Proposed Green-Card Change Could Benefit 8 Million Immigrants
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Senator Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, introduced a bill he said could make it easier for 8 million immigrants to obtain a green card.
Newsweek reached out to Padilla's office for comment via email.
Why It Matters
Immigration reform has stalled in Washington as Democrats and Republicans have struggled to reach consensus on what remains one of the most sharply divisive political issues facing the country.
Immigration remains one of the most critical political issues, particularly amid President Donald Trump's mass deportations and increased immigration enforcement, which has drawn scrutiny from immigration advocates. Trump has said his administration would target criminals, but there have been reports about people without a criminal past being swept up by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids over the past few months.
Padilla's office said his bill, if it becomes law, could provide relief to millions of migrants including Dreamers, people holding Temporary Protected Status (TPS), children of long-term visa holders, essential workers and highly skilled professionals.
California Senator Alex Padilla, a Democrat, speaks at a press conference in Washington on May 8, 2024.
California Senator Alex Padilla, a Democrat, speaks at a press conference in Washington on May 8, 2024.What To Know
Padilla announced the "Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929" last week. If it becomes law, the bill will amend Section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, also known as the Registry statute, which allows immigrants who have resided continuously in the United States since January 1, 1972, to apply for permanent resident status.
The new proposal would update that cutoff, creating a rolling eligibility period enabling those who have lived in the U.S. for at least seven years, without a criminal record and meeting existing requirements, to apply for a green card.
"Americans know there's a better path forward than the Trump Administration's cruel scapegoating of hardworking immigrants and fearmongering of California communities," Padilla wrote in the press release. "We believe that if you've lived here for over seven years, paid taxes for years, contributed to your community for years, and you don't have a criminal record, then you deserve a pathway to legalization."
However, the bill could face an uphill climb in Congress, which has struggled to pass immigration reforms in recent years. Republicans hold a majority in the Senate and the House, and it's not clear that Padilla's bill would have support from many conservatives who have generally supported more restrictive immigration policies.
Unless Democrats win a veto-proof majority in the 2026 midterms, Trump could still block any immigration bill passed by Congress, even under Democratic control.
Congress has adjusted Section 249 four times since it was enacted in 1929 but not since 1986.
Padilla's office wrote that 8 million migrants would be affected by the bill, which would bring $121 billion to the U.S. economy and $35 billion in taxes.
What People Are Saying
Senator Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who serves as the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a statement released by Padilla's office: "Protections for these hard-working individuals are long overdue. It's common sense that immigrants who pose no safety threat and contribute to our country should be able to call America home with certainty; additionally, it's also common sense that the small percentage of undocumented immigrants who do commit violent crimes should be removed. Expanding the registry pathway to citizenship is a practical solution to provide stability to immigrants who have worked and contributed to our country for years."
Elon Musk's America PAC, on X: "Democrat Senator Alex Padilla introduces legislation to grant amnesty to illegals and give them citizenship if they live in the US for over 7 years. They are now trying to codify what has been their plan all along — Importing new Democrat voters."
What Happens Next
Padilla plans to formally introduce his bill to the Senate. Debate and committee hearings are possible, though Republican control in both chambers creates a challenging path forward.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
End the gerrymandering wars by enlarging the US House
Meanwhile, national Democratic Party leaders are Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up There are no saints or villains in this saga. Republicans and Democrats are engaging in a bare-knuckled fight for power, and what each side condemns is Advertisement The cause of all this drama is not inherent Republican or Democratic perfidy. It is an institutional flaw: With only 435 seats, the US House is far too small — which means each congressional district is far too large. The average district now encompasses nearly 760,000 people. That is a constituency vastly greater than any member of Congress can effectively or fairly represent. And because congressional districts are so large, each one is a political prize well worth gerrymandering. When each district must corral so many people, a single line on the map has an outsize political impact. Under such circumstances, partisan cartography becomes irresistible — and bitter, recurring fights like the one in Texas are inevitable. Happily, there is a structural remedy that would dramatically curtail the constant court fights, political retaliation, and vicious maneuvering surrounding redistricting. Congress ought to expand the size of the House from the current 435 members to 1,500. No constitutional amendment would be needed — it would require only a simple statute to restore each House district to a more manageable size, and thereby make gerrymandering far less tempting. That would be a return to what the framers of the Constitution intended. The House of Representatives was conceived as Advertisement And there it froze. Congress didn't expand the House following the 1920 census, because of a political standoff. Many members resented the A House of 435 might have been workable during the Hoover administration. It makes no sense now. If the House were expanded to 1,500 members, the