Should Deported Parents & Spouses of U.S. Citizens Get a Pathway to Citizenship? (H.R. 168)

What is H.R. 168?

(Updated November 17, 2020)

This bill — the Reentry and Reunification Act of 2018 — would provide lawful permanent resident status to spouses and parents of U.S. citizens who are inadmissible to or deportable from the U.S. Eligible immigrants couldn’t have a significant criminal history beyond immigration violations or minor traffic offenses, must have been of good moral character and been physically present in the country continuously for the four years prior to the bill’s enactment.

Prospective immigrants would have to apply within the three years following this bill’s enactment. The continuous presence provision would be violated if the applicant left the U.S. for any period exceeding 90 days or for any periods exceeding 180 days in the aggregate, although extensions would be granted for extenuating circumstances such as serious illness or travel authorized by the Dept. of Homeland Security. Immigrants admitted under this legislation wouldn’t be subject to numerical limitations set by immigration laws.

Argument in favor

Barriers to the reentry of U.S. citizens parents or spouses who have been deported should be removed, it’s unjust to keep families apart.

Argument opposed

If a person has been deported because they entered the country illegally they should be ineligible for legal status to live in the U.S. permanently.

Impact

Spouses and parents of U.S. citizens who have been deported or are inadmissible; and Homeland Security.

Cost of H.R. 168

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Al Green (D-TX) introduced this bill to provide a path to U.S. citizenship for spouses and parents of U.S. citizens who had been previously been deported:

“Under current law, if someone entered the country unlawfully, made any attempt to reenter, or was deported, they are immediately excluded from applying for citizenship in the U.S. due to the punitive nature of our current immigration system. However, this bill would remove those barriers to reentry if the individual is the spouse or parent of a U.S. citizen and does not have a criminal history… Families are a cornerstone of this country, and our government should not be in the business of tearing them apart. We need legislation like the Reentry and Reunification Act to create a more just and humane immigration system and ensure that we are giving all hardworking families every opportunity to thrive.”

The Center for Immigration Studies' Dan Cadman opposed this bill when it was introduced in the 115th Congress, writing that: 

"It probably comes as no surprise that I don't favor any measure that gives reentrants-after-removal some kind of automatic track to resident alien status. In the first place, simply having a child born in the United States doesn't suggest any kind of affinity for our country; to the contrary, such a measure may simply act as a questionable impetus for having children. Of course, the statement of the bill's sponsor, Rep. Green, makes the obligatory obeisance to family life in America: 'Families are a cornerstone of our country, and our government should not be in the business of tearing them apart.' That's just throwaway language. Our society already does a great job on its own of tearing families apart, and revealing that the 1950s and even '60s-era television sitcom version of families no longer applies, if it ever did... Disturbingly, it would appear that the bill doesn't even contain any kind of qualifier to require that the alien who would receive resident status have been a responsible parent who acted as a primary caregiver or, at minimum, has provided adequate financial support to raise the child decently. Then there is the fact that such children aren't just United States citizens; they are dual nationals. I am uncomfortable with such split allegiances, but they are a ground reality. The child will almost certainly be a legally cognizable citizen of Mexico, or Honduras, or Guatemala, or virtually anywhere else in the world that the parent(s) came from. Yes, I understand that often such countries don't enjoy the same standard of living as most Americans. But it's also true that many immigrants in the United States are at the lower echelons of our economic ladder and don't enjoy the same standard of living as middle-class Americans. What's more, the implication underlying this bill strikes me as elitist: who is to say that living a more modest life in another country is somehow less honorable or less worth living than residing in the United States? Finally there is the question of this bill asserting that access to resident status will require that the alien be of 'good moral character'. It makes a mockery of the phrase. How can we make such an assumption about any individual who has proven him- or herself to be a scofflaw and repeat immigration violator? If they show such contempt for our immigration laws, why should they benefit from them? In short, it seems to me that Rep. Green's bill is just a stealth amnesty for people who have shown no particular merit to deserve such largesse. Let us hope it gets shelved."

Last Congress, this bill had the support of 34 cosponsors, all of whom were Democrats.