S-2106-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
What it does
This bill would allow certain nationals from countries designated for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) — a humanitarian program for people from countries experiencing conflict or disaster — to apply for lawful permanent residence (a green card). To qualify, an individual would need to have held or qualified for TPS or Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) status, have been continuously present in the United States for at least three years before applying, pass background checks, and not be inadmissible or deportable on specified grounds. Spouses, domestic partners, and children of qualifying individuals could also apply. People with pending applications would receive work and travel authorization and could not be removed while their application is pending.
Who benefits
Current and former TPS holders — estimated at roughly 700,000 to 1 million individuals from countries including El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen. Their spouses, domestic partners, and children, including U.S.-born children who would gain greater family stability. Employers in industries such as construction, food service, agriculture, and healthcare who rely on TPS workers and would gain a more stable, authorized workforce. Immigration attorneys and legal aid organizations who would see increased demand for services. Communities with large TPS-holder populations who would benefit from reduced uncertainty and increased economic participation.
Who is hurt
Unauthorized immigrants who do not qualify for TPS or DED and would remain ineligible, potentially highlighting disparities in the immigration system. U.S. workers in sectors where TPS holders are concentrated who may face continued labor market competition. Taxpayers who may bear costs of administering a new green card application process. Countries of origin that may lose remittances or skilled workers if TPS holders gain permanent status and integrate more fully into the U.S. economy. Applicants from countries with high green card demand who are already in long backlogs and may face increased competition for available visas, depending on how the bill interacts with annual caps.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that TPS holders have, in many cases, lived and worked legally in the United States for decades — some El Salvadoran and Honduran TPS holders have been here since 1999 — and that the temporary designation has been repeatedly extended precisely because conditions in their home countries have not improved. They contend that creating a permanent pathway recognizes the deep economic and community ties these individuals have built, citing research showing TPS holders contribute an estimated $164 billion in GDP and pay billions in taxes annually. Supporters further argue the bill provides a structured, merit-based process with background checks, continuous presence requirements, and inadmissibility bars — making it a measured, conditional pathway rather than a blanket amnesty.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that granting permanent residence to TPS holders fundamentally transforms what was designed as a temporary, emergency humanitarian program into a de facto immigration pathway, undermining the program's original intent and potentially incentivizing future TPS applications as a route to permanent status. They contend that Congress, not the executive branch, sets immigration levels, and that this bill could add hundreds of thousands of permanent residents outside the normal visa allocation system, straining existing backlogs and displacing other categories of applicants. Opponents also argue that the information-sharing restrictions in the bill — limiting use of application data for enforcement — would create a protected class of applicants shielded from standard immigration enforcement, raising rule-of-law concerns.
Constitutional context
Congress holds broad authority over immigration and naturalization under the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The bill is a direct exercise of that legislative power and does not raise significant preemption concerns. The information-sharing restrictions could implicate executive enforcement discretion under the Take Care Clause (Art. II, §3), and the removal bar for pending applicants may be reviewed under the Due Process Clause (5th Amendment), consistent with Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), which held that due process constrains removal procedures for individuals with legal status claims pending.
Checks and balances
Congress would expand the legislative pathway to permanent residence; USCIS (executive branch) would administer applications and background checks; federal courts would retain jurisdiction to review denials and constitutional challenges to removal bars or information-sharing restrictions.
Historical precedent
The LIFE Act (2000) and various versions of the DREAM Act have similarly proposed converting temporary immigration statuses into permanent residence pathways, though none directly analogous to TPS-to-green-card conversion has been enacted into law.