average congressional district would have about 225,000 people — still larger than its counterparts in many other modern democracies, but far more manageable than today's bloated mega-districts. Granted, that would require more chairs in the House chamber and perhaps smaller offices and staffs for each member. But the payoff would be enormous: Not only would the House be more representative, it would also be less susceptible to gerrymandering. Here's why: When each congressional district contains three-quarters of a million seats, a carefully crafted border can determine the balance of thousands of votes — enough to flip a seat. That makes each boundary line a powerful political weapon. But when districts are a third or a quarter of that size, no single line carries as much weight. Shifting a few neighborhoods or towns from one district to another would affect far fewer voters, making it harder for mapmakers to engineer outcomes with surgical precision. Smaller districts mean smaller levers — reducing the scope for mischief. Advertisement And the more districts there are, the less potent those engineering tactics become. Gerrymandering works best when the map has fewer, larger pieces — which makes it easier to 'pack' opposition voters into a handful of districts, and to 'crack' the rest among multiple other districts, thinning out their numbers to ensure that they lose everywhere else. But multiply the number of districts, and that strategy loses force. The cartographer's advantage fades as the map gets more granular. When each puzzle piece covers a smaller slice of territory, the lines become less predictable and harder to weaponize. Last but definitely not least, in a 1,500-member House, voters would be likelier to know their elected representative — and to be known in return. In districts limited to 225,000 constituents, there would be room for more local voices, more diversity of all kinds, more candidates who reflect the communities they serve. Much smaller districts means much less expensive campaigns — and lower barriers to entry for challengers. It also encourages lawmakers to stay grounded in the concerns of their neighbors rather than the noise of national partisanship. Congress blundered badly when it froze the House at 435 seats. The chaos emanating from Texas is only the latest consequence of that blunder. Advertisement It doesn't have to be this way. Enlarging the House to 1,500 members would end the gerrymandering wars. Better still, it would revive the ideal of a legislature that truly speaks for the people — restoring the people's House to its constitutional roots. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
20 minutes ago
Man charged with killing a top Minnesota House Democrat is expected to plead not guilty
MINNEAPOLIS -- The man charged with killing the top Democrat in the Minnesota House and her husband, and wounding a state senator and his wife, is expected to plead not guilty when he's arraigned in federal court on Thursday, his attorney said. Vance Boelter, 58, of Green Isle, Minnesota, was indicted July 15 on six counts of murder, stalking and firearms violations. The murder charges could carry the federal death penalty, though prosecutors say that decision is several months away. As they announced the indictment, prosecutors released a rambling handwritten letter they say Boelter wrote to FBI Director Kash Patel in which he confessed to the June 14 shootings of Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark. However, the letter doesn't make clear why he targeted the Hortmans or Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, who survived. Boelter's federal defender, Manny Atwal, said at the time that the weighty charges did not come as a surprise, but she has not commented on the substance of the allegations or any defense strategies. The hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster will also serve as a case management conference. She plans to issue a revised schedule with deadlines afterward, potentially including a trial date. Prosecutors have moved to designate the proceedings as a 'complex case' so that standard speedy trial requirements won't apply, saying both sides will need plenty of time to review the voluminous evidence. 'The investigation of this case arose out of the largest manhunt in Minnesota's history," they wrote. "Accordingly, the discovery to be produced by the government will include a substantial amount of investigative material and reports from more than a dozen different law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.' They said the evidence will include potentially thousands of hours of video footage, tens of thousands of pages of responses to dozens of grand jury subpoenas, and data from numerous electronic devices seized during the investigation. Boelter's motivations remain murky. Friends have described him as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views who had been struggling to find work. Authorities said Boelter made long lists of politicians in Minnesota and other states — all or mostly Democrats. In a series of cryptic notes to The New York Times through his jail's electronic messaging service, Boelter suggested his actions were partly rooted in the Christian commandment to love one's neighbor. 'Because I love my neighbors prior to June 14th I conducted a 2 year long undercover investigation,' he wrote. In messages published earlier by the New York Post, Boelter insisted the shootings had nothing to do with his opposition to abortion or his support for President Donald Trump, but he declined to elaborate. 'There is little evidence showing why he turned to political violence and extremism,' the acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Joe Thompson, told reporters last month. He also reiterated that prosecutors consider Hortman's killing a 'political assassination.' Prosecutors say Boelter was disguised as a police officer and driving a fake squad car early June 14 when he went to the Hoffmans' home in the Minneapolis suburb of Champlin. He shot the senator nine times, and his wife eight times, officials said. Boelter later went to the Hortmans' home in nearby Brooklyn Park and killed both of them, authorities said. Their dog was so gravely injured that he had to be euthanized. Boelter surrendered the next night.
