- 1900-1949
Immigration
“Path to citizenship” is a political phrase that usually refers to allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens via a special process. This process may include special requirements (such as fees, background checks, or additional waiting times) beyond those already in place for the naturalization of documented immigrants. Citizenship means the immigrants could receive government benefits (such as Social Security), would be eligible to vote, could bring family members into the U.S., and would not be deported for committing a crime.[1]
The term “legalization” refers to a different process from a path to citizenship. Legalization means undocumented immigrants would be allowed to remain in the country legally but would not be allowed to become citizens or receive the same rights granted to U.S. citizens. With legalization, the immigrants would be authorized to work in the U.S., have the ability to legally travel in and out of the country, and would not be subject to deportation for being in the country (though committing certain crimes could lead to deportation). They would not be eligible to vote or to receive government benefits or to bring family members into the country. [1]
Alternatives to citizenship and legalization include the deportation of and civil proceedings against individual or groups of undocumented immigrants. Because being in the U.S. without legal documentation is a civil rather than a criminal offense, criminal proceedings are not an option. [2][3]
A path to citizenship and legalization are sometimes called “amnesty.” Legally, amnesty is “grant[ing] a pardon to those who have committed an offense.” In immigration law, that means “the government forgiving individuals for using forged/false documentation to gain employment in the U.S. and to remain in the country, and would allow illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrant aliens to gain permanent residency in the United States.” Permanent residency could lead to citizenship or another legal status, depending on the immigration action taken by the US federal government. [4] [4]
While a path to citizenship policy is often considered a Democratic Party policy, both Democratic and Republican presidents have promoted, considered, or enacted such policies. Democratic President Jimmy Carter proposed legalization for undocumented immigrants in Aug. 1977, arguably setting the stage for the current debate. The legislation was not picked up by Congress, but the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy was established “to study and evaluate the existing laws, policies and procedures governing the admission of immigrants and refugees.” The committee submitted the final report to Republican President Ronald Reagan in Mar. 1981. [5][6]
A direct result of the commission’s report was the path-to-citizenship legislation introduced by Senator Alan K. Simpson (R-WY) and Representative Romano L. Mazzoli (D-KY) in 1982. After several revisions of the bill, Reagan signed it into law in Nov. 1986. Called the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA, also called the Simpson-Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty), it is widely considered the biggest amnesty in modern American history. The act allowed some undocumented immigrants to apply first for temporary legal status. Once legal status was granted, those immigrants could then apply for lawful permanent residency (a “green card”) and later for citizenship. The law required that the undocumented immigrants had entered the United States prior to Jan. 1, 1982, or be a farm worker with at least 90 days of validated employment in order to embark on the path to citizenship. [6][7][8]
While an Oct. 31, 1986, government memo estimated 2,663,000 undocumented immigrants would be eligible for amnesty under the IRCA, 3,040,475 undocumented immigrants actually applied for temporary legal status via the new law, according to a 2002 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) study. Of those, 2,688,730 (88%) received permanent residency, and 889,033 of them (33%) had received citizenship by 2001. [9][10]
Undocumented immigrants from Mexico formed the most likely group to apply for amnesty via the IRCA (2,271,187 people), followed by El Salvador (168,283), Guatemala (71,048), Haiti (60,048), Colombia (34,884), Philippines (29,443), Dominican Republic (28,253), Pakistan (22,534), India (22,085), Peru (19,810), Jamaica (19,260), Honduras (18,169), Poland (17,673), Nicaragua (16,775), Ecuador (16,375), Nigeria (16,266), Iran (15,306), Canada (11,724), Korea (11,512), and China (11,338). [9]
In 1987, following a failed amendment to the IRCA, Reagan’s Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner, Alan C. Nelson, announced the “Family Fairness” policy that protected from deportation the minor children of undocumented parents covered by the IRCA amnesty, as well as some spouses who met “compelling or humanitarian factors.” Republican President George H.W. Bush expanded upon this new policy, protecting from deportation undocumented family members pursuing the legalization process and allowing them to work if they were in the U.S. before the 1986 passage of the IRCA. These provisions were part of the Immigration Act of 1990. [1][12][13][14]
