You can now read 10 articles in a month for free on BostonGlobe.com. Read as much as you want anywhere and anytime for just 99¢.

The Boston Globe

Nation

Impasse over immigration turns on path to citizenship

Some in GOP offering signals on compromise

WASHINGTON — As Congress wrestles with immigration legislation, a central question is whether the 11 million immigrants already in the United States illegally should get a path to citizenship.

The answer from a small but growing number of House Republicans is ‘‘yes,’’ but not the ‘‘special’’ path advocated by Democrats and passed by the Senate.

Continue reading below

‘‘There should be a pathway to citizenship — not a special pathway and not no pathway,’’ Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, told ABC 4 Utah after speaking at a recent town hall meeting in his district. ‘‘But there has to be a legal, lawful way to go through this process that works, and right now it doesn’t.’’

Many House Republicans say people who illegally crossed the border or overstayed their visas should not be rewarded with a special, tailor-made solution that awards them a prize of American citizenship, especially when millions are waiting in line to attempt the process through current legal channels.

It’s not clear, however, what a path to citizenship that’s not “special’’ might look like.

The phrase means different things to different people, and a large number of House Republicans still oppose any approach that results in citizenship for people now are in the country illegally. Some lawmakers say such immigrants should be permitted to attain legal worker status, but stop there and never progress to citizenship. That’s a solution Democrats reject.

Nonetheless, advocates searching for a way ahead see in the ‘‘no special path to citizenship’’ formulation the potential for compromise.

‘There should be a pathway to citizenship — not a special pathway and not no pathway.’ — Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah

Quote Icon

‘‘I think there’s a lot of space there,’’ said Clarissa Martinez, director of civic engagement and immigration at the National Council of La Raza. ‘‘And that’s why I’m optimistic that once they start grappling more with details, that’s when things start getting more real.’’

Once Congress returns from its summer break the week of Sept. 9, the focus will be on the GOP-led House. The Democratic-controlled Senate passed a far-reaching bill that includes a big investment in border security and remakes the legal immigration system, in addition to creating a 13-year path to citizenship for those here illegally.

House Republicans have rejected that approach, promising to proceed instead with narrowly focused bills, starting with border security. No action is expected on the House floor until late fall because of pressing fiscal deadlines that must be dealt with first.

The timing crunch, along with the significant policy and process disagreements, has left some supporters pessimistic about the future of immigration legislation. They find hope, however, in some recent comments from House Republicans suggesting they could support a solution that ends in citizenship at least for some who now lack legal status.

Democrats, some Republicans, and most outside immigration advocates are pushing for a relatively straightforward path to citizenship like the one in the Senate.

It imposes certain restrictions; seeks payment of fees, fines, and taxes; and requires that prospective immigrants attempting the process legally are dealt with first. Once those criteria are met, most people here illegally could get permanent resident green cards in 10 years, and citizenship in three more. Agriculture workers and immigrants brought to this country as children would have a quicker path.

That approach is rejected by most House Republicans as a ‘‘special’’ path to citizenship.

‘‘It’s not a bill I can support,’’ House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, said at a Verona, Va., town hall meeting recently. ‘‘We think a legal status in the United States, but not a special pathway to citizenship, might be appropriate.’’

Goodlatte has said that after attaining legal status, immigrants could potentially use the existing avenues toward naturalization, such as family or employment ties.

He and others also argue that many immigrants would be satisfied with legalization alone, without getting citizenship. That’s something many advocates dispute, though studies show that a significant number of immigrants who are eligible for citizenship haven’t taken that step — about 40 percent in a Pew Hispanic Center study in February.

Goodlatte has not provided detail on how he foresees immigrants moving through existing channels from legalization to citizenship. Depending on its design, such an approach could touch anywhere from hundreds of thousands to many millions of the 11 million people here illegally.

For now, advocates say that making immigrants here illegally go through the existing system would help relatively few of them. Current law says that if you’ve been in the country illegally for more than a year, you have to return to your home country for 10 years before you can re-enter legally, which would dissuade many people. Moreover, existing family sponsorship channels are backlogged, and many are capped. People applying for citizenship through their siblings face waits of 20 years in some cases, for example.

Waiving the requirement for people to exit the country and adding visas to reduce backlogs could take in a substantial number of the 11 million here illegally, arguably without being a ‘‘special’’ pathway, advocates say.

Loading comments...

You have reached the limit of 10 free articles in a month

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week