The new episode of the Center for Immigration Studies’ podcast, Parsing Immigration Policy, focuses on the Center’s updated map of sanctuary jurisdictions, based on data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Joining host Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center, is Jessica Vaughan, the Center’s director of policy studies, who explains her update of the map.

The update adds about 170 new sanctuary locations, mostly counties (including regional jails) as well as some cities. Some of these newly listed sanctuaries are in states that prohibit such policies, such as South Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, and North Carolina.

Virginia, North Dakota, Nebraska, New York, and Minnesota have seen the most significant increases in sanctuary policies.

The Center's updated map is based on ICE's internal tracking, adding information from the document entitled "Detainer Acceptance Tracker – Limited and Non-Cooperative Institutions," obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request. The Center’s map is a collaboration between Vaughan and multimedia director Bryan Griffith, and has been used to track sanctuaries since 2015, using ICE information and open sources.

Since then, well over 10,000 deportable criminal aliens who were arrested by local authorities for state and local crimes have been released back to the streets due to sanctuary policies, despite ICE seeking custody with a detainer, and a significant share have committed subsequent crimes. For example, in a documented eight-month period during 2014-2015, about 1,800 of 8,000 criminal aliens released by sanctuary jurisdictions were rearrested for committing 7,500 new crimes.

“It is alarming to see the continued proliferation of sanctuary policies, especially in places like Virginia,” Vaughan notes, “where ICE has had to use its scarce resources to re-arrest violent gang members and rapists in our communities who were set free by local jails, when they should have been transferred directly to ICE custody for a plane ride home.”

Vaughan continued: “Federal and state lawmakers should adopt measures to better ensure that local law enforcement agencies cooperate with ICE, and to penalize those agencies that choose not to cooperate.”

In his closing commentary, Krikorian discusses the Democratic Party’s 2024 immigration platform introduced this week at the party’s convention. The platform embraces the U.S. Citizenship Act, a radical piece of legislation introduced in January 2021, that would have granted amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the U.S. as of January 2021 and even allowed the return of many previously deported illegal immigrants. This position contrasts sharply with the Republican position on immigration enforcement, setting the stage for an unambiguous policy debate.

Host

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

Guest

Jessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Related

Sanctuary Map

Justice Department Still Funding Sanctuaries

Are Immigrants Less Willing to Report Crime?

Background and Likely Effects of the Biden-Menendez Amnesty Bill

The 2024 Democratic Party Platform

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 Biden-Harris administration expects to resettle more than 100,000 refugees into the U.S. by the end of Fiscal Year 2024 — the highest number in three decades. In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, the Center’s Executive Director Mark Krikorian and the Center’s Senior Researcher and refugee expert Nayla Rush discuss how the administration has transformed the resettlement program to reach these high admission numbers. The episode highlights concern about whether the remade program truly helps the most vulnerable, or if the distinction between humanitarian resettlement and ordinary immigration has been blurred.

Key topics discussed in this episode include:

• Executive Branch Role: While the resettlement program is established in law, the president sets the cap on refugee admissions each year, which is now viewed more as a target than a limit.
• Expansion of Who Is Treated as a “Refugee”: The Biden-Harris administration has effectively redefined the term “refugee,” extending benefits and privileges to individuals who do not meet the traditional legal definition.
• An Expanded Domestic Resettlement Network: Ten religious or community-based organizations which assist with resettling refugees inside the U.S. maintain nationwide networks of local affiliates to provide refugees with services, including assistance in signing up for taxpayer-funded benefits. The local affiliate number is up from 150 to 350.
• Modernization of the Refugee Program: Efforts to modernize the program have significantly reduced processing times from years to just a few months, allowing for faster refugee arrivals. In FY 2023, despite a cap of 125,000, only half that number were resettled. However, with ongoing modernization and the introduction of “private” sponsorship, the cap is expected to be met or even raised in FY 2025.
• Private Sponsorship through the “Welcome Corps”: The administration has introduced the Welcome Corps initiative, allowing private groups and individuals to select their own refugees and future American citizens, bypassing the traditional role of the UN. The “Welcome Corps” was further expanded to include the “Welcome Corps on Campus”, bringing “refugees” straight to U.S. campuses; and the Welcome Corps at Work, bringing them straight to U.S. jobs. There is also a Latin American program and an Afghan targeted program.
• Concerns and Controversies:
  • Chain Refugee Resettlement: Former refugees sponsoring new refugees, potentially creating issues with accountability and oversight.
  • Private Sponsorship Challenges: Despite being labeled as “private,” the Welcome Corps is heavily subsidized by federal taxpayer funding.
  • Future Expansion under a Potential Harris Administration: Pressure is already being exerted to create a “Welcome Corps” program for Gaza refugees.

