A coalition of sixteen states led by Republicans has levied a lawsuit against the Biden administration, intending to obstruct a parole program considered controversial primarily due to its protective elements for undocumented immigrants married to U.S. citizens. Spearheaded by Texas and America First Legal, their argument centers around the ‘parole in place’ regulation introduced in June by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This provision opens the door for humanitarian parole and consecutively, a route towards permanent residency for specific illegal immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens, eliminating the need for these individuals to exit the country.
The states stand in opposition to the rule, characterizing it as a breach of federal law. Their argument is rooted in the premise that this rule subverts longstanding legal measures which prevent illegal immigrants from acquiring immigration benefits – such as permanent status – without rendering them void by leaving the country and reentering legally. Their stand is further validated by the controversial use of parole that is conventionally perceived to be used only in exceptional cases related to humanitarian urgency or significant public benefit.
The encompassing argument put forth by the opposing states declares that the DHS appears to claim boundless discretion over the process, enabling the institution of a program that vindicates the formation of a new route towards obtaining green cards and eventually, citizenship. This move is seemingly set to favor a sizeable population of more than 1.3 million unlawfully present aliens in the United States among which a considerable fraction of over 200,000 are residents of Texas. From the perspective of these states, such actions circumvent the processes implemented by Congress for obtaining permanent residency.
This newly proposed process, according to the states, appeals predominantly to noncitizen spouses who have made America their home for over ten years since June. Applicants must also demonstrate no propensity for posing a threat to national security or public welfare before being given the green light to apply for permanent residency. The DHS justifies these actions by suggesting a need to alleviate existing fears and uncertainties among immigrants, caused mainly by requirements mandating their departure and foreign processing.
The proposed rule includes stringent conditions for eligibility, disqualifying candidates with criminal records or those considered a national security threat. However, these factors do not seem to offset the fears of these Republican states – they point out the DHS’s forecast that approximately 500,000 illegal immigrants will be affected by this change.
Only immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for a decade by June 2024 are deemed eligible for the parole system, thus excluding new entrants. The states, however, express concern that this could yield benefits to over 1.3 million illegal immigrants. They also argue that this approach undermines laws passed by Congress, which confine the use of parole to case-specific determinations.
In the collective Republican voice, the Biden-Harris government is seen as facilitating the transformation of the United States into a nation lacking borders and laws. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was notably adamant, vowing to contest this perceived indiscipline. He criticized Biden’s parole workaround as a mechanism that offers a pathway to citizenship for unvetted aliens, thus violating the Constitution and exacerbating the country’s illegal immigration crisis, particularly in Texas.
The Biden administration and Kamala Harris’s fueling of this program is viewed as relinquishing responsibility for the border crisis while states, such as Texas, suffer the effects of their decisions. The lawsuit encapsulates the protests of Texas, Idaho, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming.
The program’s legal dispute isn’t limited to states’ opposition; even individuals stand in resistance. Stephen Miller, president of America First Legal, dismisses the regulation as unashamedly illegal. Reflecting on his organization’s past legal battles against what he sees as Biden and Harris’s destructive open border policies, Miller’s latest mission is to represent this coalition of states in their attempt to halt this ‘unconstitutional amnesty program’.
The executive program on parole is believed to grant more than a million undocumented immigrants legal status, work permits, and potentially, a path to citizenship. For critics like Miller, it is blatantly illegal and serves as a catalyst for the ongoing border crisis. He pledges to deploy every legal weapon at his disposal to obstruct this initiative.
The Biden administration’s parole program has stirred a whirlpool of controversy among Republicans. A contributing factor is the parole scheme that permits up to 1,450 entries each day through the CBP One app, alongside the admittance of 30,000 nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela into the U.S. every month via a separate program.
The latter, referred to as the CHNV program, came under scrutiny last month, owing to fraudulent practices reportedly detected among applicants seeking to provide support for migrants entering the U.S. As a result, its operations were temporarily halted.
The Biden administration, despite taking steps supposedly aimed at human rights and family unity, offers little consolation to the states and critics who view these policies as a threat to national security and constitutional integrity. Receiving negative attention and criticism for their immigration policies, the silence from the DHS to these very valid concerns is not only deafening but personifies the indifference of the Biden-Harris administration.
As the legal battle surges, the Biden-Harris government is seen as a facilitator of unlawfulness – whether that’s their intended image or not. The portrayal of their administration as a disorganized lawless structure disregarding the plight of states and citizens, will undoubtedly fuel further opposition to their reign.