Story Is Barack Obama an imperial president?

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

• Become a Facebook fan!
• Follow us on Twitter!
• Follow us on Google+
• Link up with us!
• Subscribe to our RSS feeds!

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• immigration reform
• illegal immigrants
• legal status

Of all the sticking points in immigration reform, the stickiest is what to do about the estimated 11 million people already living illegally in the United States.

The Senate, in its bipartisan reform bill approved last June, opted to grant a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants. In the House, many Republicans call that “amnesty,” and want none of it. Now, however, House Republicans are discussing this alternative: Provide a pathway to legal status, but not citizenship. 

So far, that idea is just a talking point on a list of immigration reform principles that House Republicans are considering at a retreat on Maryland’s Eastern Shore Jan. 29-31. Even so, it could mark the road to an actual law or laws, so the distinction is important. Below we answer questions about legal status versus citizenship, and the arguments on both sides of the debate.

What does “legal status” entail?

Gaining legal status would likely mean three things for people now living in the US illegally, according to Doris Meissner, director of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that studies global migration.

First, they would no longer be subject to deportation solely because they’re in the country illegally, as long as they are law abiding in other ways. Second, they would be authorized to work. Third, they would have the ability to travel in and out of the United States. At least 60 percent of the illegal population has been in the US for more than 10 years, says Ms. Meissner, and are unable to return to their home countries to visit family or for other reasons.

Republicans would want immigrants to meet certain conditions to qualify for legal status, such as admitting they entered the country illegally, passing background checks, paying fines and back taxes, and becoming proficient in English and American civics.

How would legal status differ from citizenship?

The Senate bill allows for a 13-year path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. As naturalized citizens, they would be eligible to receive government benefits, such as unemployment insurance and Social Security. They could vote. And they would be eligible for special immigration privileges, such as being able to bring family members into the country. If they commit a crime, they can’t be deported.

These privileges of citizenship would not apply to people with legal status.

Why do many Republicans object to citizenship?

They view citizenship as “amnesty” that rewards people who broke the law. It unfairly gives illegal immigrants a “head start” over people trying to enter the country legally, they say. And granting citizenship to such people – even if the process takes 13 years – would only serve to convince future illegal migrants that they, too could eventually get citizenship if they just pressure Congress long enough. 

Actually, some conservatives consider both citizenship and legal status to be “amnesty.” Both, they say, reward lawbreakers, give illegal immigrants an advantage, and signal to future illegal entrants that the door is open to them, too.

Conservatives do want other aspects of immigration reform: tighter border security, greater immigration enforcement at the workplace, and a functioning visa system. Only after these goals are achieved, they argue, will it be time to look at the undocumented who are already here. 

For some conservatives, however, the time for immigration reform will never be ripe as long as President Obama is in office. They see him as lax on immigration enforcement, despite buttressing of the border patrol and increased workplace sweeps. “If the president cannot be trusted to enforce existing immigration laws, why should he be trusted to enforce new immigration laws?” asks Rep. Lamar Smith (R) of Texas.

Why do many Democrats back citizenship?

They, too, see this as a fairness issue. It is unfair and un-American for the government to institute two classes of people in the US, a class with full rights and a lesser class without full rights, they argue. One part of immigration reform must be to bring the undocumented fully out of the shadows so that they can openly contribute to the economy and civic life, they argue. A full contribution is possible only with full citizenship.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D) of California champions this view. “There has to be a path to citizenship,” she reiterated Jan. 29. And it must be comprehensive, including children of illegal immigrants (so-called “Dreamers”) and adults, she said.

Why might legal status work as a compromise?

Immigrant groups themselves rank legal status as more important than citizenship, by pluralities of Hispanics and Asian-Americans – who make up two-thirds of the 28 million immigrants in the US. That may be the strongest argument on behalf of legalization. 

Fifty-five percent of Hispanic adults in the US say that “being able to live and work in the US legally without the threat of being deported” is more important for unauthorized immigrants than “having a pathway to citizenship for those who meet certain requirements,” according to a December survey by the Pew Research Center. Among Asian-American adults in the US, 49 percent hold that view. Both groups still overwhelmingly favor a pathway to citizenship, but they say protection from deportation is the greater need.

