Hal Rogers: “I am in opposition. I completely agree with gentleman that the Department should work to determine whether TPS status…”

“I am in opposition. I completely agree with gentleman that the Department should work to determine whether TPS status remains relevant for many who come from the countries that no longer fit the original purpose of TPS. Clearly, many could return without the fear for physical safety that justified the TPS designation in the first place. However, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of Central Americans who live and work here, and who have been here for some time. It may not be appropriate to suddenly change their status in a way that will generate significant confusion in communities and suddenly create large populations who are out of immigration status, and thus the subject for enforcement actions by DHS and the Department of Justice. I fully understand the gentleman's concerns and agree that there should be a permanent resolution of the TPS situation. But that is a matter for authorizers, and those who can plan a smooth, manageable transition. What the gentleman proposes would be disruptive and burden our already stressed immigration enforcement agencies and should be handled by the authorizing committee. So I ask our colleagues to reject this amendment.”