Parsing Immigration Policy Center for Immigration Studies

Critical findings from recent CIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation reveal that a Biden “humanitarian” parole program created specifically for nationals of four countries has resulted in many applicants flying in from 74 other countries. This episode of Parsing Immigration Policy draws attention to the discrepancies between the public justification for the Cuban Haitian Nicaraguan Venezuelan (CHNV) Direct Flight Program and the reality of its implementation. Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director, and Todd Bensman, the Center’s national security fellow, also highlight the urgent need to reform U.S. asylum laws.

Massive Influx: Since January 2023, more than 460,000 from those four nationalities have been authorized to fly into the country, with 30,000 being allowed in each month – all eligible for two-year renewable work authorization.Litigation and 

Transparency Issues:FOIA Requests and Lawsuits: CIS had to resort to FOIA requests and then lawsuits to obtain information about the program. While Homeland Security eventually disclosed 45 U.S. airports used for arrivals, the administration resisted revealing departure countries until recently. They continue to refuse to provide the number flying in from each nation.Public Deception: The administration promoted the CHNV Program as a kind of rescue initiative. However, many entrants are coming from safe countries, contradicting the stated need for urgent humanitarian intervention. Applicants are flying in from 77 different countries, including safe, prosperous nations like France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Fiji, Australia, and Canada.Concerns and Implications:Asylum Shopping: This raises critical questions about the purpose of asylum. Should individuals in safe countries qualify for U.S. asylum, or is this merely a workaround to bypass immigration limits set by Congress?Reforming Asylum Laws: CIS experts stress the need for statutory changes to ensure asylum is reserved for those genuinely fleeing persecution and not for those already in safe countries.Executive Overreach: The Biden administration’s actions suggest an attempt to increase immigration without congressional approval, undermining the legislative process and immigration limits.Host

Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Guest

Todd Bensman is a National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Related

New Data: Many Migrants in Biden’s ‘Humanitarian’ Flights Scheme Coming in from Safe Countries and Vacation Wonderlands

A Secret Finally Revealed: Americans Can Know the U.S. Cities Receiving Hundreds of Thousands of Immigrants Flying from Abroad

What is CHNV Parole and Why You Should Care

Parsing Immigration Policy podcast: Straight Talk on Biden’s Parole Flights

Government Admission: Biden Parole Flights Create Security ‘Vulnerabilities’ at US Airports

a...

Today’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy delves into the details and implications of this week's controversial announcement by the Biden administration that it will be granting de facto amnesty to over half a million illegal immigrants in the United States. The conversation between Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director, and Andrew Arthur, the Center’s fellow in law and policy, also highlights the administration's reliance on executive orders in lieu of legislative compromise.

Announcement: On June 18, 2024, the Biden administration announced that 500,000 illegal immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens, who have been in the country for at least ten years and married before June 17, 2024, will be allowed to apply for “parole in place” (PIP). These benefits will also be extended to an estimated 50,000 children of these spouses, who do not need to meet the ten-year residency requirement. The PIP plan retroactively legalizes illegal entries and allows beneficiaries to apply for work authorization and attain a Social Security number.

Understanding Parole in Place: Parole in place is a limited form of parole that to this point, Congress has only extended to immediate family-members of active-duty military that allows otherwise inadmissible foreign nationals to stay in the U.S. in a quasi-legal status. While parole itself is only to be used on a case-by-case basis for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit”, the Biden administration has greatly expanded its use to large classes of inadmissible foreign nationals, raising questions about the legality of its actions. Podcast Highlights:Executive Overreach: The podcast discusses how the Biden administration’s use of PIP circumvents established immigration laws and precedents, similar to previous programs like DACA. The action will undoubtedly end up in the courts, and the administration’s approach has long-term implications for bipartisan cooperation on immigration reform.Potential for Fraud: Concerns are raised about USCIS’s ability to effectively adjudicate the more than a half million expected PIP applications, potentially leading to widespread fraud, particularly with respect to the ten-year residency requirement. This means that the number of aliens amnestied can be expected to be considerably higher than the White House estimate of 550,000.A Solution in Search of a Problem: A waiver for alien spouses in this situation already exists in the form of I-601A “Applications for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers”. The Biden administration simply needs to fast track those applications.Political Motivations: The discussion also raises concerns that the timing of the amnesty may be politically motivated, reminiscent of the Obama administration’s pre-2012 election DACA rollout, and is aimed at garnering support from immigrant voters ahead of elections.Host

Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Guest

Andrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Related

DHS Fact Sheet Lays Out Parameters of Biden’s ‘Parole in Place’ Amnesty

Biden’s ‘Parole in Place’ Plan is a Solution in Search of a Problem

Amnesties All the Way Down

Intro Montage

Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press...