Rep. John Yarmuth (D) of Kentucky, who worked on bipartisan immigration legislation in the House last year, believes that if getting immigration reform across the finish line in the House were to depend on giving up on citizenship and accepting legal status, enough Democrats would compromise to pass reform.

“If that were the only thing holding up a comprehensive measure, there would be a majority of votes in the House for passage [of legal status], but with fewer Democrats,” he said in an interview this week.

There’s also the purely political consideration. Because “legal status” would not give these 11 million people the right to vote, some Republican lawmakers might be more receptive to it. That’s because ethnic minorities currently vote Democratic by a large margin, and the new citizens would be presumed to do the same, at least initially. Democratic lawmakers may resist such a compromise for the same reason, not wanting to forgo an infusion of Democratic voters.

Related stories

• Could you pass a US citizenship test?
• Immigration reform: Why are House Republicans poised to act now? (+video)
• Cover Story Is Barack Obama an imperial president?

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

• Become a Facebook fan!
• Follow us on Twitter!
• Follow us on Google+
• Link up with us!
• Subscribe to our RSS feeds!

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• immigration reform
• illegal immigrants
• legal status

Of all the sticking points in immigration reform, the stickiest is what to do about the estimated 11 million people already living illegally in the United States.

The Senate, in its bipartisan reform bill approved last June, opted to grant a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants. In the House, many Republicans call that “amnesty,” and want none of it. Now, however, House Republicans are discussing this alternative: Provide a pathway to legal status, but not citizenship. 

So far, that idea is just a talking point on a list of immigration reform principles that House Republicans are considering at a retreat on Maryland’s Eastern Shore Jan. 29-31. Even so, it could mark the road to an actual law or laws, so the distinction is important. Below we answer questions about legal status versus citizenship, and the arguments on both sides of the debate.

What does “legal status” entail?

Gaining legal status would likely mean three things for people now living in the US illegally, according to Doris Meissner, director of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that studies global migration.

First, they would no longer be subject to deportation solely because they’re in the country illegally, as long as they are law abiding in other ways. Second, they would be authorized to work. Third, they would have the ability to travel in and out of the United States. At least 60 percent of the illegal population has been in the US for more than 10 years, says Ms. Meissner, and are unable to return to their home countries to visit family or for other reasons.

Republicans would want immigrants to meet certain conditions to qualify for legal status, such as admitting they entered the country illegally, passing background checks, paying fines and back taxes, and becoming proficient in English and American civics.

How would legal status differ from citizenship?

The Senate bill allows for a 13-year path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. As naturalized citizens, they would be eligible to receive government benefits, such as unemployment insurance and Social Security. They could vote. And they would be eligible for special immigration privileges, such as being able to bring family members into the country. If they commit a crime, they can’t be deported.

These privileges of citizenship would not apply to people with legal status.

Why do many Republicans object to citizenship?

They view citizenship as “amnesty” that rewards people who broke the law. It unfairly gives illegal immigrants a “head start” over people trying to enter the country legally, they say. And granting citizenship to such people – even if the process takes 13 years – would only serve to convince future illegal migrants that they, too could eventually get citizenship if they just pressure Congress long enough. 

Actually, some conservatives consider both citizenship and legal status to be “amnesty.” Both, they say, reward lawbreakers, give illegal immigrants an advantage, and signal to future illegal entrants that the door is open to them, too.

Conservatives do want other aspects of immigration reform: tighter border security, greater immigration enforcement at the workplace, and a functioning visa system. Only after these goals are achieved, they argue, will it be time to look at the undocumented who are already here. 

For some conservatives, however, the time for immigration reform will never be ripe as long as President Obama is in office. They see him as lax on immigration enforcement, despite buttressing of the border patrol and increased workplace sweeps. “If the president cannot be trusted to enforce existing immigration laws, why should he be trusted to enforce new immigration laws?” asks Rep. Lamar Smith (R) of Texas.

Why do many Democrats back citizenship?

