Draft Principles Show GOP Is Evolving on Immigration

Read the full draft document here.

A boys shows a US flag as President Barack Obama speaks on immigration at the Chamizal National Memorial on May 10, 2011 in El Paso, Texas.
National Journal
Jan. 30, 2014, 11:23 a.m.

The one-page set of im­mig­ra­tion prin­ciples cir­cu­lated by the House Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers at their an­nu­al re­treat in Cam­bridge, Md., on Thursday shows that the GOP is tak­ing a more ex­pans­ive pub­lic view of im­mig­ra­tion than their past state­ments would in­dic­ate.

“Pub­lic” is the key word there. The opin­ions of Re­pub­lic­an mem­bers of Con­gress on im­mig­ra­tion have var­ied widely for years, but the fear of polit­ic­al re­tri­bu­tion for any­thing oth­er than bor­der se­cur­ity state­ments has muted those di­verse opin­ions. Now, in the­ory, those opin­ions can come out.

The prin­ciples are in draft form, and they are meant to so­li­cit in­di­vidu­al mem­bers’ thoughts on how the un­wieldy im­mig­ra­tion sys­tem should change.

The next few weeks will be crit­ic­al for im­mig­ra­tion as law­makers and lob­by­ists parse in­di­vidu­al House mem­bers’ re­ac­tions to the policy re­com­mend­a­tions and con­stitu­ents. Think of this com­plex in­form­a­tion-gath­er­ing sys­tem as the soft­est “whip count” of Re­pub­lic­an sup­port in the his­tory of Con­gress. The more mem­bers who say, “No way, no how!” the less likely the prin­ciples are to morph in­to le­gis­la­tion. The more mem­bers who say, “Sure, let’s look at it,” the more likely we are to see ac­tu­al con­crete pro­pos­als.

The is­sue of most im­port­ance to im­mig­rant ad­voc­ates — many of whom are not Re­pub­lic­ans — is the po­ten­tial leg­al­iz­a­tion of the un­doc­u­mented pop­u­la­tion. To be more pre­cise, im­mig­rants are most con­cerned with re­mov­ing the fear of de­port­a­tion for people who are here without pa­pers.

House GOP lead­er­ship ap­pear will­ing to do that. The draft of the im­mig­ra­tion prin­ciples states that im­mig­rants in the U.S. il­leg­ally should be able to “live leg­ally and without fear” in the coun­try, but only if they are will­ing to ad­mit “culp­ab­il­ity” and all the pun­ish­ments that come with that, can prove they aren’t crim­in­als, and can sup­port them­selves.

But the doc­u­ment out­right states that “there will be no spe­cial path­way cit­izen­ship for in­di­vidu­als who broke our na­tion’s im­mig­ra­tion laws.”

That doesn’t mean they can’t be­come cit­izens. The prin­ciples do not fore­close the op­por­tun­ity for un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants to ob­tain green cards, and even­tu­ally cit­izen­ship, through the cur­rent meth­ods. People who have been in the coun­try long enough to have young adult chil­dren who are U.S. cit­izens could be­come cit­izens in their own right with­in five years un­der this concept. People who marry U.S. cit­izens could also get their green cards re­l­at­ively quickly. People whose em­ploy­ers want to spon­sor them for green cards could also get in line for green cards and have them with­in a few years.

The prob­lem for ad­voc­ates and Demo­crats, of course, is that not every­one in the un­doc­u­mented pop­u­la­tion would be able to get cit­izen­ship un­der these cri­ter­ia. The Na­tion­al Found­a­tion for Amer­ic­an Policy, an im­mig­ra­tion-re­lated re­search group, es­tim­ates that some­where between 4.5 mil­lion and 6.5 mil­lion un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants could even­tu­ally be­come cit­izens un­der the broad con­structs that have been out­lined by Re­pub­lic­ans. At best, that’s only about half of the es­tim­ated 11 to 12 mil­lion un­au­thor­ized im­mig­rants

As more con­crete pro­pos­als in the House emerge, the ques­tion for Demo­crats, the Sen­ate, and the White House will be wheth­er those pro­posed changes would ac­com­mod­ate enough people to make it worth their while to bar­gain with Re­pub­lic­ans. Demo­crats’ de­cisions on that front will be as im­port­ant as wheth­er Re­pub­lic­ans can even­tu­ally swal­low some form of leg­al­iz­a­tion.

