Rep. Bob Goodlatte floats pathway to legalization

Goodlatte is a key point man for House Republicans on immigration policy. | AP Photo
Close
By SEUNG MIN KIM | 7/23/13 4:57 AM EDT

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte recently threw a curveball into the immigration debate by floating what has been anathema to House Republicans — a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

The Virginia Republican’s idea: legalize the 11 million undocumented immigrants and allow them to apply for citizenship using ways that already exist — including marriage to a U.S. citizen or sponsorship by another relative or an employer.

As chairman of the committee with primary control over immigration matters, Goodlatte is a key point man for House Republicans on immigration policy. It’s unclear whether his comments reflect the larger view of House Republicans, many of whom are flat-out resistant to the idea of allowing a pathway to citizenship to those here illegally.

(PHOTOS: 10 wild immigration quotes)

But the chairman’s July 11 comments have piqued interest among immigration advocates. Reformers want to hear more about what the powerful chairman is thinking. Many are encouraged that Goodlatte is seeking solutions for undocumented immigrants. But others note that Goodlatte’s proposal could be legally unworkable.

“Are they trying to create space for a Republican version of legalization with a citizenship option for some but not all? Or are they trying to pretend that they want a solution as they gear up to get to ‘no’?” said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the pro-reform group America’s Voice. “I genuinely don’t know.”

Goodlatte has said on multiple occasions that he does not support a “special” pathway to citizenship, meaning that he opposes a new legal category created especially for immigrants who came to the United States illegally. The Senate Gang of Eight bill includes a 13-year pathway to citizenship for such immigrants, but they would essentially have to go to the back of the line of those who are waiting to obtain green cards before they, themselves, could become permanent residents.

In a C-SPAN interview earlier this month, Goodlatte said he and other House Republicans were “open-minded” to a path to legalization. After obtaining that status, those immigrants could then apply for green cards, and ultimately citizenship, through methods already available to other immigrants.

“All of those are ways that they could then eventually find themselves permanent residents and ultimately citizens, but none of those would be special ways that have been made available only to people who are here illegally because that’s the Senate’s approach,” Goodlatte said in the interview. “We don’t agree with that approach.”
The pathway is the source of a major divide between House Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have said any legislative remedy that falls short of a shot at citizenship would unfairly create a second-class tier of U.S. residents. House Republicans are split: Many are uncomfortable with a path to citizenship but are open to some avenue to a legal status. Some support a path to citizenship, and still others oppose legalization altogether.

(PHOTOS: 20 quotes on immigration reform)

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a key member of the Senate Gang of Eight, indicated that he is open-minded to Goodlatte’s proposal. He and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) met with Goodlatte last week on immigration and discussed how the two chambers can agree on reform.

“What the Democrats have said and I have said is that a path to citizenship is the game breaker,” McCain said. “So if he can find other ways to reach that goal, we’d be glad to discuss it.”

“I think the fact that he’s trying to solve the problem is very encouraging,” Graham added. “I like Bob Goodlatte. The fact that he’s trying to be practical and reject self-deportation is a good start.”

(PHOTOS: Pols react to immigration deal)

Still, some immigration law experts said Goodlatte’s proposal would not be allowed under existing statutes.

Under provisions in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, it would be essentially impossible for immigrants who had been in the country illegally for more than 180 days to apply for legal status using existing avenues, they said. Congress would have to revise the 1996 law to make Goodlatte’s plan possible.
“It’s a simplistic response to the current situation, or it shows a lack of understanding of the current immigration system and how immigration law is so complex and unfortunately, it requires a complex solution,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

David Leopold, past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the main problem with Goodlatte’s plan is that it would exclude a significant swath of current undocumented immigrants.

“You still have a system that does not accommodate people with no family ties or employment ties,” he said.

That’s a sentiment also noted by Gang member Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).
“That provision would still leave millions of people undocumented or in limbo for a long period of time,” Menendez said.

Still, the response to Goodlatte’s comments is in marked contrast from the reaction to another one of his proposals. He and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) are writing legislation that would create a legal status for children who were brought without authorization into the United States.

Even though Cantor and Goodlatte have yet to unveil details about their bill — aside from the fact that it would differ from the DREAM Act, the well-known legislation that could give those young immigrants a pathway to citizenship — prominent advocacy groups and lawmakers have panned it. Their argument is that a plan addressing legalization and citizenship for just children is unacceptable.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), who has been highly critical of Cantor and Goodlatte’s Kids Act, said it would be “interesting” to see what the Judiciary Committee chairman will come up with on legalization for the broader population.

“The good news is that I think they’re recognizing that they’re out of touch with where the American people are and where the American voters are” on immigration, Becerra said. But “it’s hard when he just sort of uttered it in an interview. It’s not anything in policy.”

For many, the key takeaway from Goodlatte’s comments is that the conservative chairman is increasingly warming up to different ways to achieve a path to legalization and ultimately citizenship.

“I think it’s a really clear indication that Goodlatte wants to get to the right policy,” said Ali Noorani, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum. “I don’t think it’s a deal breaker or a deal maker.”

House committees have cleared five separate bills on immigration this year, but none addresses what to do with immigrants who are living in the country illegally. The Kids Act by Cantor and Goodlatte is the first step that House Republicans have taken on the issue.

A bipartisan House group of seven lawmakers is writing a comprehensive reform bill that is expected to include a 15-year pathway to citizenship with triggers tied to a workplace verification system. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said it is not a “special path” but is “inclusive.”

Lofgren declined to comment on Goodlatte’s proposal, but two of her colleagues in the bipartisan group said they saw the chairman’s idea as a positive sign. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said of Goodlatte’s idea: “That’s got to be on the table.” And Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), while not commenting specifically on the proposal, said: “I see this all as progress.”

And then there will be those who view Goodlatte’s idea as too generous for undocumented immigrants.

“Anything that would happen before we actually have demonstrated we have true control over the immigration system, I think, is going to be very unpopular in [Goodlatte’s] conference,” said Roy Beck, the executive director of NumbersUSA, which advocates reduced immigration. “I also think that probably anything he proposes is going to be so short of what the other side wants right

now.”http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ion-94595.html