They, too, see this as a fairness issue. It is unfair and un-American for the government to institute two classes of people in the US, a class with full rights and a lesser class without full rights, they argue. One part of immigration reform must be to bring the undocumented fully out of the shadows so that they can openly contribute to the economy and civic life, they argue. A full contribution is possible only with full citizenship.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D) of California champions this view. “There has to be a path to citizenship,” she reiterated Jan. 29. And it must be comprehensive, including children of illegal immigrants (so-called “Dreamers”) and adults, she said.

Why might legal status work as a compromise?

Immigrant groups themselves rank legal status as more important than citizenship, by pluralities of Hispanics and Asian-Americans – who make up two-thirds of the 28 million immigrants in the US. That may be the strongest argument on behalf of legalization. 

Fifty-five percent of Hispanic adults in the US say that “being able to live and work in the US legally without the threat of being deported” is more important for unauthorized immigrants than “having a pathway to citizenship for those who meet certain requirements,” according to a December survey by the Pew Research Center. Among Asian-American adults in the US, 49 percent hold that view. Both groups still overwhelmingly favor a pathway to citizenship, but they say protection from deportation is the greater need.

Rep. John Yarmuth (D) of Kentucky, who worked on bipartisan immigration legislation in the House last year, believes that if getting immigration reform across the finish line in the House were to depend on giving up on citizenship and accepting legal status, enough Democrats would compromise to pass reform.

“If that were the only thing holding up a comprehensive measure, there would be a majority of votes in the House for passage [of legal status], but with fewer Democrats,” he said in an interview this week.

There’s also the purely political consideration. Because “legal status” would not give these 11 million people the right to vote, some Republican lawmakers might be more receptive to it. That’s because ethnic minorities currently vote Democratic by a large margin, and the new citizens would be presumed to do the same, at least initially. Democratic lawmakers may resist such a compromise for the same reason, not wanting to forgo an infusion of Democratic voters.

Related stories

• Could you pass a US citizenship test?
• Immigration reform: Why are House Republicans poised to act now? (+video)
• Cover Story Is Barack Obama an imperial president?

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

• Become a Facebook fan!
• Follow us on Twitter!
• Follow us on Google+
• Link up with us!
• Subscribe to our RSS feeds!

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• immigration reform
• illegal immigrants
• legal status

Of all the sticking points in immigration reform, the stickiest is what to do about the estimated 11 million people already living illegally in the United States.

The Senate, in its bipartisan reform bill approved last June, opted to grant a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants. In the House, many Republicans call that “amnesty,” and want none of it. Now, however, House Republicans are discussing this alternative: Provide a pathway to legal status, but not citizenship. 

So far, that idea is just a talking point on a list of immigration reform principles that House Republicans are considering at a retreat on Maryland’s Eastern Shore Jan. 29-31. Even so, it could mark the road to an actual law or laws, so the distinction is important. Below we answer questions about legal status versus citizenship, and the arguments on both sides of the debate.

What does “legal status” entail?

Gaining legal status would likely mean three things for people now living in the US illegally, according to Doris Meissner, director of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that studies global migration.

First, they would no longer be subject to deportation solely because they’re in the country illegally, as long as they are law abiding in other ways. Second, they would be authorized to work. Third, they would have the ability to travel in and out of the United States. At least 60 percent of the illegal population has been in the US for more than 10 years, says Ms. Meissner, and are unable to return to their home countries to visit family or for other reasons.

Republicans would want immigrants to meet certain conditions to qualify for legal status, such as admitting they entered the country illegally, passing background checks, paying fines and back taxes, and becoming proficient in English and American civics.

How would legal status differ from citizenship?

The Senate bill allows for a 13-year path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. As naturalized citizens, they would be eligible to receive government benefits, such as unemployment insurance and Social Security. They could vote. And they would be eligible for special immigration privileges, such as being able to bring family members into the country. If they commit a crime, they can’t be deported.

These privileges of citizenship would not apply to people with legal status.

Why do many Republicans object to citizenship?

They view citizenship as “amnesty” that rewards people who broke the law. It unfairly gives illegal immigrants a “head start” over people trying to enter the country legally, they say. And granting citizenship to such people – even if the process takes 13 years – would only serve to convince future illegal migrants that they, too could eventually get citizenship if they just pressure Congress long enough. 

