By Andres Teixeira '26
For many Americans, there seems to be a clearly defined notion of a “correct” way and an “incorrect” way to immigrate. The legal way, as most would agree, involves proper inspection, documentation, and adherence to the laws put forward by the federal government, while the wrong way is any entrance to this country without inspection or documentation. This dichotomous thinking starts to blur when people who have entered this country illegally do all of the “right” things after their entry: they work hard, pay their taxes, stay out of legal trouble, start a family, and become successful. Even though they got here through unauthorized means, they have been exemplary people since and achieved some version of the American dream.
However, due to the current laws under the Immigration and Nationality Act, there is no way for these immigrants to adjust their legal status while staying in the country. (1) Even if they married an American citizen and their children were American citizens, they would not be able to legitimize themselves in the eyes of the government and become legal residents without leaving their family behind for 10 years. They would need to leave the United States, where they have lived for years and where they have a family and home, to live in their home country for a decade before applying for residency through a U.S. consulate. (2) While this may seem like a relatively niche position to be in, an estimated 550,000 immigrants in this country fit that description. (3) This seems counterintuitive to what our immigration policies are trying to achieve. There was no remedy to this until President Biden and the Department of Homeland Security created a new program: Parole in Place, or the Keeping Families Together program.
The Keeping Families Together program would essentially allow these immigrants to request “parole in place” and apply to adjust their status to that of a permanent resident, without having to leave the country for 10 years. (4) The use of “parole” in immigration is very different from its use in criminal law; parole in immigration law is used by the Department of Homeland Security to grant entry to undocumented immigrants into the country for a limited amount of time while their cases are being reviewed, without formally admitting them. (5) Usually, this parole is only used for urgent humanitarian reasons and on a limited case-by-case basis, but the Keeping Families Together program would make an estimated half a million immigrants eligible to remain in the country instead of having to leave their families for a decade. (6)
This program is not intended to grant everybody access, as it has strict eligibility requirements: one must 1) have been continuously living in the United States since June of 2014, 2) be married or be the stepchild to a U.S. citizen, and 3) not have any history of criminal misconduct. (7) The entire process requires an extensive application to demonstrate that one satisfies these criteria, as well as a $580 filing fee, and there is no guarantee that one’s application will be approved. (8) This is not an attempt to let anyone circumvent the normal immigration process, but rather a methodically planned alternative to separating immigrants from their families for an extended period of time.
Unfortunately, this program was challenged in court after only a week of its existence, and its fate is now in limbo. A lawsuit was filed by 17 states, led by Texas and including Florida, that alleges that the Keeping Families Together is incentivizing illegal immigration and that it is unlawful action by the Department of Homeland Security and President Biden. (9) Judge J. Campbell Barker of the Eastern District of Texas issued an administrative stay in the case, meaning that no applications can be approved until the matter is resolved, but they could still be received while the lawsuit is pending. (10) As of now, the process is still frozen. Another issue is the $580 application fee; there is no assurance that applicants will get their fee refunded if they apply in this period of administrative stay, which could discourage new applicants. (11) A bench trial to determine the legality of the program has been set for November 8th, and the administrative stay has been extended until at least November 11th. (12)
Ultimately, this case will be decided based on whether the 17 plaintiff states can show evidence that they will suffer severe economic damages from the implementation of this program. (13) There is no statute to support the creation of Keeping Families Together, so a show of actual injury by these states may be enough to jeopardize the program. (14) The Attorneys General of those states feel confident they can do so, and the original complaint already lists statistics to attempt to support the claim of economic strain on these states. (15)
Keeping Families Together should be implemented, as it does not incentivize undocumented entry into the United States or economically harm the plaintiffs as they claim in their lawsuit. (16) This program only reviews the applications of immigrants that have continuously lived in the United States for the last 10 years and are married to or the stepchild of a U.S. citizen. This is a much more narrow criteria than most undocumented immigrants fit, yet many of the states in the lawsuit claim that every undocumented immigrant in their state would be eligible. Additionally, this program would only grant eligibility to people that have been living in the United States since June of 2014, meaning that there would be no incentive for new immigrants to enter the country without inspection, contrary to what the plaintiffs have also claimed in the lawsuit.