With these additional paths to legal citizenship now in place for immigrants, the federal government turned to the continuing problem of border enforcement and illegal immigration. In 1996, Democratic President Bill Clinton signed the Republican-sponsored Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which made the deportation of undocumented immigrants easier, made more undocumented immigrants eligible for deportation, and made becoming a legal resident or citizen more difficult. As a result of this new law, deportations increased to levels not seen since the Great Depression. However, the undocumented immigrant population also surged, which some experts attribute to increased border security that hindered travel in and out of the country, forcing immigrants in the country to stay. [15]
The population increase presented an issue for Republican President George W. Bush, whose 2007 plan for immigration reform was adamantly opposed to an “automatic path to citizenship or any other form of amnesty.” Bush’s plan leaned heavily on assimilating immigrants and called for undocumented immigrants to be “brought out of the shadows” so they could pay “a substantial penalty.” They would also be required to “learn English, pay their taxes, pass a background check, and hold a job for a number of years” before being eligible for legalization, at which point they would go to the “back of the line” for citizenship consideration behind everyone who has legally applied for citizenship, including refugees. But too few Senate Republicans supported the reform, and the initiative died. [16][17]
Though often considered an Obama administration policy (President Barack Obama served from 2009-17), the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act was actually introduced in the Senate on Aug. 1, 2001, by Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Several versions of the bill have been introduced in Congress at least 11 times since 2001 with bipartisan support, but none have passed both houses. The most recent Senate versions (S.264 -– Dream Act of 2021) and House (H.R.6 -– American Dream and Promise Act of 2021) would allow undocumented immigrants who (1) were brought to the US as children and have lived in the US for four years continuously; (2) are high school graduates or GED recipients, or are enrolled in high school or a GED program; and (3) have no criminal convictions to obtain conditional permanent resident (CPR) status, which includes a work permit. The immigrants would then be able to apply for lawful permanent residence (a “green card”) on a conditional basis after 8 years (in the Senate bill) or 10 years (House bill) and after completing two years of college in good standing or graduating with a college degree, completing two years of military service, or three years of work (working at least 75% of the time). [18][19][20]
The amnesty debate resurfaced in 2012 with the enactment of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), a selective enforcement of immigration laws that some compare to Reagan and Bush’s “Family Fairness” policies. An executive order signed by Democratic President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012, DACA prevented the deportation of some undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children and allowed them to get work permits. The order did not offer legalization or a path to citizenship, whereas the DREAM Act would have. [21][22]
In 2017, Republican President Donald Trump announced that his administration would end the DACA program in fulfillment of a campaign promise. But his attempt to kill the law was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court, which stated that the administration did not offer “a reasoned explanation for its action.” A second attempt to kill DACA died in 2020 when Democrat Joe Biden won the presidency and asked the Department of Homeland Security to “preserve and fortify DACA.” The Biden administration then attempted to expand on DACA, presenting Dreamers (as beneficiaries of DACA are called) with additional rights, in the Build Back Better Act, which passed the House in 2021 but died in the Senate. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
Regardless of who is in the White House, the number of illegal crossings into the U.S. have continued to rise. In fiscal year 2022 (Oct. 1, 2021 – Sep. 30, 2022) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recorded some 2.8 million total border enforcement actions, up significantly from 526,901 in fiscal year 2017. The influx of immigrants and the political climate around the issue of immigration spurred the governors of some U.S. states receiving the lion’s share of these immigrants (such as Arizona, Texas, and Florida) to fly and bus migrants who entered the U.S. illegally to northern states with more lenient laws regarding undocumented immigrants (including New York and Massachusetts). These acts sparked great controversy, intensifying the national debate over immigration. [30][31][32]
A Feb. 16, 2022, NewsNation poll found 70% of Americans support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and 30% oppose the policy. However, Americans also support stronger border control, with 73% favoring increased security, suggesting a desire to stem illegal immigration rather than open-ended support of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. [33][34]
On June 17, 2024, President Biden announced actions to ease the path to legality for “noncitizen” spouses and step-children of American citizens: “In order to be eligible, noncitizens must – as of June 17, 2024 – have resided in the United States for 10 or more years and be legally married to a U.S. citizen, while satisfying all applicable legal requirements. On average, those who are eligible for this process have resided in the U.S. for 23 years.” The announcement stated that about “half a million spouses of U.S. citizens, and approximately 50,000 noncitizen children under the age of 21 whose parent is married to a U.S. citizen” could benefit.