Actually, some conservatives consider both citizenship and legal status to be “amnesty.” Both, they say, reward lawbreakers, give illegal immigrants an advantage, and signal to future illegal entrants that the door is open to them, too.

Conservatives do want other aspects of immigration reform: tighter border security, greater immigration enforcement at the workplace, and a functioning visa system. Only after these goals are achieved, they argue, will it be time to look at the undocumented who are already here. 

For some conservatives, however, the time for immigration reform will never be ripe as long as President Obama is in office. They see him as lax on immigration enforcement, despite buttressing of the border patrol and increased workplace sweeps. “If the president cannot be trusted to enforce existing immigration laws, why should he be trusted to enforce new immigration laws?” asks Rep. Lamar Smith (R) of Texas.

Why do many Democrats back citizenship?

They, too, see this as a fairness issue. It is unfair and un-American for the government to institute two classes of people in the US, a class with full rights and a lesser class without full rights, they argue. One part of immigration reform must be to bring the undocumented fully out of the shadows so that they can openly contribute to the economy and civic life, they argue. A full contribution is possible only with full citizenship.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D) of California champions this view. “There has to be a path to citizenship,” she reiterated Jan. 29. And it must be comprehensive, including children of illegal immigrants (so-called “Dreamers”) and adults, she said.

Why might legal status work as a compromise?

Immigrant groups themselves rank legal status as more important than citizenship, by pluralities of Hispanics and Asian-Americans – who make up two-thirds of the 28 million immigrants in the US. That may be the strongest argument on behalf of legalization. 

Fifty-five percent of Hispanic adults in the US say that “being able to live and work in the US legally without the threat of being deported” is more important for unauthorized immigrants than “having a pathway to citizenship for those who meet certain requirements,” according to a December survey by the Pew Research Center. Among Asian-American adults in the US, 49 percent hold that view. Both groups still overwhelmingly favor a pathway to citizenship, but they say protection from deportation is the greater need.

Rep. John Yarmuth (D) of Kentucky, who worked on bipartisan immigration legislation in the House last year, believes that if getting immigration reform across the finish line in the House were to depend on giving up on citizenship and accepting legal status, enough Democrats would compromise to pass reform.

“If that were the only thing holding up a comprehensive measure, there would be a majority of votes in the House for passage [of legal status], but with fewer Democrats,” he said in an interview this week.

There’s also the purely political consideration. Because “legal status” would not give these 11 million people the right to vote, some Republican lawmakers might be more receptive to it. That’s because ethnic minorities currently vote Democratic by a large margin, and the new citizens would be presumed to do the same, at least initially. Democratic lawmakers may resist such a compromise for the same reason, not wanting to forgo an infusion of Democratic voters.

Related stories

• Could you pass a US citizenship test?
• Immigration reform: Why are House Republicans poised to act now? (+video)
• Cover Story Is Barack Obama an imperial president?

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

• Become a Facebook fan!
• Follow us on Twitter!
• Follow us on Google+
• Link up with us!
• Subscribe to our RSS feeds!

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• immigration reform
• illegal immigrants
• legal status

Of all the sticking points in immigration reform, the stickiest is what to do about the estimated 11 million people already living illegally in the United States.

The Senate, in its bipartisan reform bill approved last June, opted to grant a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants. In the House, many Republicans call that “amnesty,” and want none of it. Now, however, House Republicans are discussing this alternative: Provide a pathway to legal status, but not citizenship. 

So far, that idea is just a talking point on a list of immigration reform principles that House Republicans are considering at a retreat on Maryland’s Eastern Shore Jan. 29-31. Even so, it could mark the road to an actual law or laws, so the distinction is important. Below we answer questions about legal status versus citizenship, and the arguments on both sides of the debate.

What does “legal status” entail?

Gaining legal status would likely mean three things for people now living in the US illegally, according to Doris Meissner, director of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that studies global migration.