Host

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

Guest

Nayla Rush is a Senior Researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Related

Remaking the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program

Latest Biden/Harris ‘Lawful Pathways’ Scheme: Declare Latin American Migrants to be ‘Refugees’

Parolees Paroling More Parolees

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 Biden/Harris administration has recently paused the fraud-prone program which allows up to 30,000 inadmissible nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to fly to the United States each month. The suspension of this “CHNV parole program” is the focus of this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, featuring Andrew Arthur, the Center’s Fellow in Law and Policy, and Mark Krikorian, the Center’s Executive Director.

While the grants of parole (and work authorization) to these migrants – who have no legal right to enter the U.S. – are supposed to last only two years, Arthur notes that “the administration never had a plan to remove these migrants after these two years were over.” Overall, nearly 400,000 unauthorized migrants have entered the U.S. under the CHNV program, likely permanently.

Arthur also points out the fraud and other abuses in the CHNV program. For instance, many of these migrants are flying to the U.S. from safe third countries such as Iceland and Fiji. Arthur also points out various problems with the program’s sponsor requirement – “sponsors” are not actually required to provide food or housing for CHNV beneficiaries, and there are many cases of sponsors turning out to be deceased or possessing fake Social Security numbers, raising concern about trafficking.

Arthur and Krikorian surmise that the administration is likely pausing the program because they see it as a political liability for the upcoming election, as the widespread examples of fraud became too difficult to hide. Ultimately, the flaws in this program reveal the importance of ensuring that Congress, not the president, has the sole power to make laws pertaining to immigration.

Highlights:

• The Biden-Harris administration’s legal rationale for the CHNV program comes from Congress’s authorization of a narrow “parole” authority, which allows the executive to let in inadmissible aliens under certain narrow circumstances. This administration has abused this small loophole to let in 2.2 million people who have no right to be here.
• The CHNV program is one of two legally dubious parole programs implemented by the Biden-Harris administration. The other, the CBP One app interview scheme, allows migrants of any nationality to schedule their illegal entry at one of eight ports of entry on the Mexican border.
• There are currently two ongoing legal challenges to the CHNV program, one in Texas and one in North Dakota.
• Sponsors of CHNV applicants need not be individuals; non-profit groups or companies can also be sponsors, creating the potential for labor exploitation where employers hold migrants in debt bondage.
• If the next administration were to terminate the CHNV program, the INA would require all 400,000 CHNV parolees to be detained, making a complete shutdown potentially difficult to implement.

In his closing commentary, Krikorian discusses the ongoing riots in the United Kingdom, sparked by the murder of three British girls by the son of Rwandan immigrants. He describes the riots as symbolic of the broader consequences of Western leadership acting as a “cartel” to prevent changes to immigration policy favored by the majority, leading to societal unrest.

SummaryThis week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy explores the relationship between the cost of illegal immigration and the Biden-Harris administration’s abuse of parole. Joining host Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, are Jessica Vaughan, the Center’s Director of Policy Studies, and George Fishman, the Center’s Senior Legal Fellow.

Vaughan highlights her recent report on Massachusetts as a case study of the long-term costs of mass illegal immigration. She asserts that “people have not been focusing on the long-term cost ... and that long-term cost is going to clearly eclipse the [short-term] cost of [migrant] shelters.” Specifically, she discusses how the Biden-Harris administration’s policy of paroling millions of illegal aliens into the U.S. is a “fiscal time bomb”, as many of these aliens will qualify for welfare benefits in the coming years.

Fishman explains how the time bomb works: the Biden-Harris administration’s abuse of the parole system interacts with the 1996 welfare reform law, which allows paroled aliens to access welfare benefits after residing in the U.S. for five years – a “parole payday” which Fisman explored in a 2023 report. As a result, over one million aliens paroled into the U.S. since 2021 will start becoming eligible for welfare benefits as early as 2026.

