The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
How Biden's Private Sponsorship Parole Policy Reduced Illegal Migration by Making the Legal Kind Easier
Biden extended the successful Uniting for Ukraine model to cover migrants from four Latin American nations with oppressive governments and horrible conditions, thereby greatly reducing illegal migration from those nations. This effect undercuts a lawsuit challenging the program, filed by twenty red states.

In early January, the Biden Administration extended the model used by the successful Uniting for Ukraine private migrant sponsorship program to include up to 30,000 migrants per month from four Latin American countries: Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Haiti. Under the program, migrants from these countries can quickly gain legal entry into the United States and the right to live and work here for up to two years, if they pass a background check and have a private sponsor in the US who commits to supporting them.
As in the case of Uniting for Ukraine, the main justification for this program is to grant refuge to people fleeing horrific violence, poverty, and oppression. Three of the four nations covered by the program are ruled by repressive socialist dictatorships, and the fourth (Haiti) suffers from horrific escalating violence and extreme poverty.
In a recent substack post, Cato Institute immigration analyst Alex Nowrasteh (one of the nation's leading immigration policy experts) describes how the program has a notable additional benefit. It greatly reduces illegal border crossings:
Encounters of migrants crossing the southwest (SW) border with Mexico are down 39 percent from December 2022 to February 2023. President Biden's immigration and border plan that expanded legal migration to the United States through humanitarian parole should take credit for this decline. Under Biden's plan, up to 30,000 migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti (VCNH migrants) are allowed to enter the United States legally each month through humanitarian parole. As a result, more of them are waiting to come legally rather than attempting to cross illegally.
In February 2023, the number of VCNH migrants encountered, found inadmissible by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or apprehended by Border Patrol decreased by 84 percent compared to December 2022. The number of VCNH migrants showing up at the border fell from 91,344 in December to 22,084 in January and then further down to 14,381 in February….
This trend supports Cato's theory that legal migration discourages illegal immigration and border crossings. Non-VCNH migrants who do not have the option of humanitarian parole fell by only 12.5 percent from 160,651 in December 2022 to 134,192 in January and rose again to 140,617 in February. Almost 80 percent of the total decline in encounters along the border from December to February comes from a reduction in VCNH migrants….
Biden's border plan reduced chaos along the Southwest land border in a short period. That's good for its own sake, helps clear the air for a serious immigration debate, and is politically astute for Biden, which means that the incentives for good policy are politically aligned and sustainable. Second, the Biden plan increases legal immigration when U.S. labor demand is still high. Third, it defunds criminal networks and cartels by channeling many migrants into the legal system and away from the black market.
For reasons Alex explains, the reduction in illegal crossing by VCNH country migrants cannot be explained by other factors. It is powerful evidence for the proposition that the easiest way to reduce illegal migration is to make the legal kind easier. This also, of course, has the effect of reducing disorder at the border, and curbing opportunities for organized crime.
In addition to the policy advantages noted in Alex's post, the reduction in illegal border crossings undercuts the rationale for the lawsuit challenging the program filed by twenty red states. As I explain here, the statute authorizing the president to use the "parole" power to let in migrants indicates that he may do so "on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit." Reducing illegal migration and disorder at the border qualifies as such a "significant public benefit." Or at least it does if you believe the leaders of the plaintiff states, who have long been loudly complaining about illegal border crossings, and claiming they constitute a major crisis.
For reasons laid out in my earlier post, it is also pretty obvious that there are compelling "humanitarian reasons" for paroling migrants from these four nations. On this point, too, you don't need to take my word. You can instead take that of the governors of some of the plaintiff states in the lawsuit:
Three of the four nations included in the program are ruled by oppressive socialist dictators, whose policies have created horrific conditions. Few have put it better than Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, whose state is one of the participants in lawsuit. As he said last year, Venezuela's socialist president Nicolas Maduro is a "murderous tyrant" who "is responsible for countless atrocities and has driven Venezuela into the ground." DeSantis went on to say that "people [in Venezuela] are "really hurting,"due to the government's policies. It is indeed true that Venezuelan socialism has resulted in widespread oppression, poverty, and hyperinflation, leading to the biggest refugee crisis in the history of the Western hemisphere, with some 6 million people fleeing. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, whose state is spearheading the lawsuit, has also noted the severe economic crisis in Venezuela, which he (rightly) blames on socialism.
In 2021, DeSantis signed a law requiring Florida public schools to provide 45 minutes of instruction each year on the evils of Communist regimes, including that of Cuba, which DeSantis correctly described as responsible for "poverty, starvation, migration, systemic lethal violence, and suppression of speech." Cuba, likewise, inflicts severe poverty and oppression on its people, including recent brutal suppression of protests in July 2021….
Nicaragua under the increasingly authoritarian socialist rule of Daniel Ortega is a similar story. Ortega's repression has deepened already severe poverty, and created what even the left-leaning BBC describes as an "atmosphere of terror…."
Abbott, DeSantis, and other GOP governors have repeatedly denounced both the evils of socialism generally, and those of the Cuban, Venezuelan, and Nicaraguan governments specifically.
But perhaps they have somehow forgotten these things. If so, DeSantis should invite his fellow GOP governors to sit in on one of the 45-minute classes on the evils of communism, established under the law he signed last year.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I’ll just point this isn’t really a very persuasive argument because it’s easentially circular. Legalizing anything tends to reduce illegal behavior by creating more legal behavior. We could get rid of illegal discrimination, date rape, murder, anything just by getting rid of the laws against it, and the reduction in criminal behavior would doubtless be accompanied by an increase in the legal kind. Perhaps even more will happen than when it was illegal.
