Under a new Biden administrative plan, announced Tuesday, people without legal status who are married to U.S. citizens will be able to apply for citizenship without first leaving the country.

There are some restrictions. For example, only those who have lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years as of Monday and who are legally married will be able to apply.

After receiving approval by the Department of Homeland Security, they would then be able to remain in the U.S. during a three-year period as they apply for permanent residency within the state. During this time, they would be eligible for work authorization.

Around 500,000 spouses of U.S. citizens could be impacted by this plan.

President Joe Biden announced the significant immigration action Tuesday as immigration at the southern border continues to be a challenge.

The spouses of citizens would still have to qualify under the legal requirements. PBS reported the applicants will be screened for past criminal and immigration history. The program may be implemented as soon as the end of summer.

The Biden plan would also allow recipients of DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, who have degrees from accredited U.S. universities and offers of employment in the country to receive expedited work visas.

It’s similar to a current — and more narrow — parole in place which has allowed family members without legal status of U.S. military personnel and veterans to remain in the country while receiving protections from deportation and work authorization.

As it stands now, federal law states people who enter the country illegally have to leave before receiving a green card. In order to receive a green card, the person would then have to come back into the country. The difference with the Biden administration policy would be that instead of leaving the country, the person without legal status could remain in the country.

It can sometimes take years for a person in this situation to re-enter the country. They can apply at consulates to expedite the process, but it still may take a while. Under this plan, spouses of U.S. citizens who have already been paroled into the U.S. are not eligible.

Reactions from elected officials about the administration’s plan have generally fallen along party lines.

The program, coming from the Biden administration and not a law passed by Congress, has been scrutinized by Republicans for being the result of an administrative not a legislative action. Democrats have praised the plan, calling it a relief for families.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, posted on social media about the policy when it was initially reported, but before it was officially announced. “Translation: President Biden is planning to usurp the Legislative Branch and change the law out of thin air to make millions of illegal immigrants permanent residents.”

Sen. Catherine Masto, D-Nevada, wrote an opinion article for Univision urging the president to take executive action to protect the spouses of U.S. citizens.

“These are critical steps that would help our economy, support businesses across the U.S., and allow hundreds of thousands of people who call this country home to breathe easier,” said Masto.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said in a social media post that he expects the policy will be struck down in court.

“The President may think our homeland security is some kind of game that he can try to use for political points, but Americans know this amnesty plan will only incentivize more illegal immigration and endanger Americans,” said Johnson.

Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said in a statement that the Biden’s administration action was in America’s best interest.

The plan “will improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of American who will no longer have to live with fear and uncertainty of being torn apart or risk being separated for extended periods of time,” said Padilla.

A bigger battle

November looms ahead and many American voters on both sides of the aisle rank immigration as a top issue.

In a survey conducted by Pew Research Center, 59% of registered voters said people should be allowed to either stay in the country legally and apply for citizenship or receive permanent residence. Forty-one percent said there should be a national effort to deport people.

Support for citizenship or permanent residency versus support for deportation generally falls along party lines. Sixty-six percent of Republican voters supported a national deportation effort while 83% of Democratic voters said people should be able to apply for permanent residency or citizenship.

Not only does this issue divide voters, but also elected officials.

Congress has so far failed to pass resolutions or legislation put forward by officials from both parties — and sometimes bipartisan deals — on the issue of the border.

On the same day Title 42 expired, House Republicans advanced a bill that would build more of the wall between the U.S. and Mexico and would limit the Department of Homeland Security’s ability to provide parole to noncitizens.

At the time the bill was considered in 2023, it passed the House, with all Democrats and two Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie and John Duarte, voting against the bill. But it failed to receive consideration, let alone support, in the Senate.

Some in the Senate negotiated a bipartisan bill to attempt to secure the border, but it was dead on arrival in the House. Utah’s congressional delegation and Sen. Lee voiced opposition to the bill. Rep. Burgess Owens said Biden should enforce the laws already on the books.

Immigration policy has also made its way to the court system.

Last year, a federal court ruled that DACA, created by executive action via former President Barack Obama, was unlawful. The Biden administration had made changes to the rule, but the judge said those changes didn’t amount to enough to reverse the decision.

The judge did not order that the program should end. The program remained for recipients already enrolled, but no new applicants could be approved.

The opinion from the judge focused on which branch has the power to create this kind of program — the judge said that power does not lie with the executive branch.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen wrote, “While sympathetic to the predicament of DACA recipients and their families, this Court has expressed its concerns about the legality of the program for some time. The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches.”

The judge’s ruling was appealed.

It’s possible the recent Biden administration policy could have a similar fate as the DACA program because it was done via administrative action, not through Congress. Depending on who wins the presidency in 2024, the program could also be short-lived as GOP front-runner Donald Trump has already voiced opposition to the plan and vowed to reverse it if elected.