Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 168

Should Deported Parents & Spouses of U.S. Citizens Get a Pathway to Citizenship?

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.

Sled's Opinion
···
last Wednesday
Yes, a system should be set up to handle this. They should not get a pass over people that followed all the rules and fill out all the forms but, yes.
Like
Follow
Share

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.

Addison's Opinion
···
02/08/2019
This bill is not at all what it’s advertised to be. It prohibits sanctuary policies, and requires that states comply with federal immigration policies, no matter their intent or extent of their regulations. Why would we ever restrict access to necessary resources to someone simply because of where they were born? Immigration served only has a tool to restrict people from those very resources. Things like healthcare, developed medicine, and access to free speech, a democratic government, and asylum from groups that terrorize them, why would a country that can offer these things restrict them? Immigration and people’s opinions of it and how/when to restrict usually always comes down to the person’s skin color, religion, or place of origin. Every person in this country who is not Latin American or Native American is an immigrant and exists here purely due to colonization. To say we shouldn’t let immigrants in now is an arbitrary stance to take after we developed and created this nation, its resources, and our economic structure as immigrants who desolated and oppressed entire populations of aboriginal peoples in order to assert our right in establishing these things. Stop the demonization of immigrants. Stop making it more difficult for people to do the things our founding fathers thought they had the right to do at the expense of any other living person who stood in their way. Immigrates have never shown the same intent of hostility in this nation and never to the extent of the people who created it. Any fear or opposition to them is a narrative rooted in racism and prejudice used by those with power to reassign blame for our countries flaws onto to innocent people who have more right to this land any the majority of the people already within its borders.
Like
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
    IntroducedJanuary 3rd, 2019

What is House Bill H.R. 168?

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.

Impact

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

Cost of House Bill H.R. 168

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

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.


Of Note: Under current law, noncitizens who attempt to enter the U.S. without authorization, who attempted illegal re-entry, or who were deported can't apply for U.S. citizenship.

Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: fstop123 / iStock)

AKA

Reentry and Reunification Act

Official Title

To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide lawful permanent resident status to previously removed alien parents and spouses of citizens of the United States, and for other purposes.

    Yes, a system should be set up to handle this. They should not get a pass over people that followed all the rules and fill out all the forms but, yes.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Yes
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    This bill is not at all what it’s advertised to be. It prohibits sanctuary policies, and requires that states comply with federal immigration policies, no matter their intent or extent of their regulations. Why would we ever restrict access to necessary resources to someone simply because of where they were born? Immigration served only has a tool to restrict people from those very resources. Things like healthcare, developed medicine, and access to free speech, a democratic government, and asylum from groups that terrorize them, why would a country that can offer these things restrict them? Immigration and people’s opinions of it and how/when to restrict usually always comes down to the person’s skin color, religion, or place of origin. Every person in this country who is not Latin American or Native American is an immigrant and exists here purely due to colonization. To say we shouldn’t let immigrants in now is an arbitrary stance to take after we developed and created this nation, its resources, and our economic structure as immigrants who desolated and oppressed entire populations of aboriginal peoples in order to assert our right in establishing these things. Stop the demonization of immigrants. Stop making it more difficult for people to do the things our founding fathers thought they had the right to do at the expense of any other living person who stood in their way. Immigrates have never shown the same intent of hostility in this nation and never to the extent of the people who created it. Any fear or opposition to them is a narrative rooted in racism and prejudice used by those with power to reassign blame for our countries flaws onto to innocent people who have more right to this land any the majority of the people already within its borders.
    Like
    Follow
    Share