In current testimony earlier than the Home Subcommittees on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability and Border Safety and Enforcement, of the Committee on Homeland Safety, my Cato Institute colleague David Bier introduced a robust protection of the legality, justice, and effectiveness of immigration “parole applications,” which permit broad classes of migrants fleeing warfare and oppression to enter the US legally. As he describes, there’s a lengthy historical past of such applications, most not too long ago these created by President Biden for migrants from Ukraine fleeing Russian invasion (the Uniting for Ukraine program), and 4 Latin American nations beset by violence and socialist tyranny (the CHNV program).
David is without doubt one of the nation’s main immigration coverage consultants, and his testimony is must-reading for anybody on this problem. Here’s a abstract:
One authorized means for immigrants to enter and take part in US society is parole, an immigration class first created by Congress within the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Over the a long time since then, thousands and thousands of people have entered this nation as parolees. Though parole is a brief standing, it permits immigrants to regulate to lawful everlasting residence if they’re eligible via one other pathway, which many hundreds of parolees have performed. Many former parolees at the moment are People and proceed to contribute to their new residence. It’s a vital and necessary function of America’s authorized immigration system.
Congress ought to:
- defend present parolees from the president’s mass deportation efforts;
- reinstitute the parole processes suspended by the president; and
- develop these processes to present extra folks a viable authorized choice to immigrate legally to the US.
David explains some great benefits of these applications, and ably addresses quite a lot of authorized and coverage objections.
I’ve defended the legality of CHNV in a Supreme Court docket amicus brief, and in an earlier amicus transient in Texas v. Division of Homeland Safety, a lawsuit filed by twenty GOP-controlled states (that case was finally dismissed by a conservative Trump-appointed federal choose for lack of standing). I additionally defended it in a 2023 article in The Hill, and criticized Trump’s makes an attempt to revoke it in a March 2025 publish.
See additionally my varied writings on the success of Uniting for Ukraine and what we are able to study from it.
In current testimony earlier than the Home Subcommittees on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability and Border Safety and Enforcement, of the Committee on Homeland Safety, my Cato Institute colleague David Bier introduced a robust protection of the legality, justice, and effectiveness of immigration “parole applications,” which permit broad classes of migrants fleeing warfare and oppression to enter the US legally. As he describes, there’s a lengthy historical past of such applications, most not too long ago these created by President Biden for migrants from Ukraine fleeing Russian invasion (the Uniting for Ukraine program), and 4 Latin American nations beset by violence and socialist tyranny (the CHNV program).
David is without doubt one of the nation’s main immigration coverage consultants, and his testimony is must-reading for anybody on this problem. Here’s a abstract:
One authorized means for immigrants to enter and take part in US society is parole, an immigration class first created by Congress within the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Over the a long time since then, thousands and thousands of people have entered this nation as parolees. Though parole is a brief standing, it permits immigrants to regulate to lawful everlasting residence if they’re eligible via one other pathway, which many hundreds of parolees have performed. Many former parolees at the moment are People and proceed to contribute to their new residence. It’s a vital and necessary function of America’s authorized immigration system.
Congress ought to:
- defend present parolees from the president’s mass deportation efforts;
- reinstitute the parole processes suspended by the president; and
- develop these processes to present extra folks a viable authorized choice to immigrate legally to the US.
David explains some great benefits of these applications, and ably addresses quite a lot of authorized and coverage objections.
I’ve defended the legality of CHNV in a Supreme Court docket amicus brief, and in an earlier amicus transient in Texas v. Division of Homeland Safety, a lawsuit filed by twenty GOP-controlled states (that case was finally dismissed by a conservative Trump-appointed federal choose for lack of standing). I additionally defended it in a 2023 article in The Hill, and criticized Trump’s makes an attempt to revoke it in a March 2025 publish.
See additionally my varied writings on the success of Uniting for Ukraine and what we are able to study from it.