A good ex­ample of the mixed re­ac­tions from ad­voc­ates who trend lib­er­al came from Laura Murphy, dir­ect­or of the ACLU’s Wash­ing­ton le­gis­lat­ive of­fice. “The good news is that the House Re­pub­lic­ans are mov­ing for­ward on much needed im­mig­ra­tion re­form, but some of their stand­ards are highly prob­lem­at­ic.” She went on to out­line ques­tions about cit­izen­ship and de­ten­tion fa­cil­it­ies.

Mixed re­ac­tions aside, the prin­ciples should al­low Re­pub­lic­ans some lee­way to dis­cuss how they feel about one of the most dif­fi­cult policy areas in the coun­try. Sen. Marco Ru­bio, R-Fla., took a beat­ing among tea party con­ser­vat­ives for voicing the opin­ion last year that un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants should be able to stay in the coun­try and earn cit­izen­ship. He backed off of im­mig­ra­tion in a hurry and star­ted talk­ing about poverty.

Earli­er this week, Ru­bio was happy to dis­cuss im­mig­ra­tion again, and happy that House Re­pub­lic­ans are think­ing about it ser­i­ously. He said that his party be­lieves many un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants should be able to stay here, but it does not agree on what to do with those people af­ter­wards.

“I think the con­sensus is that the best way to deal with them be­gins with en­sur­ing that we nev­er have this prob­lem again and then con­tin­ue to make con­sequences for hav­ing vi­ol­ated the law — pen­al­ties and wait times — and then a pro­cess by which they can be able to work and pay taxes in this coun­try,” Ru­bio said. “What hap­pens after that on cit­izen­ship and so forth, I don’t think there’s a con­sensus.”

Even Sen. Jeff Ses­sions, R-Ala., a staunch op­pon­ent of any­thing touch­ing leg­al­iz­a­tion, said earli­er this week that House Re­pub­lic­ans may be on the right track in dis­cuss­ing im­mig­ra­tion, even if he doesn’t think the ef­forts will come to any­thing. “I think they’ve been way too de­fens­ive. They need to as­sert boldly the prin­ciples that their con­stitu­ents be­lieve in,” he said. Then he ad­ded more dis­missively, “Every­one can agree on talk­ing points.”

House Re­pub­lic­ans make one thing clear: they are not ac­cept­ing the Sen­ate’s im­mig­ra­tion bill that cre­ates a 13-year path to cit­izen­ship for people without pa­pers. But the House GOP doc­u­ment does back cit­izen­ship for DREAM­ers, chil­dren who were brought to the U.S. il­leg­ally by their par­ents.

Let’s not for­get en­force­ment, which is a crit­ic­al part of im­mig­ra­tion over­haul from a GOP per­spect­ive. House Budget Com­mit­tee Chair­man Paul Ry­an said this in an in­ter­view with CNN’s Jake Tap­per im­me­di­ately fol­low­ing the re­lease of the prin­ciples: “The ap­proach that that we want to take is not ‘trust but veri­fy’ but ‘veri­fy and trust,’” he said. That’s a not-so-veiled knock on Pres­id­ent Obama for flout­ing the GOP’s wishes in any num­ber of areas, in­clud­ing im­mig­ra­tion, by act­ing uni­lat­er­ally without con­gres­sion­al sign-off.

The GOP im­mig­ra­tion prin­ciples say the law should en­sure that pres­id­ents can’t “uni­lat­er­ally stop im­mig­ra­tion,” al­lud­ing to Obama’s halt­ing of some de­port­a­tions un­der De­ferred Ac­tion for Child­hood Ar­rivals, or DACA, pro­gram.

The prin­ciples call for a “zero tol­er­ance” policy for people who cross the bor­der il­leg­ally or stay in the coun­try past the time peri­od al­lot­ted un­der a visa. They say a pro­posed visa entry/exit sys­tem that has been in the works since 2001 should fi­nally be com­pleted. They say the coun­try should “fully im­ple­ment” an elec­tron­ic work-au­thor­iz­a­tion veri­fic­a­tion sys­tem for em­ploy­ers when they hire new work­ers.

