CIS Litigation Forces Transparency of ‘Humanitarian’ Parole Program

Mark Krikorian; Todd Bensman

By Mark Krikorian and Todd Bensman on June 27, 2024

Follow Parsing Immigration Policy on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Amazon Music, Spotify, Pandora, or use the podcast's RSS Feed.

Listen to "CIS Litigation Forces Transparency of ‘Humanitarian’ Parole Program" on Spreaker.

Summary

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.