First, they would no longer be subject to deportation solely because they’re in the country illegally, as long as they are law abiding in other ways. Second, they would be authorized to work. Third, they would have the ability to travel in and out of the United States. At least 60 percent of the illegal population has been in the US for more than 10 years, says Ms. Meissner, and are unable to return to their home countries to visit family or for other reasons.

Republicans would want immigrants to meet certain conditions to qualify for legal status, such as admitting they entered the country illegally, passing background checks, paying fines and back taxes, and becoming proficient in English and American civics.

How would legal status differ from citizenship?

The Senate bill allows for a 13-year path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. As naturalized citizens, they would be eligible to receive government benefits, such as unemployment insurance and Social Security. They could vote. And they would be eligible for special immigration privileges, such as being able to bring family members into the country. If they commit a crime, they can’t be deported.

These privileges of citizenship would not apply to people with legal status.

Why do many Republicans object to citizenship?

They view citizenship as “amnesty” that rewards people who broke the law. It unfairly gives illegal immigrants a “head start” over people trying to enter the country legally, they say. And granting citizenship to such people – even if the process takes 13 years – would only serve to convince future illegal migrants that they, too could eventually get citizenship if they just pressure Congress long enough. 

Actually, some conservatives consider both citizenship and legal status to be “amnesty.” Both, they say, reward lawbreakers, give illegal immigrants an advantage, and signal to future illegal entrants that the door is open to them, too.

Conservatives do want other aspects of immigration reform: tighter border security, greater immigration enforcement at the workplace, and a functioning visa system. Only after these goals are achieved, they argue, will it be time to look at the undocumented who are already here. 

For some conservatives, however, the time for immigration reform will never be ripe as long as President Obama is in office. They see him as lax on immigration enforcement, despite buttressing of the border patrol and increased workplace sweeps. “If the president cannot be trusted to enforce existing immigration laws, why should he be trusted to enforce new immigration laws?” asks Rep. Lamar Smith (R) of Texas.

Why do many Democrats back citizenship?

They, too, see this as a fairness issue. It is unfair and un-American for the government to institute two classes of people in the US, a class with full rights and a lesser class without full rights, they argue. One part of immigration reform must be to bring the undocumented fully out of the shadows so that they can openly contribute to the economy and civic life, they argue. A full contribution is possible only with full citizenship.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D) of California champions this view. “There has to be a path to citizenship,” she reiterated Jan. 29. And it must be comprehensive, including children of illegal immigrants (so-called “Dreamers”) and adults, she said.

Why might legal status work as a compromise?

Immigrant groups themselves rank legal status as more important than citizenship, by pluralities of Hispanics and Asian-Americans – who make up two-thirds of the 28 million immigrants in the US. That may be the strongest argument on behalf of legalization. 

Fifty-five percent of Hispanic adults in the US say that “being able to live and work in the US legally without the threat of being deported” is more important for unauthorized immigrants than “having a pathway to citizenship for those who meet certain requirements,” according to a December survey by the Pew Research Center. Among Asian-American adults in the US, 49 percent hold that view. Both groups still overwhelmingly favor a pathway to citizenship, but they say protection from deportation is the greater need.

Rep. John Yarmuth (D) of Kentucky, who worked on bipartisan immigration legislation in the House last year, believes that if getting immigration reform across the finish line in the House were to depend on giving up on citizenship and accepting legal status, enough Democrats would compromise to pass reform.

“If that were the only thing holding up a comprehensive measure, there would be a majority of votes in the House for passage [of legal status], but with fewer Democrats,” he said in an interview this week.

There’s also the purely political consideration. Because “legal status” would not give these 11 million people the right to vote, some Republican lawmakers might be more receptive to it. That’s because ethnic minorities currently vote Democratic by a large margin, and the new citizens would be presumed to do the same, at least initially. Democratic lawmakers may resist such a compromise for the same reason, not wanting to forgo an infusion of Democratic voters.

Related stories

• Could you pass a US citizenship test?
• Immigration reform: Why are House Republicans poised to act now? (+video)
• Cover Story Is Barack Obama an imperial president?

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

• Become a Facebook fan!
• Follow us on Twitter!
• Follow us on Google+
• Link up with us!
• Subscribe to our RSS feeds!

