Schism on illegals widens among GOP
WASHINGTON — Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's conflicting statements on a central issue in the immigration debate are emphasizing divisions among Republicans about allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens.
In a book released on Tuesday, Bush proposes that many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants estimated to be living in America be offered “permanent legal resident status” rather than citizenship. That's at odds with Bush's previous position, as well as that of a bipartisan group of senators working on an immigration overhaul that would eventually allow a pathway to citizenship for those in the country illegally.
“This proposal caught me off guard, and it undercuts what we're trying to do,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of eight lawmakers in the bipartisan group. “I can assure you the Hispanic community has always assumed that, for the trade-offs that I am seeking, there will be a pathway to citizenship.”
Bush, a leading voice in the Republican Party on immigration and Hispanic politics, clarified in interviews Monday and yesterday that he still is open to offering undocumented immigrants such a path, provided it can be done in a way that doesn't treat them “better than those that have waited patiently to come legally and never get called to come.”
“If a compromise is done dealing with this principle, then I could support such a compromise,” Bush said in an email.
That's precisely the goal of senators working on the legislation, said Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, another member of the bipartisan group.
Bush “could support a plan that has a path, so long as it doesn't give favoritism to those who have violated the law, and that's exactly what we're working on,” Rubio said.
Rubio said he too had gone “back and forth” on the issue of allowing the undocumented to ultimately become citizens.
“I just concluded that it's not good for the country in the long term to have millions and millions of people who can never become, or are forever prohibited from becoming, citizens,” Rubio said.
Graham said legalizing undocumented immigrants without allowing them full citizenship is the wrong solution, both in terms of policy and politics, given that Democrats hold a majority in the Senate and lopsided majorities of the public support citizenship.
“I don't like the idea of having millions of people here for their entire life without being able to assimilate into America,” Graham said. Politically, he added, “We're not going to be able to pass any bill in the United States Senate without a pathway to citizenship.”
Those are views not shared by many other Republican lawmakers, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte of Virginia. Goodlatte, whose panel has jurisdiction over immigration, has said he could not support citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
This emphasizes an issue still dividing Republicans, following their party's poor showing among Hispanic voters in the 2012 elections, with some dropping their opposition to any kind of legal status for undocumented immigrants.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- McCarthy withdraws candidacy for speaker
- Coal industry seeks unusual partner in UN green climate fund
- Hero in French train terrorist attack injured in bar brawl
- South Carolina capital’s drinking water at risk
- California vineyards skip irrigation amid drought
- Top general in Afghanistan: U.S. strike on hospital a mistake
- Top U.S. general wants more troops in Afghanistan
- Number of deported lowest since 2006, AP finds
- Volkswagen exec ready to testify in D.C.
- Broadening police collection of license plate photos spurs privacy discussion
- Boston art lovers stage mock anti-Renoir protest