GOP’s Denham: “˜Un-American’ to Deny Citizenship to Undocumented

The atypical House Republican, whose California district is 40 percent Latino, previously backed a comprehensive immigration bill written by Democrats.

WASHINGTON - NOVEMBER 15: House member-elect Jeff Denham (R-CA) addresses a rally organized by Americans for Progress withon Capitol Hill November 15, 2010 in Washington, DC. Associated with the Tea Party movement, Americans for Progress members and supporters rallied to 'send a clear message to Washington that voters have spoken this November and that politicians should not pursue big government policies in the Lame Duck session.' (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
National Journal
Jordan Fabian, Fusion
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Jordan Fabian, Fusion
Jan. 28, 2014, 11:47 a.m.

As House Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers pre­pare to un­veil their plan for im­mig­ra­tion re­form, ad­dress­ing the un­doc­u­mented pop­u­la­tion re­mains the thorn­i­est is­sue.

The New York Times re­por­ted Tues­day that the GOP’s frame­work will call for a path to leg­al status for many of the 11.7 mil­lion im­mig­rants liv­ing here without pa­pers. But the doc­u­ment spe­cific­ally op­poses a “spe­cial path­way to cit­izen­ship,” ex­cept for un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants brought to the U.S. as chil­dren.

The forth­com­ing plan has already run in­to res­ist­ance among con­ser­vat­ives who don’t want any leg­al­iz­a­tion at all. But of­fer­ing leg­al status — and not cit­izen­ship — isn’t enough for at least one pro-re­form GOP law­maker: Rep. Jeff Den­ham.

The Cali­for­nia con­gress­man told Fu­sion’s Jorge Ramos on Tues­day that “you have to have some type of cit­izen­ship in the fu­ture” as part of an im­mig­ra­tion-re­form pack­age.

“Wheth­er we start with a pro­vi­sion­al status and leg­al per­man­ent res­id­ence … or we set up some oth­er way to as­sim­il­ate leg­ally, you can’t ever put in something that says, ‘You can nev­er be­come a cit­izen,’” he said in an in­ter­view. “That’s un-Amer­ic­an.”

There are a few caveats here. The fine print of the GOP’s prin­ciples has not yet been re­leased, so we don’t know wheth­er it would spe­cific­ally bar im­mig­rants from ever be­com­ing cit­izens.

In the past, high-rank­ing Re­pub­lic­ans have said they want to leg­al­ize un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants, and even al­low some of them to earn cit­izen­ship un­der ex­ist­ing laws. But they don’t want to cre­ate new leg­al av­en­ues for them to ob­tain cit­izen­ship, as the Sen­ate’s bi­par­tis­an im­mig­ra­tion over­haul does.

Im­mig­rant-rights act­iv­ists are not en­thu­si­ast­ic about that idea, since it would open a path­way to cit­izen­ship for a only small sliv­er of un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants, such as those who have close fam­ily or work ties to the U.S. Plus, adding more im­mig­rants to ex­ist­ing path­ways could cre­ate even big­ger back­logs (or “lines”) to gain per­man­ent leg­al status.

Den­ham also is not your typ­ic­al House Re­pub­lic­an. He rep­res­ents a dis­trict that is 40 per­cent Latino and has pre­vi­ously backed a com­pre­hens­ive im­mig­ra­tion bill writ­ten by Demo­crats. In short, there are not many more House GOP­ers who have the same views on im­mig­ra­tion.

Still, Den­ham’s com­ments are sig­ni­fic­ant. The Times notes that the frame­work is “more of an at­tempt to test the wa­ters than a blue­print for ac­tion.” Den­ham’s stance in­dic­ates that the plan could face push­back from pro-im­mig­ra­tion fac­tions with­in the GOP, and not just re­stric­tion­ists.

In the com­ing months, Den­ham could emerge as a strong voice pulling his party to­ward em­bra­cing a path to cit­izen­ship.

“I ex­pect if you are go­ing to come out of the shad­ows, then you’re go­ing to want to have some type of hope in the fu­ture that you’re go­ing to im­prove your life and, yes, ac­com­plish that Amer­ic­an Dream,” Den­ham told Ramos.

This art­icle is pub­lished with per­mis­sion from Fu­sion, a TV and di­git­al net­work that cham­pi­ons a smart, di­verse and in­clus­ive Amer­ica. Fu­sion is a part­ner of Na­tion­al Journ­al and The Next Amer­ica. Fol­low the au­thor on Twit­ter: @Jord­anFa­bi­an

What We're Following See More »
Spending Bill Fails to Clear 60-Vote Hurdle
26 minutes ago
Monday’s Debate Was Most Watched Ever
1 hours ago
Hill Republicans Don’t Like What They See in Debate
1 hours ago

"It was obvious he wasn't prepared." “He only mentioned her email scandal once." "I think he took things a little too personal and missed a lot of opportunities to make very good debate points." That's just a smattering of the reactions of some elected Republicans to Donald Trump's debate performance.

Little Ratings Drop-Off from Beginning to End of Debate
3 hours ago

The conventional wisdom is already emerging that Donald Trump opened last night's debate well, but that he faded badly down the stretch. And most viewers apparently witnessed it. "The early Nielsen data confirms that viewership stayed high the entire time. Contrary to some speculation, there was not a big drop-off after the first hour of the 98-minute debate." Final data is still being tallied, but "Monday's face-off may well have been the most-watched debate in American history. CNN and other cable news channels saw big increases over past election years. So did some of the broadcast networks."

Federal Agencies Prepare for Govt Shutdown
4 hours ago

As Congress continues to bicker on riders to a continuing resolution, federal agencies have started working with the Office of Management and Budget to prepare for a government shutdown, which will occur if no continuing resolution is passed by 11:59 p.m. on Friday night. The OMB held a call with agencies on Sept. 23, one that is required one week before a possible shutdown. The government last shut down for 16 days in 2013, and multiple shutdowns have been narrowly avoided since then. It is expected that Congress will reach a deal before the clock strikes midnight, but until it does, preparations will continue.