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• immigration reform
• illegal immigrants
• legal status

This week could be a definitive one for immigration reform in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, where the issue has ground to a standstill.

House Republicans, now on their annual retreat, will reportedly consider on Thursday afternoon a path to legal status, but not citizenship, for some 11 million immigrants living in the US illegally. If the House were to move forward on the idea – one of several “principles” the Republicans are discussing – that could mark a key step toward taking immigration reform over the finish line this year.

Of course, definitive moments on this issue have come and gone before. First, Republicans took a beating from Latino voters in the 2012 presidential election. Then last year the Senate approved a comprehensive immigration reform bill with a broad, bipartisan majority. Yet House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio never brought anything to the House floor for a vote.

So the question is: Why return to immigration reform now?

That question divides House Republicans and could have an effect on how this fall’s midterm elections play out.

Some Republicans say the House is simply picking up where it left off last year. The House, they say, actually did a lot on immigration reform in 2013 – including hearings, passing several bills on different aspects of reform, and holding bipartisan negotiations – but events intervened. The government shutdown, a budget deadline, and the Republican desire to make “Obamacare” a singular focus all pushed immigration reform off the 2013 calendar.

Now, with the legislative decks relatively clear, House Republicans in the “move now” faction are pushing ahead. For these Republicans, the urgency to pass immigration reform comes down to three main factors:

Demographics. The GOP must make inroads among Hispanics, as well as Asians, if it wants to win back the White House or be competitive in a number of states, many say. That was the lesson of 2012.

Business. Pressure is building from the business community, particularly the US Chamber of Commerce, which wants immigration reform as a job creator, growth engine, and deficit reducer.

Reform is overdue. Given that the issue has gone years without resolution, the need for a solution is growing. “The bottom line is, we get paid to make tough decisions and you can’t keep putting these things off,” says Rep. Greg Walden (R) of Oregon, who is also chief of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which works to elect Republicans to the House. “It’s a problem in my district that needs resolution from a lot of different angles. It’s a problem throughout the country.”

Feeling bruised by the partial government shutdown in September, some Republicans may also welcome a legislative achievement that will help them counter an obstructionist image. If Republicans do nothing this year and wait until, say, 2015, Democrats will pound them relentlessly ahead of this fall’s midterm elections.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D) of Illinois asks: “Does anyone really think the Senate’s going to come back next year and go through that torturous process [of 2013] all over again? So I think now’s the moment.”

Other Republicans say now is clearly the wrong time for immigration reform.

Midterms are about exciting the base to turn out in a nonpresidential election year. For many Republicans in gerrymandered House districts, the Latino vote is not a pressing issue. Incumbents are unlikely to contend with a wave of Latino GOP primary voters; they’re more worried about fending off conservative challengers.

And the conservative base is unhappy with the direction of the House, which passed a costly spending bill in January and a farm bill Wednesday, notes Dan Holler, communications director for Heritage Action, a conservative advocacy group that opposes both legal- and citizenship-status for people living in the US illegally.

Immigration reform would just be one more morale-buster for conservatives, who object to a “pathway” to either legal status or citizenship, he says. They consider both to be “amnesty” – putting those who broke the law ahead of those who want to enter the country legally, and ahead of jobless Americans.

Attempt immigration reform this year, Mr. Holler and others warn, and just watch the GOP self-destruct in disagreement and then blow its chance to stay on message about Obamacare – perhaps even endangering the possibility of retaking the US Senate, where Republicans need to net six seats.

Last year, Holler says, “We were told that the [House] leadership’s not going to do anything on immigration reform, because that’s going to distract from Obamacare.” This week’s resurgence of the issue “is obviously a pretty stark change from that.”

This schism is what faces Mr. Boehner when he brings his list of principles before his conference for a discussion Thursday. He, personally, would like to get immigration reform done. The compromise of legal status, instead of citizenship, is an indication that he’s serious about negotiating a deal, within his party and with Democrats. It’s a price that Democrats would probably – reluctantly – pay, if it meant saving the rest of reform.

The question is, what price will Boehner be willing to pay, both within his House Republican rank-and-file and at the ballot box?

