The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Bipartisan Ukrainian Adjustment Act Introduced in Congress
The bill would grant permanent residency rights to many thousands of Ukrainians who have entered the US since 2014. But its exact scope is unclear.
In a recent post, I wrote about the bipartisan Venezuelan Adjustment Act currently before Congress, which would grant permanent residency rights to some 400,000 Venezuelans who came to the US fleeing their home country's brutal socialist dictatorship. As mentioned in that post, a Ukrainian Adjustment Act was also recently introduced by a different bipartisan group of members of the House of Representatives, Reps. Mike Quigley (D-IL), Bill Keating (D-MA), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Marcy Kaptur (D-OH).
Unfortunately, unlike in the case of the Venezuelan Adjustment Act, the Ukrainian Act's official website doesn't include the text of the bill. So I don't know its exact scope, or whether it has any problematic limitations, such as the Venezuelan Act's restriction of permanent residency rights to those Venezuelans who entered the US on or before Dec. 31, 2021. Still, the summary put out in this press release by Rep. Quigley's office seems promising:
Following Russia's illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Biden Administration established the Uniting for Ukraine program which has provided a vital pathway for Ukrainian citizens and their immediate family members to temporarily reside and seek safety in the United States. Since February 2022, 271,000 Ukrainians have entered the U.S. - with over 117,000 having been admitted specifically under the Uniting for Ukraine program.
Given the prolonged nature of the conflict, those Ukrainians who have entered the U.S. remain under threat and are unable to return to their homes. The Ukrainian Adjustment Act would provide those Ukrainians who have been paroled into the U.S. since 2014 with permanent residency status, allowing them to work, contribute to society, and maintain a stable life in the U.S. until they are able to return home.
"The Ukrainian Adjustment Act builds on our work to aid Ukrainian refugees. These individuals have fled their homes and their families in the hopes of maintaining their freedom. They need our support and the chance to begin building a new life here in America," said Congressman Quigley. "Let this serve as a reminder that Ukrainian refugees are not the only group in need of permanent status. Those who aided our efforts in Afghanistan and have since fled are still waiting nearly two years after the withdrawal. Ukrainian and Afghan refugees have overcome immeasurable odds and devastation—they both deserve our help."
I wrote about the Uniting for Ukraine program here and here. The figures in the Quigley statement are somewhat out of date, since they only include Ukrainians admitted through February of this year.
If the proposed Act indeed covers all Ukrainians admitted through parole since 2014, it will likely include the vast majority of Ukrainians currently in the US. But it might exclude some who entered prior to February of last year, and were admitted by other means, and later were allowed to stay after the Biden Administration, in March of last year, granted Temporary Protection Status (TPS) to Ukrainians in the United States at that time.
In the post about the Venezuelan Act, I included links to earlier writings summarizing the reasons reasons why granting permanent residency to Ukrainians, Venezuelans, and others fleeing horrific war and oppression is both morally right and serves US economic and foreign policy interests (see, e.g., here and here). In the same post, I also addressed the concern that it is unfair to grant permanent residency to Venezuelans or Ukrainians if we cannot simultaneously do the same for similarly situated migrants from elsewhere.
I will try to use my contacts learn more about the proposed Ukrainian Adjustment Act, and will post on it further when and if I do.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Adjustment Act"??? sounds like they're gonna get free Chiropractic treatments, and I'm generally in favor of anything that increases the numbers of White Peoples, but C'mon Man! if we're gonna spend Bullions and Bullions (HT C. Sagan) protecting their homeland, shouldn't they at least live there?
Frank
Not sure this is a good idea. Assuming Biden doesn’t screw up the proxy war, it’ll be in th US interest to have Ukrainians back in Ukraine rebuilding their country.
Certainly would be in Ukraine's interest. They're going to be pretty hollowed out after this war.
I personally advocate a "cream skimming" immigration policy, which admittedly would be hard on a lot of other nations. But this is more of a "fluid hoarding" immigration policy; Somin doesn't care about anything but maximizing the number of people who get to stay here. He just assumes they'll be beneficial, regardless of individual merit.
A reminder: Once Americans know that temporary status is likely to be converted to permanent, we will treat all proposals to extend temporary status as proposals to extend permanent status. You really want to make America more hostile to refugees? This is a good way to achieve it.
Nobody is in a mood to be charitable if offering a bit of temporary help puts you on the hook forever.
Yes, some people view people as nothing more than pawns to be moved around, rather than as autonomous actors with individual human rights.
Attempts to game American politics by adjusting the polity have a history stretching back at least to the early 19th century. It's a great example of a both-sides-do-it practice. The tools to gain partisan advantage have included immigration policy, naturalization policy, and territorial annexation proposals. The very existence of Texas as a state memorializes that history.
Permanent resident. Refugee.
Hmm, nope, not synonyms.
Warm body. Entitled to be here.
That's the extent of his reasoning.
He linked to his previous arguments, Brett.
I don't agree with Prof. Somin on open borders (though I do about more use of refugee status), but the performative disengagement in his posts' comments are just incredible.
Maybe abortion has that level of 'I hate you too much to read'
Yeah, and I've seen his previous arguments, both here and at Cato.
He agrees to only two or three exceptions to open borders:
1. Marching armies carrying guns and wearing uniforms.
2. Convicted terrorists, but he proposes no mechanism for detecting them at the border.
3. Active disease carriers, but it's got to be a REALLY serious disease. Super-leprosy, maybe. And, again, no mechanism for detecting them permitted.
Somin really is a fanatic on the topic. And in deep denial about the 9th amendment implications of his claim that the federal government has no constitutional power to regulate immigration.
Maybe he is a fanatic. I'd agree with ideologue. But that is irrelevant.
He makes arguments. You don't address them and instead try and establish his priors. Which, whether you are right or you are wrong, the ad hominem fallacy.
Address arguments. Dispute facts. Engage with the material. I have seen you do this plenty of times. But something about Somin makes you prefer shallow attacks.
Until the point that the war in Ukraine is considered over and Russia is in control for the foreseeable future, I don’t think what we need is an act for refugees to have a permanent new life in the US. We should give them what they need to be here until they can return home. Ukraine will need its people to rebuild if it does make it through this war. If people who've fled here want to stay even if Ukraine wins the war, they shouldn't get preference over any other immigrant.
Not a great history of this thinking:
"Until the point that the war in Europe is considered over and Germany is in control for the foreseeable future, I don’t think what we need is an act for refugees to have a permanent new life in the US."
War itself creates refugees, not just the outcome of war when it's over.