To mitigate the burden that mass immigration places on the welfare system, Vaughan suggests that sponsors of parolees should be required to register with the state and thus have their income factored into the decision whether to grant welfare benefits to an alien. Additionally, Fishman suggests that the 1996 welfare reform law should be reformed so that parolees no longer qualify for welfare benefits.

In his closing, Krikorian highlights two recent Center publications – a report on the enormous changes the Biden-Harris administration made to the refugee resettlement program and an article discussing one of those changes: the Safe Mobility Office Initiative in Latin America, which is responsible for flying in thousands of people who would not have qualified as refugees in the past. These pieces highlight the administration’s perspective that any foreigner should have the opportunity to come to the U.S., pointing to the crux of the immigration debate: should American immigration policies serve the interest of the American people or foreign citizens?Highlights:

• The main reason that mass immigration is so costly is that illegal immigrants generally are less-skilled, thus earn lower salaries, and therefore consume large sums in welfare, healthcare, and education while working low-paying jobs.
• 60 percent of illegal-alien households are currently using at least one welfare program.
• While the goal of the 1996 welfare reform law was to restrict the number of aliens who could access federal welfare benefits, one of its measures allows paroled aliens (technically only aliens who are paroled before entering the U.S.) to receive welfare after residing in the US for five years, creating a “fiscal time bomb.”
• The requirement that some parolees have a sponsor to gain entry does not reduce the fiscal burden that these migrants place on the welfare system, because these sponsors are not actually responsible for providing any financial support.
• Fishman speculates that Trump may revoke the parole status should he return to the White House in 2025, but suggests that if Harris becomes president, she would “never in a million years…revoke [these aliens’] parole status.”

Host

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

Guests

Jessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration StudiesGeorge Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies

Related

Massachusetts: A Case Study in Mass Immigration and the Welfare State

Parole with BenefitsWelfare Use by Immigrants and the U.S.-Born

Haitian CHNV Parole Migrant Arrested for Aggravated Rape in Massachusetts

Remaking the US Refugee Resettlement Program

The Latest Biden/Harris ‘Lawful Pathways’ Scheme: Declare Latin American Migrants to Be ‘Refugees’

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, Emma Waters, a Senior Research Associate at the Heritage Foundation, joins Mark Krikorian, the Center’s Executive Director, to discuss the recent development of international commercial surrogacy, which creates tremendous potential for immigration fraud and exploitation and poses a national security risk.

International commercial surrogacy refers to the process by which foreign nationals contract with surrogates in the United States to have a child on their behalf. While this child is subsequently raised in a foreign country, the child is granted U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth here, making it easier for the parents of this child to eventually obtain U.S. citizenship. This system is unique to the United States, as other Western countries either ban international surrogacy or do not have birthright citizenship.

Waters states that international commercial surrogacy is a “situation of immigration fraud as well as a national security risk.” The most common demographic of foreign nationals who come to the U.S. for surrogacy are Chinese men, and thus this form of birth tourism allows children who are raised in China and shaped by CCP influence to obtain U.S. citizenship, posing a threat to U.S. national security.

To prevent this form of birth tourism, Waters emphasizes that U.S. immigration laws need to be updated to reflect technological advancements in surrogacy, childbirth, etc. She points to recent examples of nations, such as Nepal and India, which have successfully restricted commercial surrogacy. She also highlights the importance of publishing information surrounding international commercial surrogacy, such as state records regarding the number of surrogacy contracts in each state and the country of origin of the contracting parents.

Waters and Krikorian agree that once information regarding the abuses in the international commercial surrogacy industry becomes available, it will be possible for Congress and state governments to take action against this particularly troublesome form of birth tourism.

Highlights:

• The U.S. has no federal laws governing international commercial surrogacy, making it extremely difficult to identify the children and parents involved in this industry.
• The majority of fertility clinics are in California, and these surrogacy agencies often have deep connections in China.
• The Heritage Foundation has recently filed Freedom of Information Act requests seeking data regarding the countries of origin of contracting parents as well as the number of surrogacy contracts in states such as California.
• Addressing the problem of international commercial surrogacy ultimately requires “[preventing] foreign nationals from accessing commercial surrogacy in the United States,” but this would require states to forego the financial interest they have in continuing this lucrative industry.
• Recently, some Republican lawmakers have expressed interest in addressing the abuses of this troublesome form of birth tourism through legislation, focusing on how commercial surrogacy harms American surrogate mothers and places the interests of foreign countries above the interests of American citizens.