Two former chiefs of the U.S. Border Patrol join Parsing Immigration Policy this week on the occasion of the agency’s 100th anniversary. Rodney Scott and Mark Morgan join host Mark Krikorian discuss how, despite a century of government policies that have often made it harder to secure the border, the Border Patrol has always remained committed to protecting America’s national security. Morgan emphasizes that “bad politics, the lack of political courage, strength, and will decade after decade has made the Border Patrol’s job more difficult…but yet somehow they still are able to succeed.”

The Biden administration has leveraged Americans’ compassion for migrants to promote policies that hinder the Border Patrol’s ability to do its job. One such policy is the elimination of rapid DNA testing, which helps agents in identifying human traffickers. The mass influx of illegal immigrants that started in 2021 has overwhelmed the Border Patrol, preventing them from engaging in preventive measures like rigorously interviewing suspicious migrants. This situation has led to the departure of many experienced agents and has hindered the training of new agents to address potential national security threats at the border. Morgan and Scott emphasize that illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, underscoring that Border Patrol agents are not motivated by racism or any other nefarious motives; rather, they are safeguarding American national security and the integrity of the legal immigration system.

Going forward, Morgan and Scott stress the importance of improving transparency at the border to pressure politicians to provide resources and policies that will improve border security.

In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s Executive Director and podcast host, discusses the eight Tajikistani nationals – all of whom crossed the Southern border and were then released – who were recently arrested on terrorism charges. The vetting process failed to detect these Tajiks’ terrorist ties, and once these ties were discovered, the fact that these foreign nationals were not detained allowed them to disappear into the country. Border security is ultimately a matter of national security, and cases like this showcase the limitations of vetting and the importance of detention.

Host

Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Guests
Rodney Scott is a former Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol.

Mark Morgan is a former Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol.

Related

Six Suspected Terrorists with ISIS Ties Arrested in Sting Operation

Biden Ends DNA Testing at the Border

Intro Montage

Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Christopher Landau, former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, joins us to discuss the election of Claudia Sheinbaum as the new president of Mexico. Amb. Landau discusses the implications of Sheinbaum’s election for U.S. immigration policy and U.S.-Mexico relations.

Landau describes Sheinbaum as the protege of the current president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (commonly known as AMLO), and anticipates that she will continue seeking cooperation with Washington. Given that most migrants attempting entry into the U.S. now originate from countries other than Mexico, there exists a mutual incentive for such cooperation. Mexico does not want millions of foreign nationals to use their country as a “doormat” to the U.S.

Landau also discusses how the Biden administration, by refusing to enforce immigration law, reduced Mexico’s enthusiasm for cooperation. This has changed recently due to the “Biden administration...paying Mexico vast sums of money to try to control migratory flows [and] dampen the border as an election year issue.” Such an arrangement allows Biden to virtue-signal to his pro-immigration base while delegating the responsibility of dealing with the border crisis to the Mexican government.

While expressing concern over the lack of transparency in the current administration’s approach, Landau suggests that, should Trump win re-election, consistent cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico on stemming migrant flows is possible going forward.

In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s Executive Director and podcast host, highlights the new border policy announced by President Biden this week. He characterizes the proclamation as a “phony” political stunt designed to provide the president with a talking point for the presidential debate scheduled for this month, and for the rest of the campaign. He predicts that it will likely face legal challenges from left-wing NGOs, likely resulting in its injunction by the courts, allowing Biden to claim that he tried to fix the border crisis, but was obstructed by both the courts and congressional Republicans.

Host

Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Guest

Christopher Landau is the former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico.

Related

CBP Stats Reveal the World is Coming Illegally to the Southwest Border

First Look at Biden’s ‘Proclamation on Securing the Border’

Intro Montage

Voices in the opening montage:
Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The “bipartisan” border bill failed again last week in the Senate, with even its Republican co-sponsor voting against it. While it may now seem moot, it’s likely that the president and Democrats in Congress will spend the rest of the year pointing to Republican opposition to the bill as the reason for the continuing border crisis.