(This article first appeared on ProCon.org and was last updated on June 20, 2024.)
| PROS | CONS |
|---|---|
| Pro 1: Undocumented immigrants have lived in the United States for years, paying taxes and contributing positively to the country, and therefore deserve a path to citizenship. Read More. | Con 1: Undocumented immigrants have broken the law that legal immigrants have followed and should not be rewarded for their crimes with the benefits of citizenship. Read More. |
| Pro 2: Many undocumented immigrants arrived as children, had no choice in breaking immigration laws, and know no other country. Read More. | Con 2: The United States needs to enforce immigration laws already in place. Read More. |
| Pro 3 The United States is both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and its policies should reflect these facts. Read More. | Con 3: A path that stops short of citizenship would be a more appropriate and humane approach to undocumented immigrants. Read More. |
Pro Arguments
(Go to Con Arguments)Pro 1: Undocumented immigrants have lived in the United States for years, paying taxes and contributing positively to the country, and therefore deserve a path to citizenship.
Undocumented immigrants “are our friends, neighbors, relatives, and colleagues — it is in America’s interest to find a reasonable solution for this population. An earned pathway to citizenship, with restitution, allows them to fully assimilate and integrate into the United States without being unfair” to others, argued Laura Collins, Director of the Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute. [35]
These undocumented immigrants and their families are already engrained in our country. According to a 2021 George W. Bush Presidential Center white paper, approximately two-thirds of them have been in the US for over a decade. 1.6 million were married to US citizens in 2018 and 675,000 were married to lawful permanent residents. 4.4 million American children citizens and another 100,000 lawful permanent resident or nonimmigrant children had at least one undocumented parent. [35][36]
95.8% of undocumented immigrants were employed in 2018, contributing a total of $20.1 billion in federal income taxes and $11.8 billion in state and local taxes. In doing so, they created a $100 billion surplus in the Social Security program between 2004 and 2014 and a $35.1 billion surplus in the Medicare Trust Fund between 2000 and 2011. In other words, though they created these surpluses for the country through the automatic payroll taxes they pay they still were denied the benefits that other taxpayers receive. [37]
According to the Center for American Progress, a five-year path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants would offer significant results after five years: 32.4% ($14,000) increase in annual wages for undocumented workers, 1.1% ($700) increase in all other workers’ annual wages, 438,800 new jobs, and a $1.7 trillion increase in the total cumulative GDP (gross domestic product). [38]
As economics professor Giovanni Peri and doctoral student Reem Zaiour of have argued, “Undocumented immigrants have long been essential to the nation’s economic growth and prosperity. As the country battled the coronavirus pandemic and economic fallout over the past year, the role of undocumented immigrants… [ensured] the well-being and safety of all Americans… Nearly 3 in 4 undocumented individuals in the workforce—an estimated 5 million—are essential workers. At great risk to themselves and their families, these individuals keep food supply chains running; care for patients in hospitals and support medical systems; maintain the country’s roads and buildings; provide critical care and services for children and the elderly; and educate future generations of Americans. All are critical members of the human infrastructure that powers the nation each day…. [L]egalization and a pathway to citizenship would provide the necessary relief and security for undocumented families and would bring a much-needed boost to the U.S. economy.” [38]
Pro 2: Many undocumented immigrants arrived as children, had no choice in breaking immigration laws, and know no other country.
