In a collective response to the Biden administration’s immigration policy, 23 Republican-led states have supported Florida’s legal objection. The policy in question allowed migrants to be freed into the U.S. without the requisite court dates. This was, however, blocked mere hours before Title 42, a public health order, was due to expire.
Leading the charge, the state of Virginia, along with the others, expressed their protest in an amicus brief submitted recently. According to them, the administration’s indiscriminate release of aliens breaches federal immigration law and signifies a neglect of duty in securing national borders.
The controversial policy, titled “parole with conditions,” was defined in a memo dated May 10, just before the termination of Title 42. It described how migrants could be granted parole into the country. This privilege is typically conferred for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit” when Customs and Border Protection (CBP) faces overcrowding issues.
Migrants set free under this policy were expected to schedule a meeting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or request a Notice to Appear by mail. Parole authorization was valid if the sector capacity exceeded 125%, if there was a daily arrest of 7,000 over 72 hours, or if the average detention time surpassed 60 hours.
The policy was implemented during a period of high migrant influx, with daily counts exceeding 10,000 just before Title 42’s expiration. However, post the order’s termination, the numbers have reduced. The administration stated in a court order that nearly 9,000 migrants were set free while the policy was operational.
Florida filed a lawsuit against the policy, which resulted in a block on May 11. The judge consented to the argument that the policy bore a significant resemblance to another policy previously blocked by the same judge in March. The judge has now provisionally approved an injunction against the policy as the case progresses.
Despite complying with the court’s decision, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) criticized the ruling, cautioning that it could lead to dangerous overcrowding at CBP facilities. The ruling could also compromise the ability to effectively process and remove migrants, potentially risking the safety of Border Patrol agents and migrants alike.
The states also attributed the ongoing migrant crisis to the administration’s policies: “In brief, the administration’s neglect to enforce federal immigration law and secure the border has caused significant and irreparable damage to the states supporting the amicus brief. The district court’s order blocking the administration’s illegal policy should remain effective as the case continues.”
This legal tug-of-war is only one of several that the administration currently deals with regarding immigration. It is also confronted with legal opposition from both the left and the right regarding its asylum rule, which seeks to restrict who can claim asylum at the southern border.
Despite these hurdles, the administration highlights a 70% decrease in border encounters since the end of Title 42. Simultaneously, it is calling upon Republican members of Congress to increase funding and pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.