This week, he might move closer to giving a definitive answer.

Related stories

• Could you pass a US citizenship test?
• Obamacare and Latinos: why a crucial constituency is wary of signing up
• USA Update Undocumented immigrant can practice law, California Supreme Court rules (+video)
• Obama pollster: Press has it wrong on Obamacare polls

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

• Become a Facebook fan!
• Follow us on Twitter!
• Follow us on Google+
• Link up with us!
• Subscribe to our RSS feeds!

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• immigration reform
• Republicans

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republican leaders plan to outline broad immigration principles, including legalization for the 11 million immigrants living here illegally, to the GOP rank and file as they look to revive long-stalled efforts to overhaul the nation’s immigration system.

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other House GOP leaders will measure the willingness of party members to tackle immigration in a midterm election year when they unveil the principles Thursday at the GOP caucus’ annual retreat in Cambridge, Md.

“We’re going to outline our standards, principles of immigration reform and have a conversation with our members, and once that conversation’s over we’ll have a better feel for what members have in mind,” Boehner told reporters this week.

Boehner faces strong opposition from several conservatives who fear that legislation will lead to citizenship for people who broke U.S. immigration laws, are suspicious of President Barack Obama and his enforcement of any law and are reluctant to give the president a long-sought legislative victory.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, delivered a 30-page package to all 232 House Republicans on Wednesday that offered a point-by-point rebuttal to the expected principles.

Sessions warned of the negative impact of proposed changes in immigration policy on U.S. workers, taxpayers and the rule of law as the House leaders look at legalization for some of the 11 million immigrants living here illegally. Sessions and other opponents argue that legal status and work authorization amounts to amnesty and serves as a path to citizenship.

Responding to Obama’s renewed call for immigration legislation and the positive signals from House GOP leaders, Sessions said Republicans “must end the lawlessness — not surrender to it — and they must defend the legitimate interests of millions of struggling American workers.”

Separately, several lawmakers were working on legislation dealing with children of parents in the United States illegally and visas for guest workers.

Republicans insist that the party must pass reforms and address the issue of those in the country illegally to be competitive in presidential elections. In 2012, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who suggested that immigrants “self-deport,” won just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote.

“It’s no secret we have millions of people who are here, who are unlawful and we can’t deny that, and I think that’s something that has to be dealt with,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., who has been working on legislation. “But a lot of components have to be dealt with.”

The Senate last year passed a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that addressed border security, provided enforcement measures and offered a path to citizenship for those living here illegally. The measure stalled in the GOP-led House, where leaders want to take a more piecemeal approach.

Sessions’ analysis said increasing the number of immigrants would hurt an already weak economy, lower wages and increase unemployment. He cited White House adviser Gene Sperling’s comment earlier this month that the economy has three people looking for every job opening.

He said the House GOP leaders’ plan that’s taking shape would grant work permits almost immediately to those here illegally, giving them a chance to compete with unemployed Americans for any job. He said it would lead to a surge in the future flow of unskilled workers and would provide amnesty to a larger number of immigrants in the country illegally, giving them a chance to apply for citizenship through green cards.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of Sessions’ critique.

Notably, two members of the House leadership, Boehner and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., spoke about dealing with the broken immigration system in their responses to Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters Wednesday that she spoke to Boehner about the principles but not specific legislation.

“I believe it is a good-faith effort to find common ground, and we look forward to seeing what they are,” Pelosi said.

Diaz-Balart expressed cautious optimism, putting the odds of House action on immigration at 30 percent, up from 5 percent earlier.

“There’s a consensus that the system is broken and I’m seeing more and more a desire to fix it,” he said in an interview. “Speaker Boehner has been very clear, leadership has been very clear. We’re going to do it methodically, that we’re going to look at it case by case, step by step, we’re not going to rush it.”

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• John Boehner
• Jeff Sessions
• Barack Obama
• immigration reform

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republican leaders poised to revive efforts to overhaul the immigration system with new broad policy principles are facing a direct challenge from a GOP senator who is warning against a headlong rush toward reform.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, delivered a 30-page package to all 232 House Republicans on Wednesday that offers a point-by-point rebuttal to the expected standards that House Speaker John Boehner and other leaders plan to circulate this week among GOP members at their annual retreat.

