In a bewildering turn of events, nearly two dozen states governed by Republicans have thrown their weight behind Florida’s legal challenge against a Biden administration policy. This controversial policy, which permitted the release of migrants into the interior of the United States without the requirement of court dates, had been blocked mere hours prior to the expiration of the Title 42 public health order.
Expressing their deep concerns, the 23 states, spearheaded by Virginia, ardently asserted that the administration’s wholesale granting of parole to aliens flagrantly violates established federal immigration law. Furthermore, they contend that such actions constitute a dereliction of duty on the part of the government to safeguard the integrity of the nation’s borders. This provocative statement was included in an amicus brief submitted earlier this week.
The enigmatic policy, known as “parole with conditions,” was meticulously delineated in a memorandum released on May 10, sending shockwaves throughout the political landscape. Its publication coincided ominously with the impending expiration of Title 42. Essentially, the policy outlined the circumstances under which migrants could be granted entry into the country through parole—a measure traditionally reserved for cases of utmost urgency relating to humanitarian crises or when there is a discernible public benefit. This concession was made in response to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confronting overwhelming levels of overcrowding.
Under the auspices of this policy, released migrants were mandatorily required to arrange appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or submit a formal request for a Notice to Appear via postal service. The utilization of parole was explicitly permitted when sector capacities surpassed an alarming threshold of 125%, when an astounding 7,000 apprehensions occurred within a 72-hour period, or when the average duration of detainment exceeded a distressing 60 hours.
Amidst a landscape of perplexing complexities, the adoption of the policy occurred at a time when authorities were grappling with the staggering influx of over 10,000 migrants per day, just days before the termination of the Title 42 public health order. Since the conclusion of the order, the number of migrants encountered has witnessed a significant decline. As revealed in a court filing, the administration disclosed that nearly 9,000 migrants had been released under the policy during its active period.
Swiftly responding to this contentious development, the state of Florida promptly filed a lawsuit, resulting in the subsequent blocking of the policy on May 11. The presiding judge, acknowledging the striking similarities between this policy and a previously blocked policy from March, rendered a preliminary injunction, effectively halting its implementation while the legal proceedings unfold.
While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expressed its intention to comply with the court’s ruling, it deemed the decision as detrimental, warning of the potential repercussions that may ensue. The agency cautioned that such a halt in the policy’s execution could lead to hazardous overcrowding within Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities, impairing the efficiency of migrant processing and removal. Moreover, it posited that Border Patrol agents and migrants themselves might be subjected to perilous conditions.
As the case progresses, the coalition of 23 states rallies behind the lawsuit, providing a supporting amicus brief and cautioning about the detrimental effects that would befall the states should the policy be permitted to resume. They argue that the wholesale parole of aliens on a large scale imposes an insurmountable financial burden on the states, encompassing escalating expenses related to education, law enforcement, and emergency medical care. Additionally, they contend that such actions pose a grave threat to public infrastructure and undermine the states’ capacity to deliver essential services to their own citizens.
Furthermore, the amicus brief attributes the ongoing migrant crisis to the administration’s policies, holding them responsible for exacerbating severe problems associated with transnational crime. They point to the smuggling of Chinese-manufactured fentanyl, responsible for the tragic loss of over 100,000 American lives annually, as well as the prevalence of human trafficking and the exploitation of minors. In their view, the failure of the administration to enforce federal immigration laws and secure the border has inflicted severe and irreparable harm upon the states. Thus, they advocate for upholding the district court’s order, which enjoins the administration’s unlawful policy, as the litigation proceeds.
This legal battle represents just one facet of the administration’s multifaceted challenges on the immigration front. It faces additional legal disputes from both left and right, targeting its asylum rule aimed at restricting eligibility for asylum claims at the southern border.
Despite these mounting challenges, the administration highlights a noteworthy 70% decrease in encounters at the border following the termination of Title 42. Simultaneously, it calls upon Republicans in Congress to allocate more funding and to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