35 minutes ago
Hundreds cheer Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego as Democrats take offensive against Trump's tax bill
DAVENPORT, Iowa -- Hundreds of people cheered Sen. Ruben Gallego at a town hall meeting in eastern Iowa Saturday as the first-term Arizona Democrat assailed the massive, Republican-backed tax bill signed by President Donald Trump as likely to make 'America poorer and sicker.' Gallego's upbeat event struck the opposite tone from Rep. Mike Flood's town hall meeting earlier in the week, when an even bigger crowd jeered the Nebraska Republican for most of a 90-minute event in his state to promote the bill. Democrats, searching for months after last year's election defeat for footing in opposing the aggressive tone struck by Trump in his second term in the White House, have gone on the offensive this month, still united in their frustration with Trump but suddenly energized in full-throated opposition to his signature legislation. 'I think this bill is helping Democrats see clearly what's at stake with the future of protections for so many regular Americans,' said Pete Wernimont of Waterloo, who drove 140 miles (225 kilometers) to see Gallego. 'I just hope they are there when it really matters a year from now.' While some Republicans in safe Republican districts are braving crowds to sell Trump's law, most in Congress are heeding GOP leaders' suggestion to keep lower public profiles, especially noteworthy during the August recess following closely on Trump's signing of the tax cut and spending reduction bill last month. Democratic activists are rallying to point out what they see as the measure's political liabilities for Republicans trying to hold their narrow majorities in Congress in next year's midterm elections. 'This is the galvanizing moment that's happening because Democrats now understand, we're the people that fight for the middle class and the working class of America,' Gallego told reporters before the event Saturday. 'This is a clarifying moment for us.' For two hours, the audience of some 300 people applauded and at times stood cheering for the Arizona Democrat, one of several party figures who have been attacking the bill in congressional districts represented by Republicans. He was in Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks' 1st Congressional District, among the most competitive in the nation in the past three congressional elections. For a party frustrated with an array of Trump administration initiatives, the measure has had its own energizing effect. "I came here because I work in health care and this bill will hurt health care,' said Alexandra Salter, a physicians assistant from Davenport. 'I think we are getting more vocal about it, because we need to speak up.' The meeting contrasted sharply with Flood's meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska, on Monday, when an even larger crowd of 700 voiced vigorous opposition to the bill, locking in especially on its changes to Medicaid, the federally funded health care program for low-income American. The bill, which passed with no Democratic votes in the House or Senate, makes substantial cuts to the health care program, notably by imposing work requirements for many of those receiving aid. The same frustration that drew Wernimont to Davenport Saturday convinced Ann Ashburn of Aurora, Nebraska, to drive the 70 miles (113 kilometers) to Lincoln to face Flood on Monday. Ashburn learned about Flood's appearance through an Omaha-area Democratic group called Blue Dot and reached out to friends who joined her. She dismissed any suggestion that such opposition had been orchestrated. 'I think the momentum could have been much greater had we been better organized,' the 72-year-old retired executive said. For now, Republicans have their work cut out for them if they hope to use the measure as a reason for voters to return them to the majority in the 2026 elections. About two-thirds of U.S. adults expect the new law will help the rich, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Most — about 6 in 10 — also think it will do more to hurt than help low-income people, according to the survey taken last. Gallego used his trip to Iowa, which included a requisite stop at the Iowa State Fair, to burnish his own profile in a state that, until 2020, traditionally had hosted the first event in the Democrats' presidential nominating process. Iowa Democrats hope to return to the front of the parade when the 2028 primaries and caucuses begin. Other figures already popular nationally with Democrats such as New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been making stops in Republican districts decrying the legislation. Ocasio-Cortez last month headlined an event in New York's 21st District, represented by Republican Elise Stefanik, noting among other items its Medicaid provisions. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is scheduled to hold rallies Sunday in Republican-held House districts in North Carolina. He too planned to focus on Medicaid cuts, and note their impact on rural hospitals in the state where former Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat now running for U.S. Senate, worked with the GOP-controlled legislature to expand Medicaid coverage in 2023.