With­in minutes of the draft leak­ing, its con­tent re­ceived both push-back and sup­port. Busi­ness Roundtable called it “a pos­it­ive step for­ward on the path to fix­ing Amer­ica’s broken im­mig­ra­tion sys­tem.” The AFL-CIO shot it down be­cause it lacks a path­way to cit­izen­ship, with Pres­id­ent Richard Trumka call­ing it “a flimsy doc­u­ment that only serves to un­der­score the cal­lous at­ti­tude Re­pub­lic­ans have to­ward our na­tion’s im­mig­rants.” Her­it­age Ac­tion spokes­man Dan Holler called the prin­ciples “a full em­brace of am­nesty.”

Demo­crat­ic Rep. Lu­is Gu­ti­er­rez, a long­time im­mig­ra­tion re­form ad­voc­ate who con­tin­ues hav­ing private con­ver­sa­tions with House Re­pub­lic­ans, soun­ded cau­tiously op­tim­ist­ic. “The de­tails really mat­ter and I have not seen any­thing con­crete from the Re­pub­lic­ans so I am not in a po­s­i­tion to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to any­thing,” he said in a state­ment. “There is a long way to go and we all need to care­fully eval­u­ate ac­tu­al le­gis­la­tion, but the prin­ciples are a first step.”

See the text of the draft doc­u­ment be­low:


Our na­tion’s im­mig­ra­tion sys­tem is broken and our laws are not be­ing en­forced. Wash­ing­ton’s fail­ure to fix them is hurt­ing our eco­nomy and jeop­ard­iz­ing our na­tion­al se­cur­ity. The over­rid­ing pur­pose of our im­mig­ra­tion sys­tem is to pro­mote and fur­ther Amer­ica’s na­tion­al in­terests and that is not the case today. The ser­i­ous prob­lems in our im­mig­ra­tion sys­tem must be solved, and we are com­mit­ted to work­ing in a bi­par­tis­an man­ner to solve them. But they can­not be solved with a single, massive piece of le­gis­la­tion that few have read and even few­er un­der­stand, and there­fore, we will not go to a con­fer­ence with the Sen­ate’s im­mig­ra­tion bill. The prob­lems in our im­mig­ra­tion sys­tem must be solved through a step-by-step, com­mon-sense ap­proach that starts with se­cur­ing our coun­try’s bor­ders, en­for­cing our laws, and im­ple­ment­ing ro­bust en­force­ment meas­ures. These are the prin­cipals guid­ing us in that ef­fort.

Bor­der Se­cur­ity and In­teri­or En­force­ment Must Come First

It is the fun­da­ment­al duty of any gov­ern­ment to se­cure its bor­ders, and the United States is fail­ing in this mis­sion. We must se­cure our bor­ders now and veri­fy that they are se­cure. In ad­di­tion, we must en­sure now that when im­mig­ra­tion re­form is en­acted, there will be a zero tol­er­ance policy for those who cross the bor­der il­leg­ally or over­stay their visas in the fu­ture. Faced with a con­sist­ent pat­tern of ad­min­is­tra­tions of both parties only se­lect­ively en­for­cing our na­tion’s im­mig­ra­tion laws, we must en­act re­form that en­sures that a Pres­id­ent can­not uni­lat­er­ally stop im­mig­ra­tion en­force­ment.

Im­ple­ment Entry-Exit Visa Track­ing Sys­tem

A fully func­tion­ing Entry-Exit sys­tem has been man­dated by eight sep­ar­ate stat­utes over the last 17 years. At least three of these laws call for this sys­tem to be bio­met­ric, us­ing tech­no­logy to veri­fy iden­tity and pre­vent fraud. We must im­ple­ment this sys­tem so we can identi­fy and track down vis­it­ors who ab­use our laws.

Em­ploy­ment Veri­fic­a­tion and Work­place En­force­ment

In the 21st cen­tury it is un­ac­cept­able that the ma­jor­ity of em­ploy­ees have their work eli­gib­il­ity veri­fied through a pa­per based sys­tem wrought with fraud. It is past time for this coun­try to fully im­ple­ment a work­able elec­tron­ic em­ploy­ment veri­fic­a­tion sys­tem.

