Parent Sponsorship Stalls Kids Act

 Attendees hold signs calling for immigration reform during a rally in support of immigration reform, in Washington, on October 8, 2013.
National Journal
Fawn Johnson
See more stories about...
Fawn Johnson
Nov. 3, 2013, 7:29 a.m.

The House Re­pub­lic­ans’ Kids Act — a path to cit­izen­ship for un­doc­u­mented youth brought here as chil­dren — has hit a stum­bling block over wheth­er those “kids” would be able to spon­sor their un­doc­u­mented par­ents for green cards after they be­come cit­izens them­selves, ac­cord­ing to people close to the ne­go­ti­ations. How the GOP spon­sors, led by House Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Eric Can­tor, come down on the ques­tion could af­fect wheth­er the le­gis­la­tion is taken ser­i­ously by Demo­crats and the im­mig­rant com­munity.

The Kids Act is viewed by many law­makers in­volved in im­mig­ra­tion talks as the ful­crum on which the en­tire House ne­go­ti­ation turns. The bill ad­dresses the dicey ques­tion of leg­al­iz­a­tion for at least one group of un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants, and it has Re­pub­lic­an sup­port from rank-and-file mem­bers and party lead­ers. The Kids Act, com­bined with a bor­der se­cur­ity/en­force­ment meas­ure and a nar­row work-visa pro­pos­al, could form the three pil­lars of an im­mig­ra­tion pack­age that would sig­nal to Latino voters in par­tic­u­lar that House Re­pub­lic­ans aren’t ig­nor­ing the is­sue.

The prob­lem comes when law­makers start ask­ing what hap­pens to the chil­dren who even­tu­ally be­come cit­izens un­der the bill. Un­der cur­rent law, they would be al­lowed to spon­sor fam­ily mem­bers, in­clud­ing par­ents, for green cards. That wor­ries some Re­pub­lic­ans who have long ques­tioned the util­ity of fam­ily-based im­mig­ra­tion in the United States. It also is of con­cern to any mem­ber who jus­ti­fies sup­port by say­ing that un­au­thor­ized im­mig­rants brought here as chil­dren were not at fault, their par­ents were.

Demo­crats are angered by this line of reas­on­ing, point­ing out that Re­pub­lic­ans re­peatedly say they sup­port a path to cit­izen­ship for people without pa­pers if those people be­come cit­izens us­ing ex­ist­ing law. Yet they would be chan­ging ex­ist­ing law by in­clud­ing a pro­vi­sion in the Kids Act that bars these par­tic­u­lar cit­izens from spon­sor­ing their fam­ily mem­bers. What’s more, ad­voc­ates say the pro­vi­sion would co­di­fy a ba­sic un­fair­ness in­to the concept of cit­izen­ship. Some cit­izens — i.e., the “kids” — would have few­er rights than oth­ers.

Some Demo­crats and im­mig­rant-ad­vocacy groups have privately told Re­pub­lic­ans that they would hap­pily sup­port Can­tor’s le­gis­la­tion if it did not touch cit­izen­ship rules. Rep. Lu­is Gu­ti­er­rez, D-Ill., a lead­er in the bi­par­tis­an ef­forts to pass im­mig­ra­tion over­haul in the House, is watch­ing the back-and-forth on the Kids Act care­fully, hop­ing that it could jump-start a stalled con­ver­sa­tion on im­mig­ra­tion. But even for Gu­ti­er­rez, tinker­ing with ex­ist­ing cit­izen-spon­sor­ship rights is a deal break­er. “The con­gress­man would sup­port the Kids Act if it is ser­i­ous and the re­form ele­ments are good enough and doesn’t con­tain pois­on pills, like a pro­hib­i­tion on cit­izens spon­sor­ing fam­ily mem­bers for leg­al im­mig­ra­tion,” his spokes­man, Douglas Rivlin, said in a state­ment.

A Kids Act that is sup­por­ted only by Re­pub­lic­ans would sig­nal that bi­par­tis­an ne­go­ti­ations on im­mig­ra­tion are es­sen­tially over for the cur­rent Con­gress. It is the only House bill be­ing worked on by Re­pub­lic­ans that ad­dresses Demo­crats’ core is­sue on im­mig­ra­tion, the status of un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants. Without it, it’s hard to see any­thing hap­pen­ing.

The bi­par­tis­an op­por­tun­it­ies for im­mig­ra­tion re­form are break­ing down any­way, but a few law­makers on both sides of the aisle don’t want to slam the door com­pletely. Rep. Zoe Lof­gren, D-Cal­if., is one of them. She de­clined un­til last week to co­spon­sor House Demo­crats’ broad im­mig­ra­tion bill mir­ror­ing a Sen­ate-passed meas­ure be­cause she wanted to keep open the pos­sib­il­ity of bi­par­tis­an ne­go­ti­ations.

She says the Demo­crat-sponsored bill won’t make a “ma­ter­i­al dif­fer­ence” in the im­mig­ra­tion de­bate. The bill is widely viewed as Demo­crats’ polit­ic­al tool to pres­sure Re­pub­lic­ans on im­mig­ra­tion. That nar­rat­ive was put in­to sharp­er fo­cus when the bill was un­veiled by the fig­ure who is least trust­worthy to House Re­pub­lic­ans, House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi.

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
20 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×