S-3348-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S8509-8512)
Sponsored by Richard Durbin (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would let the Department of Homeland Security cancel removal proceedings and grant conditional permanent resident status to certain unauthorized immigrants who entered the U.S. as children, have lived here continuously for at least four years, and meet education, military service, or work requirements. After eight years, those who complete a degree, military service, or sustained employment could have the conditional status removed and later apply for citizenship; DACA recipients would qualify automatically unless they became ineligible through later conduct.
Who benefits
An estimated 1-2 million unauthorized immigrants who arrived as children (often called "Dreamers"), including current DACA recipients, TPS holders, and dependents of certain nonimmigrant visa holders; their U.S. citizen or lawful resident family members; employers who currently rely on this workforce; colleges and universities with affected students; and the military, which could recruit eligible enlistees.
Who is hurt
U.S. workers in job sectors where newly work-authorized individuals could compete for entry-level or lower-wage positions; taxpayers who would fund the additional USCIS processing, background checks, and potential increased use of public benefits by newly documented residents; and immigration enforcement agencies, which would lose authority to remove or refer a large class of individuals to ICE or CBP under the bill's confidentiality provisions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that individuals brought to the U.S. as children had no say in their unauthorized status, have grown up as functionally American, and often know no other country, making removal both impractical and unjust. They contend the bill's strict eligibility requirements — continuous residence, education or military service, tax compliance, and criminal background checks — ensure the benefit reaches only long-term, contributing residents, while also strengthening the labor force and military recruitment pool.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that granting conditional status and an eventual path to citizenship to unauthorized immigrants, even long-term residents, rewards past violations of immigration law and could encourage future unauthorized entry in anticipation of similar relief. They contend the bill's broad discretion for DHS waivers, its ban on referring recipients to enforcement agencies, and its exemption from standard rulemaking procedures under the Paperwork Reduction Act reduce oversight and accountability in a program affecting millions of people.
Constitutional context
Congress holds broad authority to establish rules of naturalization and immigration status under the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and the Necessary and Proper Clause, and courts generally defer to political-branch immigration judgments as recognized in Trump v. Hawaii (2018); the bill's confidentiality and non-referral provisions also implicate executive enforcement discretion questions similar to those raised in DHS v. Regents (2020) regarding DACA.
Checks and balances
Congress would create a new statutory relief program that constrains executive discretion by mandating cancellation of removal for qualifying individuals, while DHS retains implementation authority through rulemaking and case-by-case waivers, with limited administrative hearing rights for status termination.
Historical precedent
Similar "Dream Act" bills have been introduced repeatedly in Congress since 2001 without enactment, and the 2012 DACA program created comparable but administratively narrower relief through executive action rather than statute.