Private Immigration Legislation (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (32 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised Feb. 28, 2007 |
| Report Number |
RL33024 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Margaret Mikyung Lee, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Aug. 9, 2005 (32 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
Private immigration bills warrant careful consideration with regard to precedent since they are a special form of relief allowing the circumvention of the public laws concerning immigration and nationality in uniquely meritorious cases. This report will give an overview of the congressional subcommittee procedure and precedents concerning private immigration bills. This report will not cover parliamentary procedural issues for private bills, which are covered by CRS Report 98-628, Private Bills: Procedure in the House, by Richard S. Beth. Congressional authority over immigration is not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, but generally is considered to derive from several constitutional clauses. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that, 'The Constitution grants Congress the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.' Art. I., § 8, cl. 4. Drawing upon this power, upon its plenary authority with respect to foreign relations and international commerce, and upon the inherent power of a sovereign to close its borders, Congress has developed a complex scheme governing admission to our Nation and status within our borders.' Further, the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizens as 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' Amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1. Although some legal scholars have argued that the phrase 'uniform Rule of Naturalization' precludes Congress from enacting legislation granting relief to a specific individual, the courts have interpreted the phrase as simply requiring geographic uniformity throughout the States, meaning that Congress cannot enact legislation applying different rules to different States.
