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 »
House Approves Spending Bill
16 hours ago

The House has completed it's business for 2016 by passing a spending bill which will keep the government funded through April 28. The final vote tally was 326-96. The bill's standing in the Senate is a bit tenuous at the moment, as a trio of Democratic Senators have pledged to block the bill unless coal miners get a permanent extension on retirement and health benefits. The government runs out of money on Friday night.

Senate Approves Defense Bill
17 hours ago

The Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act today, sending the $618 billion measure to President Obama. The president vetoed the defense authorization bill a year ago, but both houses could override his disapproval this time around.

Trump Chooses Hardee’s/Carl’s Jr CEO as Labor Sec
19 hours ago
Trump Cabinet Full of TPP Supporters
19 hours ago

"President-elect Donald Trump railed against the Trans-Pacific Partnership on his way to winning the White House and has vowed immediately to withdraw the U.S. from the 12-nation accord. Several of his cabinet picks and other early nominees to top posts, however, have endorsed or spoken favorably about the trade pact, including Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, announced Wednesday as Mr. Trump’s pick for ambassador to China, and retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, Mr. Trump’s pick to head the Department of Defense."

Trump to Nominate Linda McMahon to Head SBA
1 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.