As President Barack Obama explained, “These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents — sometimes even as infants — and often have no idea that they’re undocumented until they apply for a job or a driver’s license, or a college scholarship.” [39]
Called “Dreamers” for the failed DREAM Act legislation, there are between 1,159,000 and 3,600,000 undocumented immigrants in the United States who arrived as minors. 611,470 of those immigrants were registered for DACA as of Dec. 2021. While most Dreamers are from Mexico, they hail from at least 150 countries, including China, Poland, India, and Nigeria. [40][41][42]
According to Mar. 2021 fwd.us estimates, 76% of Dreamers entered the United States in 2011 or earlier and 71% entered the U.S. before they turned 13 years old, with the average Dreamer arriving at age seven. Over 400,000 Dreamers are now a parent to a U.S. citizen child. 50% or more Dreamers are essential workers. [41][43][44]
“Over the next 10 years, Dreamers who currently have DACA will contribute an estimated $433.4 billion to the GDP, $60 billion in fiscal impact, and $12.3 billion in taxes to Social Security and Medicare,” estimated Laurence Benenson, Vice President of Policy & Advocacy of the National Immigration Forum. [42]
DACA households paid $6.2 billion in federal and $3.3 billion in state and local taxes annually. They command $25.3 billion in spending power, own 68,000 homes with $760 million in mortgage payments, and pay $2.5 billion in rent yearly. [44]
As education journalist Richard Barth concludes, “Dreamers are showing us every day how committed they are to this country. We need them to help us build a stronger, better future, together. That means creating a path for them to become citizens, as soon as we possibly can.” [45]
Pro 3 The United States is both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and its policies should reflect these facts.
“For too many years, the conversation has been predicated on a false dichotomy that says America can either honor its history and traditions as a nation of immigrants or live up to its ideals as a nation of laws by enforcing the current immigration system…. The fundamental problem with this debate is that America is, and has always been, both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws…. Indeed, it is precisely because these two visions of the country are intertwined that America cannot be a nation of laws if those laws are antithetical to its history and ideals as a nation of immigrants,” argues Tom Jawetz, Vice President of Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress. [46]
Jawetz concludes, “because the legal immigration system for many years has provided inadequate opportunities for people looking to come to the United States or remain here, an extralegal system has evolved that consists of both unauthorized migration itself and formal and informal policies to not disrupt a generally mutually beneficial arrangement…. [R]estoring the rule of law requires extending a path to citizenship for the broader undocumented population.” [46]
American immigration law has not been updated to deal with the reality of modern illegal immigration. For example, almost half of the undocumented immigrants in the US did not circumvent the Southern border wall; they overstayed their legal visas. [47]
Kalpana Peddibhotla, immigration lawyer, explains, “They entered with a specific purpose and fell out of status for a variety of reasons, only to realize there is no easy mechanism to correct their status violations…. They stay because they built their lives here, bought homes here, had children here.” [47]
The legal immigration system is far too restrictive, preventing those who want to immigrate legally from doing so because they’d have to “wait in line” for decades, immigrants without higher education are limited despite those immigrants fueling the US economy, and immigrants need an American sponsor to even apply, among a litany of other defects in the laws. [48]
Current immigration laws are broken and do not reflect American values as a nation of immigrants. The laws have encouraged the arrival or overstay of undocumented immigrants without offering a path to reconcile their status with the law. [48]
Con Arguments
(Go to Pro Arguments)Con 1: Undocumented immigrants have broken the law that legal immigrants have followed and should not be rewarded for their crimes with the benefits of citizenship.
If immigrants can skip the citizenship (or legalization) line by crossing the border without permission or over-staying legal entry, why would they bother with the appropriately lengthy legal process? Amnesty effectively incentivizes immigrants to break the law with a large reward. [49][50][51]
Calling amnesty “the worst approach to illegal immigration,” Matt O’Brien, Director of Research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), says “amnesty for illegal aliens is a slippery slope. As any parent, school teacher or police officer knows, rewarding bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior. And much of our current immigration situation is directly attributable to the series of amnesties that began with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Rather than pushing the reset button, and allowing the United States to regain control of its borders, IRCA sent a clear message to would-be illegal aliens: ‘If you violate our immigration laws long enough, you will be rewarded for your troubles and granted legal status.’” [49]
Not only does a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants reward the immigrants who broke the law by entering the country illegally, but any amnesty rewards the coyotes and traffickers who extort people in return for smuggling them into the United States. Coyotes sell the idea of “permiso” (that the US grants citizenship to people within the country) to desperate, ill-informed Mexicans, as well as Central and South Americans, enticing them to spend outrageous sums and undertake an arduous and potentially fatal journey to be smuggled over the US border.” [50][51][52]
Amnesty also emboldens sex and labor traffickers, among other criminals, bringing more crime, drugs, and entrapped people into the United States. “The failed policies of this [Biden] administration encourage and facilitate Mexican drug cartels, transnational criminal organizations and other malevolent actors to engage in human trafficking and smuggling across our southwestern border,” argues Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ). [53]
Adds David Inserra, a policy analyst for Homeland Security and Cyber Security at the Heritage Foundation, “Beyond incentivizing additional illegal immigration, amnesty is unfair to all law-abiding Americans, legal immigrants, and those waiting to come legally to the U.S. Instead of jettisoning the rule of law with amnesty, Congress should ensure that immigration best serves the U.S.’s interests and that the immigration system is easier to use and navigate by those seeking legal entry. Ultimately, amnesty unfairly favors those who have broken U.S. laws at the expense of those who obey them.” [54]
Con 2: The United States needs to enforce immigration laws already in place.