Host

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

Guest

Emma Waters is a Senior Research Associate at the Heritage Foundation.

Related

The New Face of Birth Tourism: Chinese Nationals, American Surrogates, and Birthright Citizenship

The Rise and Fall of International Adoption

America’s Rent-A-Womb Industry Lures An Alarming Number Of Chinese Nationals

Birth Tourism: Facts and Recommendations

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".

This week, Balazs Orban, a member of the Hungarian Parliament and political director for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (no relation), joins Parsing Immigration Policy to discuss the strategies Hungary has taken to prevent illegal migration despite continuing pressure from the EU.

Speaking with the Center’s executive director Mark Krikorian, Orban addresses both the effects on Hungary of the 2015-16 migrant crisis in Europe as well as a recent EU court ruling fining it millions of euros for its strict policies regarding asylum for illegal border crossers.

He emphasizes the deterrent effect of Hungary’s policies, asserting that the country's immigration policies were designed to make it so “if you try [to immigrate] illegally you are losing something, not getting something.” Hungary believes maintaining this deterrent effect is a critical aspect of securing its borders, and it has held firm to these deterrent policies despite the massive fines from the EU.

Orban concludes by stating that Hungary “does not want to become an immigration-based society,” highlighting Hungary’s strategy of limiting immigration to a few selective guestworker programs while using the state to promote pro-family policies and raise the fertility rate. Such policies, while costly, are crucial in preserving the cultural and demographic heritage of Hungary—a top priority for this small, landlocked central European country.

In his closing commentary, Krikorian discusses the Republican National Convention’s highlighting of illegal immigration and crime. He points out crime rates of illegal immigrants and Americans are not comparable and that every crime committed by an illegal immigrant is preventable and is a result of government policy.

Host

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

Guest

Balazs Orban is a member of the Hungarian Parliament and political director for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Related

Migration Research Institute

ECJ Fines Hungary for Violating Asylum Law

CIS Report on the Hungarian Border Fence

Hungary Rejects EU Migrant Quota in 2016

While Illegal Aliens Kill and Rape, Bogus Crime Comparisons Still Blunt Solutions

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, Dr. Ron Hira, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Howard University, joins guest host Steve Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research, to discuss the flaws in the U.S. guest worker programs and the myths of a STEM labor shortage.

Hira refutes the idea that guest worker programs are justified under the assumption that there is a shortage of STEM workers. He states, “There is no evidence to support that there is a generalized shortage of STEM workers.” Both Hira and Camarota highlight that wages in STEM fields have been stagnant or declining, indicating no shortage.

The discussion then moves to the exploitation within guest worker programs. Hira explains, “Guest workers are underpaid, exploited, and threatened, which harms U.S. workers competing with them.”  He points out that the Department of Labor sets lower minimum wages for H-1B workers and that the OPT program makes foreign workers cheaper by exempting them from payroll taxes, distorting the labor market.

Hira concludes, “There is clarity on what should be done, the question is whether you get an executive branch that will do anything about it.”

Highlights:

• Skills-based immigration is tilted towards temporary workers, not permanent workers.
• Many of these visa programs, H-1B in particular, are justified under the pretense that there is a shortage of STEM workers in the U.S. However, no evidence supports this claim.
• One of the long-term trends across the American economy has been that an ever-larger share of productivity gains has gone to firms – or to those who own capital – rather than workers.
• Guest-workers have fewer rights than American citizens and are thus subject to exploitation.
• The foreign-worker program called Optional Practical Training (OPT) exempts participants (recent graduates still here on student visas) and their employers from the payroll tax, making them 15.3 percent cheaper to hire than U.S. born students and laborers.
• H-1B is often sold as being for the “best and brightest” foreign nationals. However, applicants are selected randomly via a lottery, ensuring the selection of a large number of the mediocre and ordinary.

Host

Steven Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Guest

Dr. Ron Hira is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at Howard University.

Related

New evidence of widespread wage theft in the H-1B visa program

H1-B Visa Program: Myths and Needed Reforms

DOL Is Considering Allowing More Employers to Circumvent Protections for American Workers

Legal and Illegal Immigration: Understanding U.S. High-Skilled Immigration

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".

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

New Records: Biden DHS Has Approved Hundreds of Thousands of Migrants for Secretive Foreign Flights Directly into U.S. Airports

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".

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 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".

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".