Introduction:
Sixteen Republican-led states have filed a lawsuit to end a federal program launched by President Joe Biden in June. The program could potentially provide a path to citizenship for almost half a million immigrants without legal status who are married to U.S. citizens. The states argue that the Biden administration bypassed Congress to create this pathway and that it incentivizes illegal immigration. This contentious program has become a focal point in the immigration debate during an election year.
1. The Lawsuit and Political Motives:
The coalition of states filed the lawsuit in federal court in Tyler, Texas, accusing the Biden administration of creating the program for “blatant political purposes.” They argue that it incentivizes illegal immigration and will harm the plaintiff states. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated that the plan violates the Constitution and worsens the illegal immigration crisis. The states are also requesting the program to be put on hold while the lawsuit proceeds.
2. Challenging the Parole-in-Place Policy:
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody stated that her state is challenging the parole-in-place policy because she believes the Biden administration is using “parole” as a means to advance their open-borders agenda. The conservative nonprofit America First Legal, led by former adviser to President Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, is co-counsel in the lawsuit. The states argue that the Department of Homeland Security is abusing its power by attempting to parole spouses “en masse.”
3. Defense of the Program:
The Department of Homeland Security, represented by spokesperson Mayra Alejandra, plans to defend the Keeping Families Together program in court. Alejandra states that the program is grounded in well-established legal authority and aligns with American values. White House spokesperson Angelo Fernández Hernández fired back, accusing Republicans of playing politics and perpetuating family separation. Fernández emphasized that the lawsuit seeks to force U.S. citizens and their families, who have lived in the United States for over ten years, to continue living in the shadows.
4. Response from Advocacy Groups:
The bipartisan immigration and criminal justice organization FWD.us argues that the program is compliant with the law. They criticize the lawsuit as an attempt to tear families apart and cater to anti-immigrant sentiments. Karen Tumlin, founder and director of the Justice Action Center, expressed disappointment and called the legal challenge cruel. She emphasized that, for now, the program remains open and accepting applications.
5. Eligibility and Process:
To be eligible for the program, immigrants must have continuously lived in the U.S. for at least ten years, not pose a security threat or have a disqualifying criminal history, and have been married to a citizen by June 17. The application process requires a $580 fee and a lengthy application with supporting documents. If approved, applicants have three years to seek permanent residency and can obtain work authorization during this period. The administration estimates that around 500,000 people and 50,000 of their children could be eligible.
6. Impact on Mixed-Status Families and States:
Before this program, it was challenging for undocumented immigrants to obtain a green card after marrying a U.S. citizen. They often faced the risk of being unable to reenter the country. The lawsuit argues that states will bear the burden of additional immigrants staying in the country. Texas, for example, spends significant resources on health insurance for children, including those without legal status. The lawsuit claims that increased immigration leads to higher crime rates, unemployment, environmental harm, and social disorder. Additionally, the lawsuit suggests that additional workers with work authorization will drive down wages for Texas residents.
Conclusion:
The lawsuit filed by sixteen Republican-led states challenges the federal program launched by President Joe Biden, which provides a potential pathway to citizenship for immigrants without legal status who are married to U.S. citizens. The program has sparked intense debate during an election year, with Republicans criticizing it as amnesty and the Biden administration defending it as a means of keeping families together. Advocacy groups argue that the program is lawful and necessary, while the states claim that it incentivizes illegal immigration and burdens their resources. The outcome of the lawsuit remains uncertain, but for now, the program continues to accept applications.