For that reason, it’s worth examining again the provisions of the proposed legislation. Andrew Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, joins this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy to do just that.

Arthur discusses with host Mark Krikorian how, contrary to the administration’s claims of political expediency, opposition to the bill is based on legitimate policy concerns, as the bill codifies the administration’s disastrous policies at the border.

Arthur discusses how the number of Border Patrol apprehensions and known gotaways have skyrocketed since Biden took office. Citing Judge T. Kent Wetherell’s March 2023 Court Order, Arthur emphasizes that the border crisis is driven by the administration's policies that incentivize “irregular migration” by releasing asylum applicants into the United States.

Arthur noted that the bipartisan border bill “codifies the very Biden release policies that Judge Wetherell found are driving this crisis” – specifically by mandating the release of asylum applicants and lowering the standards for asylum. The bill also contains a provision that allows the president to close the border if the weekly average of apprehensions reaches 4,000 per day, and mandates that the president close the border if weekly apprehensions reach 5,000 per day. By making 5,000 apprehensions per day the floor, the bill suggests that around 1.8 million illegal immigrants per year is acceptable; what’s more, the bill sunsets this provision after three years, preventing future presidents from utilizing this power.

Arthur concludes that the bipartisan border bill was a “lose-lose for…Republicans,” and he points to the House GOP’s passage of H.R.2 – legislation which actually attempts to eliminate illegal immigration – as evidence that Republicans are serious about stopping illegal immigration, while the Democrats seek merely to “manage” the illegal flow.

Finally, Krikorian and Arthur discuss the recent story of two Jordanian nationals – one of whom crossed the southern border illegally – who attempted to breach Quantico Marine Corps Base earlier this month. This incident reveals how the Biden administration’s border policies threaten national security, making it more likely that a large-scale tragedy could occur, forcing Congress to finally address the border crisis.

Host

Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Guest

Andrew Arthur is a Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Related

Fact Sheet on Senate Border Bill

Leonhardt New York Times Article

Text of Senate Border Bill

Text of H.R.2House Resolution blaming Biden for the Border Crisis

a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.405819/gov.uscourts.flnd.405819.157.0_1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer...

In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Roy Beck, founder of NumbersUSA, joins us to discuss the 100th anniversary of the 1924 Immigration Act. President Calvin Coolidge signed it into law on May 26, 1924, and Beck outlines how, despite the various and often invidious motivations of the Act’s supporters, its effect was overwhelmingly positive for Americans of all races.

Beck discusses how the 1924 Immigration Act built upon a similar bill from 1921, capping the number of immigrants that could enter each year and establishing a quota system based on national origins. He underscores how the bill was overwhelmingly supported by various sectors of society, including labor unions and Black leaders. Beck also notes that the bill’s sponsor emphasized that the main effect of the legislation was on restricting the numbers of immigrants who could enter rather than on the types of immigrants – how many, rather than who.

The act led to a significant decrease in immigration, which had both positive social and economic effects. The reduced flow of immigration allowed the millions of recent arrivals to assimilate more successfully into American society. And by tightening the labor market, the bill led to increased improved worker productivity and compensation and less economic inequality. Beck underscores how “between 1924 and 1970…Americans went from a working-class nation to a middle-class nation,” highlighting how the immigration restrictions contributed to improved economic conditions for American households. To elucidate this point, Beck describes how the immigration restrictions facilitated the Great Migration of Blacks from the South, enabling them to obtain jobs in Northern cities and vastly improve their economic conditions – preconditions for the success of the later Civil Rights Movement.

In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s Executive Director and podcast host, discusses how Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is bringing back the Senate border bill for a vote this week. Given that the bill will not pass, Schumer’s action is little more than a political stunt designed to shift blame for the border crisis to his political opponents. Indeed, contrary to assertions by the administration and some in the media, opposition to the bill is clearly based on its substance, not simply on politics.

Host

Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Guest

Roy Beck is the founder of NumbersUSA.

Related

Roy Beck's Recent Book, Back of the Hiring Line: A 200-Year History of Immigration Surges, Employer Bias, and Depression of Black Wealth

Exploiting Mass Immigration to Displace Blacks

The Ineffective and Problematic Senate Border Bill Rises from the Dead

Trump Didn’t Kill the Senate Border Security Deal – the Deal’s Provisions Did

Intro Montage

Voices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974...