Sessions warned of the negative impact of proposed changes to immigration policy on U.S. workers, taxpayers and the rule of law as the House leaders look at legalization for some of the 11 million immigrants living here illegally. Sessions and other opponents argue that legal status and work authorization still amounts to amnesty.

The GOP starting point is a statement of principles that is expected to focus on border and interior security, legalization with the requirement that immigrants pay fines and back taxes, and ensuring that President Barack Obama enforces any law, according to lawmakers, congressional aides and outside advocates, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss the principles being drafted.

Republican leaders plan to circulate the principles on Thursday at the GOP caucus’ retreat in Cambridge, Md.

Responding to Obama’s renewed call for immigration legislation and the positive signals from House GOP leaders, Sessions said Republicans “must end the lawlessness — not surrender to it — and they must defend the legitimate interests of millions of struggling American workers.”

The package, including a memo from Sessions, an analysis from his staff on the Senate Budget and Judiciary committees and a summary of opposition from conservatives, was delivered shortly before House Republicans left Washington.

“We’re going to outline our standards, principles of immigration reform and have a conversation with our members, and once that conversation’s over we’ll have a better feel for what members have in mind,” Boehner told reporters this week.

Separately, several lawmakers are working on legislation dealing with children of parents in the United States illegally, and visas for guest workers.

Republicans insist that the party must pass reforms and address the issue of the 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally to be competitive in presidential elections. In 2012, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who suggested that immigrants “self-deport,” won just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote.

“It’s no secret we have millions of people who are here, who are unlawful and we can’t deny that and I think that’s something that has to be dealt with,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., who has been working on legislation, “but lot of components have to be dealt with.”

The Senate last year passed a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that addressed border security, provided enforcement measures and offered a path to citizenship for those living here illegally. The measure stalled in the GOP-led House, where leaders want to take a more piecemeal approach.

Sessions’ analysis said increasing the number of immigrants would hurt an already weak economy, lower wages and increase unemployment. He cited White House adviser Gene Sperling’s comment earlier this month that the economy has three people looking for every job opening.

He said the House GOP leaders’ plan that’s taking shape would grant work permits almost immediately to those here illegally, giving them a chance to compete with unemployed Americans for any job. He said it would lead to a surge in the future flow of unskilled workers and would provide amnesty to a larger number of immigrants in the country illegally, giving them a chance to apply for citizenship through green cards.

“House Republicans, in crafting immigration principles, should reply to the president’s immigration campaign with a simple message: Our focus is to help unemployed Americans get back to work, not to grant amnesty or to answer the whims of immigration activists and CEOs,” Sessions said in his memo.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of Sessions’ critique.

Notably, two members of the House leadership, Boehner and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., spoke about dealing with the broken immigration system in their responses to Obama’s State of the Union address. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters Wednesday that she spoke to Boehner about the principles but not specific legislation.

“I believe it is a good-faith effort to find common ground, and we look forward to seeing what they are,” Pelosi said.

Democrats and many immigration overhaul proponents, including labor unions, have pushed hard for a path to citizenship and may not be satisfied with legalization.

Unclear is how rank-and-file Republicans will respond, especially with a great deal of GOP wariness about whether Obama can be trusted to enforce an immigration law.

Obama’s waiver or suspension of provisions of his four-year-old health care law have increased suspicions among Republicans, and Sessions’ analysis highlighted the president’s State of the Union comments that he might act unilaterally on some issues if Congress balks.

Diaz-Balart expressed cautious optimism, putting the odds of House action on immigration at 30 percent, up from 5 percent earlier.

“There’s a consensus that the system is broken and I’m seeing more and more a desire to fix it,” he said in an interview. “Speaker Boehner has been very clear, leadership has been very clear. We’re going to do it methodically, that we’re going to look at it case by case, step by step, we’re not going to rush it.”

___

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

• Politics & Government
• Immigration Issues
• Jeff Sessions
• Barack Obama
• GOP
• immigration reform