Each plaintiff state enumerated several reasons why this program would irreparably damage their states, but most inconsistent with the reality of the program. For example, Texas, Idaho, and Missouri are claiming that the authorization of this program would make more undocumented immigrants eligible for work authorization, which would take jobs from U.S. citizens and lower their wages. (17) This is illogical, however, as all of the eligible immigrants are already employed as a result of living in the United States for over 10 years. There would be no significant change to the job market in these areas because this program would not bring in additional immigrants to the country, but rather allow immigrants who already reside here to adjust their status without leaving the country. Tennessee and Florida are claiming that since they already spend thousands of dollars every year on students regardless of immigration status, they will be required to allocate even more money on students as a result of the program. (18) Again, this is not expected as a result of Keeping Families Together because this program will not increase the amount of immigrants currently in the United States.
Every plaintiff state is making the same claim that the amount of money they spend on emergency healthcare for the undocumented immigrants in their states will increase after the implementation of Keeping Families Together. (19) There is no evidence to back this, just as there is no evidence that this program will increase future undocumented immigration. Because this program only allows for the adjustment of status for immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2014, there is no correlation between Keeping Families Together and an increase in undocumented immigration.
The only purpose Keeping Families Together is trying to accomplish is its namesake: keeping these eligible families together by fixing this defect in our current immigration policies. These families make up a small fraction of the total population of immigrants in our country, and this program would simply ensure that they do not have to return to their home country for 10 years, away from their families, their businesses, and their community ties, to become legal residents of the United States.
Endnotes
Maximiliano Gluzman, "Parole in Place as a Solution for the Immigration Status of Immediate Relatives of US Citizens," John's L. Rev. 96 (2022): 921.
Ibid.
“Keeping Families Together,” USCIS, September 24, 2024. https://www.uscis.gov/keepingfamiliestogether.
“Latest Updates on Parole in Place (Keeping Families Together) for Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens,” ILRC, September 11, 2024. https://www.ilrc.org/resources/latest-on-parole-in-place.
George Fishman, "The Pernicious Perversion of Parole," Center for Immigration Studies, 2022.
“Keeping Families Together,” USCIS, September 24 ,2024. https://www.uscis.gov/keepingfamiliestogether.
Ibid.
Ibid.
State of Texas et al., v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al., Case 6:24-cv-00306 Document 1, https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/Parole-in-Place-Complaint-Filed.pdf.
State of Texas et al., v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al., Case 6:24-cv-00306 Document 24, https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/Parole-in-Place-Complaint-Filed.pdf.
Andrew R. Arthur, “Federal Judge Temporarily Stays Biden-Harris ‘parole in Place’ Amnesty,” CIS.org, 2024. https://cis.org/Arthur/Federal-Judge-Temporarily-Stays-BidenHarris-Parole-Place-Amnesty.
“Latest Updates on Parole in Place (Keeping Families Together) for Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens,” ILRC, September 11, 2024. https://www.ilrc.org/resources/latest-on-parole-in-place.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jake Campbell, "Judge Temporarily Pauses Parole in Place Program for Undocumented Spouses and Stepchildren," Newstex Blogs JD Supra, 2024. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a6CVG-CNG1-F03R-N2PX-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=8XHCHK54812.
Andrew R. Arthur, “Federal Judge Temporarily Stays Biden-Harris ‘parole in Place’ Amnesty,” CIS.org, August 28, 2024. https://cis.org/Arthur/Federal-Judge-Temporarily-Stays-BidenHarris-Parole-Place-Amnesty.
State of Texas et al., v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al., Case 6:24-cv-00306 Document 1, https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/Parole-in-Place-Complaint-Filed.pdf
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Comentários