But this is only a good thing if you come in already thinking that whatever it is should be legal to begin with, so prohibitions are simply converting otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals with no corresponding social benefit from reducing the behavior. If you think it causes no harm, of course legalization is better. But that’s kind of tautological. It’s circular reasoning. It’s not going to persuade anyone who comes in thinking it causes harm to change their views.
The easiest way to get rid of poverty is to set the poverty definition at $10.00 per year, including food from churches.
The analogy is flawed, in that illegal immigration is purely malum prohibitum, whereas the things you describe or not. We could make murder legal, but that would not reduce the number of murders — just the number of people prosecuted for it. But providing more pathways for legal immigration actually does reduce illegal immigration.
Most people who claim to be anti-illegal immigration — not the open bigots, but most of the rest — claim that what bothers them is the illegality, not the immigration. You can tell who's telling the truth by who complains about policies to make legal immigration easier.
I don’t understand your distinction. Legalizing murder would reduce illegal murders but not murder as a whole in exactly the same way as saying legalizing immigration would reduce illegal immigration but not immigration as a whole. Your use of Latin is just a fancy way of saying you think murder is “really” or inherently wrong but immigration isn’t. But why not just say that? Immigration isn’t wrong, therefore it should be legalized. And for the boundary case where the conduct is somewhat wrong but the cost of criminalizing exceeds the value of reducing its incidence, why not argue the cost/benefit issue explicitly? Professor Somin’s argument sounds nice, but doesn’t really say anything that could persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree with him.
As I’ve noted in the past, our era has seen judges who say sodomy is malum in se (hence advocating it is not protected by the First Amendment) and people who say discrimination against homosexuals is malum in se (hence condemning it is not protected by the First Amendment). Does the concept of malum in se survive such differences of opinion?
I'll bet if you declared shoplifting to no longer be a crime you could reduce rates of criminal theft as well.
It's not really better than Somin's usual repetitive take on immigration, but it is stupider, so it's got that going for it.
Which is nice.
Insulting Di Santis and Abbott and other GOP governors, good way to attract bipartisan support!
While the policy may be a good one on the merits, it is not lawful as a unilateral action of the executive using existing statutory authority. There is nothing "case-by-case" about a 30,000 per month allotment.
By Somin’s logic, couldn’t you completely get rid of all crime by abolishing all criminal laws?
“Yeah, there’s no such thing as a crime anymore, so the crime rate is 0% Yipee!”
Another rousing joint meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian Immigration Policies And Practices, Often Libertarians For Bigoted Immigration Policies And Practices, and Libertarianish For Un-American Immigration Policies And Practices, convened at a forum of faux libertarian right-wing xenophobes and sponsored by Incels R Us, the Federalist Society, and 1-800-CLINGERS.
Jerry Sandusky's motto "A man's behind is a terrible thing to waste"
Not having these programs would lead to a lot more misery for people stuck in places suffering from "horrific violence, poverty, and oppression". The benefits are explained in the post. Is there some twisted desire to inflict more cruelty on people?
Yes, Peoples living with the horrific violence, poverty, and Oppression in Chicago, Filthy-selphia, New Yawk, San Fran-siss-co, should be allowed to immigrate to the US, after proper background checks of course.
Is there some twisted desire to inflict more cruelty on people?
No, but there is a twisted desire to avoid stupid arguments like, "We should make types of Xing legal because doing so results in fewer incidents of illegal Xing."
Not really. The problem here is that the only benefits the US government is supposed to care about are benefits to US citizens. These people aren't US citizens.
As I've occasionally attempted to remind Ilya, while the Constitution doesn't enact Spencer's Social statistics, neither does it enact Rawls' A Theory of Justice. He's free to have a universalist ethic, but that doesn't mean the government must.
If Brett Bellmore got a time machine, he'd use it not to kill Hitler but to prevent the United States from entering World War II. A much darker take than "City on the Edge of Forever" even if the outcome is the same.
Great Episode, especially Kirk trying to explain Spock's pointy ears to a 1930's New Yawk Cop
"My friend... is obviously Chinese. I see you've noticed the ears. They're... actually easy to explain...
Spock: Perhaps the unfortunate accident I had as a child...
Capt. Kirk: ...the unfortunate accident he had as a child. He caught his head in a mechanical... rice picker... but, fortunately, there was an American missionary living close by who was actually a, uh, skilled, uh, plastic surgeon in civilian life..
and Joan Collins was easy on the eyes, might have got my first boner watching that episode,
Frank
Beautiful women in Star Trek: miniskirts, skimpy tops, getting it on with Captain Kirk and other officers ... and the one that gets Frank hard is the one who dresses like his mother.
Prof. Somin isn’t arguing any of this is compelled. Only hat it is good policy.
I see the benefits in being able to vet and regularize a larger number of our immigrants.
[Citation needed.]
Yeah, that Haiti/US Border is a tough one, long swim.
No, Biden didn’t reduce illegal immigration. He caused it to skyrocket. His administration waved them in like a frantic third base coach, and they did it by the millions.
Don’t point to a few months of seasonal variance and tell us there’s been a reduction. Biden broke new records on illegal immigration, and then broke his own records again, month after month after month. Zoom out and let’s see the chart since 2008 or more.
Any source for this? Because I’m pretty sure we can’t know this.
Is your source your own partisanship and nativist bigotry?
Newsflash: burglars won't break into your house if you let them in and give them your stuff first.