Why a Path to Citizenship

Prominent House Republicans, along with the Republican National Committee, have endorsed immigration reform, but without a path to citizenship for newly legalized aliens -- only a tenuous provisional status. This position is in sharp contrast with the bipartisan immigration bill passed in the Senate, which offers a minimal 13 year transition to citizenship contingent on learning English and civics, demonstrating economic self-support, staying on the right side of the law, and paying a fine. There are three important reasons why this arduous path is better than no path at all.

The first is pragmatic. It will likely be impossible to reach a deal on comprehensive immigration reform with either the Senate or the House minority without such a well-defined path to citizenship. And only with such an agreement can the full set of economic benefits of reform be realized. The conservative American Action Network estimates that the main provisions of the Senate immigration bill will produce a net gain of at least 200,000 jobs for New Jersey over 10 years.

The second reason is philosophical.  Immigrant integration is a cardinal principle of our American democracy. From the earliest days of the Republic, we have generally welcomed immigrants and encouraged them to become citizens in as short a period of time as possible. This “easy path” to citizenship, generally five years, has distinguished the American approach to immigration, ensuring that no group was stigmatized with second-class status and that divisions of nationality were not perpetuated into future generations. The U.S. has scored high in the metrics of immigrant integration in comparisons with other immigrant-receiving countries. We should aim to preserve this record of success.

One could argue that birthright citizenship, i.e. the automatic acquisition of citizenship by all people born in the U.S., would break any cycle of marginality for future generations, but we really don’t have any experience with this kind of social experimentation. Moreover, there is abundant research showing that parental undocumented status has adverse consequences for American-born children. Thus, it is not hard to infer that second-class status for parents could limit the prospects for future generations. One can also surmise that, from a national security standpoint, it would be unwise to brand people with such a potentially demeaning status. Without the ability to participate in the civic life of the community, immigrants might show weak loyalty to their new nation.

The third reason for supporting a path to citizenship is to take proper account of the people benefitting from legalization, and not to participate in their vilification. Most undocumented people provide valuable services to other Americans, services which could not have been provided otherwise because the current, half-century-old, immigration system sets strict limits on the legal migration of lower skilled workers, and because many native-born Americans are unwilling to do certain jobs, such as caring for our children and seniors, mowing our laws, cooking our food, washing our cars, or picking our crops.

In the past, the Republican Party has championed the importance of immigrant integration. It should hold fast to this tradition and support policies designed to help all newcomers achieve the American dream.