The United States already has a path to citizenship. The country has laws that clearly state who may enter the country for what reasons and under what circumstances, and by what process they may become U.S. citizens. [55]
The United States also already has a penalty for people who break those laws. The penalty for “unlawful presence” is deportation and a three- or ten-year time bar for legal reentry. For repeat violations, immigrants may be permanently barred from the United States.= [56][57]
Though difficult to accurately count, the Department of Homeland Security estimated 11.4 million undocumented immigrants in the US in 2018. According to Migration Policy Institute estimates, there were about 11 million in 2019. The Center for Immigration Studies estimated 11.35 million in 2022. [58][59][60]
Of those undocumented immigrants, only 320,000 migrants have Temporary Protected Status (TPS) (with the potential for 588,335 others to gain that status depending upon Biden administration classifications for their home countries). TPS is “a temporary immigration status provided to nationals of certain countries experiencing problems that make it difficult or unsafe for their nationals to be deported to those countries.” [61][62]
Those numbers do not include the 29,916 refugees or 46,508 people granted asylum either via pre-arrival application or asking for asylum at the border upon undocumented arrival in 2019. [63]
Even with rough estimates, that leaves over 10 million undocumented immigrants without legal permission to be in the country. In what other situation does the United States look the other way about 10 million instances of broken laws? [55]
As indicated by the 1986 IRCA, any kind of amnesty only deals with the immediate issue–the undocumented immigrants in the country at that time–and does nothing to resolve the ongoing illegal immigration problem. [64]
The United States needs to enforce the laws on the books, send a clear no-entry message to other immigrants who may try to enter the country illegally in the future, and restore the country’s image as one of laws. [64]
Con 3: A path that stops short of citizenship would be a more appropriate and humane approach to undocumented immigrants.
Offering a legal status without the possibility of citizenship would address the reality of the American illegal immigration problem with a workable solution. More than 10 million undocumented immigrants live in the United States without TPS [Temporary Protected Status], a number that is impossible to locate and process for either deportation or other legal action. [61][65]
As Ashley Nunes, a research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Transportation and Logistics, argues, “A more pragmatic solution would be to offer a path to legalization that stops short of citizenship. That would meet the humanitarian imperative to keep families together. But it would also hold those who have violated immigration laws accountable for their actions…. Except for those who were born on American soil, citizenship is not a right. It’s a privilege. A path short of citizenship sends a powerful message to America’s legal-immigrant community, whose members have worked tirelessly to follow existing immigration guidelines. There is a rule of law, and citizenship is granted to those who follow it.” [66]
One option, suggested by the libertarian Cato Institute, is a tiered legalization process. Undocumented immigrants would have the ability to pay a fee to obtain a work permit that requires a fee-based renewal, allowing them to work and live in the US legally, travel abroad and return to the US, and otherwise legally participate in American society. They would not be able to vote, access welfare or other entitlements, or apply for citizenship. Most undocumented immigrants would choose this path instead of a more expensive path to citizenship based on data from the IRCA. [65]
Another option is rolling legalization. Undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for more than 10 years could apply for legalization without a path to citizenship, and immigration enforcement would only deport more recently arrived immigrants. Law enforcement could then more efficiently target a smaller population while sending a message to potential immigrants that American laws will be enforced. [65]
Immigration policies like these would promote legal immigration and confront the reality of a large undocumented population, while not rewarding illegal activity that could promote still more illegal crossings or overstays. [65]