Re­forms to the Leg­al Im­mig­ra­tion Sys­tem

For far too long, the United States has em­phas­ized ex­ten­ded fam­ily mem­bers and pure luck over em­ploy­ment-based im­mig­ra­tion. This is in­con­sist­ent with nearly every oth­er de­veloped coun­try. Every year thou­sands of for­eign na­tion­als pur­sue de­grees at Amer­ica’s col­leges and uni­versit­ies, par­tic­u­larly in high skilled fields. Many of them want to use their ex­pert­ise in U.S. in­dus­tries that will spur eco­nom­ic growth and cre­ate jobs for Amer­ic­ans. When visas aren’t avail­able, we end up ex­port­ing this labor and in­genu­ity to oth­er coun­tries. Visa and green card al­loc­a­tions need to re­flect the needs of em­ploy­ers and the de­sire for these ex­cep­tion­al in­di­vidu­als to help grow our eco­nomy.

The goal of any tem­por­ary work­er pro­gram should be to ad­dress the eco­nom­ic needs of the coun­try and to strengthen our na­tion­al se­cur­ity by al­low­ing for real­ist­ic, en­force­able, us­able, leg­al paths for entry in­to the United States. Of par­tic­u­lar con­cern are the needs of the ag­ri­cul­tur­al in­dustry, among oth­ers. It is im­per­at­ive that these tem­por­ary work­ers are able to meet the eco­nom­ic needs of the coun­try and do not dis­place or dis­ad­vant­age Amer­ic­an work­ers.


One of the great found­ing prin­ciples of our coun­try was that chil­dren would not be pun­ished for the mis­takes of their par­ents. It is time to provide an op­por­tun­ity for leg­al res­id­ence and cit­izen­ship for those who were brought to this coun­try as chil­dren through no fault of their own, those who know no oth­er place as home. For those who meet cer­tain eli­gib­il­ity stand­ards, and serve hon­or­ably in our mil­it­ary or at­tain a col­lege de­gree, we will do just that.

In­di­vidu­als Liv­ing Out­side the Rule of Law

Our na­tion­al and eco­nom­ic se­cur­ity de­pend on re­quir­ing people who are liv­ing and work­ing here il­leg­ally to come for­ward and get right with the law. There will be no spe­cial path to cit­izen­ship for in­di­vidu­als who broke our na­tion’s im­mig­ra­tion laws — that would be un­fair to those im­mig­rants who have played by the rules and harm­ful to pro­mot­ing the rule of law. Rather, these per­sons could live leg­ally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were will­ing to ad­mit their culp­ab­il­ity, pass rig­or­ous back­ground checks, pay sig­ni­fic­ant fines and back taxes, de­vel­op pro­fi­ciency in Eng­lish and Amer­ic­an civics, and be able to sup­port them­selves and their fam­il­ies (without ac­cess to pub­lic be­ne­fits). Crim­in­al ali­ens, gang mem­bers, and sex of­fend­ers and those who do not meet the above re­quire­ments will not be eli­gible for this pro­gram. Fi­nally, none of this can hap­pen be­fore spe­cif­ic en­force­ment trig­gers have been im­ple­men­ted to ful­fill our prom­ise to the Amer­ic­an people that from here on, our im­mig­ra­tion laws will in­deed be en­forced.

Elahe Izadii contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
McCain Family to Endorse Biden
8 hours ago

"The late Sen. John McCain's family plans to support former Vice President Joe Biden's White House bid, backing the Democrat not only in his party's crowded primary race but also in a general election matchup with President Trump, the Washington Examiner has learned. In an extraordinary snub to Trump, who derided McCain's Vietnam War service and mocked him even after his death last August at age 81, the McCain family is preparing to break with the Republican Party. McCain represented the party in Congress for 35 years and was chosen as its presidential nominee in 2008, losing to Barack Obama."

Trump Opposes White House Aides Giving Congressional Testimony
12 hours ago

"President Trump on Tuesday said he is opposed to current and former White House aides providing testimony to congressional panels in the wake of the special counsel report, intensifying a power struggle between his administration and House Democrats. In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said that complying with congressional requests was unnecessary after the White House cooperated with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian interference and the president’s own conduct in office."

Nadler Subpoenas Unredacted Report
5 days ago
Mueller Made 14 Criminal Referrals
6 days ago
The Report Is Here
6 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.