The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My New "The Hill" Article on Dubious Lawsuit Challenging Immigration Parole Program for Migrants Fleeing Socialism, Oppression, and Violence in Four Latin American Nations
The case was filed by 20 red states seeking to dismantle the CNVH program extending the successful Uniting for Ukraine policy to migrants fleeing Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Haiti.

Today The Hill published my article on Texas v. Department of Homeland Security, a case challenging the legality of the CNVH immigration parole program. Here is an excerpt:
Judge Drew Tipton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas is in the process of considering an important immigration lawsuit that could have tragic effects if the plaintiffs prevail. The trial, which ran between Aug. 24 and 25, involves an ill-conceived lawsuit brought by Texas and nineteen other GOP-controlled state governments attempting to shut down an immigration policy that simultaneously rescues people fleeing violence and oppression and relieves pressure on the southern border. Ironically, statements by the plaintiff states' own leaders show why they deserve to lose.
In January, the Biden administration expanded the approach used by the successful Uniting for Ukraine private migrant sponsorship program to include a combined total of up to 30,000 migrants per month from four Latin American countries: Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Haiti…
The legal basis for these private sponsorship programs is the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which…. gives the Department of Homeland Security the power to use "parole" to grant foreign citizens temporary residency rights in the United States "on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit." Here, we have both "urgent humanitarian reasons" and "significant public benefit."
The humanitarian need is undeniable. Three of the four nations included in the program — Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela — are ruled by oppressive socialist dictators, whose policies have created horrific conditions. Few have put it better than Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), whose state is one of the plaintiffs in the present case.
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." Venezuelan oppression and socialist economic policies have created the biggest refugee crisis in the history of the Western hemisphere….
In 2021, DeSantis rightly described Cuba's communist regime as responsible for "poverty, starvation, migration, systemic lethal violence, and suppression of speech…."
The CNVH program also creates a significant "public benefit." In December, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sent a public letter to President Biden urging him to immediately address what he called a "terrible crisis for border communities."
CNVH parole does exactly that. Many of the migrants seeking entry at the border came from the four nations covered by program. Parole enables them to instead enter with advance authorization by ship or plane, and thereby bypass the border entirely, thus alleviating the "crisis" of which Abbot complained. A report by the conservative Manhattan Institute finds that "[t]he CHNV parole program…. has reduced combined illegal immigration by more than 98,000 immigrants per month…."
If the states prevail in this case, it will have dire consequences going far beyond the CNVH program. It would also imperil Uniting for Ukraine, which relies on the same authority, and has granted entry to some 140,000 Ukrainians fleeing Russia's war of aggression.
In addition, it would make it difficult or impossible for presidents to use parole to aid migrants fleeing future wars and repressive regimes. This harms both migrants unable to escape awful conditions, and the U.S. economy… It also undermines the U.S. position in the international war of ideas of against oppressive dictatorships, like those of Cuba, Russia and Venezuela.
Welcoming migrants fleeing their governments is a powerful signal of the superiority of ours. Conservatives understood this point during the Cold War, when they supported the use of this same parole power to grant entry to Hungarian, Cuban, Vietnamese and other refugees from communism.
The article is partly based on an amicus brief I filed in the case on behalf of the Cato Institute, MedGlobal (a humanitarian medical organization), and myself.
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
"Pressure on the southern border" is exactly why this should NOT be done -- and instead why we should patrol that border with A-10s shooting to kill.
This is extortion Ilya, and nothing less -- "let us in or we'll come in anyway" -- well a sovereign nation has the right (I'd argue duty) to respond with lethal force.
The one -- the ONLY question is "how does the US benefit if we let these people in" -- and deflating the wages of the Black working class does not benefit the US.
We let you in Ilya, and instead of thanking us, you now DEMAND that we let everyone else in too. Maybe we should send you home...
"Conservatives understood this point during the Cold War, when they supported the use of this same parole power to grant entry to Hungarian, Cuban, Vietnamese and other refugees from communism."
It would actually help if you learned a little bit of US history. First, the Cold War was fought against the Soviet Union, with everyone else being one of their proxy states. (People forget that South Africa was one of ours.)
We let the Hungarians in AFTER THE PRAGUE SPRING, BECAUSE WE KNEW THEY OTHERWISE WOULD BE EXECUTED. Executed, Ilya, not just fleeing a government that sucked.
We let the Vietnamese in AFTER SAIGON FELL, BECAUSE WE KNEW THEY OTHERWISE WOULD BE EXECUTED. Executed, Ilya, not just fleeing a government that sucked.
Ilya, if you knew a scintilla of 20th Century history, you'd understand that the Vietnamese (and Hmong) we let in had supported us in the war and hence would be executed.
As to Cuba, that was a Kennedy clusterfuck all around.
But the cold war ended 32 years ago....
Remember that whenever Dr. Ed says "People forget X," 100% of the time X is either (a) something that absolutely nobody has forgotten; or (b) something that isn't true at all.
And, of course, it would help if Dr. Ed knew anything about history.
My bad -- I confused the Budapest Fall of 1956 with the Prague
Spring of 1968. Both were crushed with Soviet tanks and both had people fleeing lest they be executed.
Both situations were vastly different from folks leaving countries where the economy sucks.
Doesn't matter. There is no possible historical context, true or false, that would justify summarily executing people as a matter of policy. Ed advocates for evil; any excuse he offers is irrelevant.
Bottom line: we either have a border which we enforce through progressive means including (finally) the use of deadly force or we have no border. If we have no border, we cease to be a sovereign nation.
Drawing a line and saying “we will shoot you if you cross this line” is not summary execution. We are being INVADED just like Rome was, and if we don’t repel this invasion, our fate will be the same as Romes. Except I don’t want to think of the consequences of a Dark Age in the era of nuculear weaponry.
To say that a sovereign nation enforcing its borders is evil is asinine.
Apparently Dr. Ed's answer to "Should we commit genocide?" is "How does it benefit the U.S. if we don't?"
What Nimrod fails to understand is (first) it won't be genocide to kill a few hundred trespassers because that is all it will take for EVERYONE to realize "Gringo is serious" and (second) it is the Brandon Administration's opening the border that has created this mess.
It wouldn't even take shooting -- or housing them in inhumane conditions -- if it were KNOWN that 100% of them would be returned, it would be the end of the attempts. If we had another of Eisenhower's Operation Wet Back and simply dumped them on the beach, it would work.
"I would stop at mass murder; I wouldn't go all the way to genocide. Probably." -- Dr. Ed.
A nation defending its borders is not murder. Murder, by definition, is killing not prescribed by law.
I'd love to see him on the bombing of Dresden...
Dresden was a reasonable military target, even if the attack was poorly targeted and is criticized now based on information only available later. There are too many civilians killed on both sides in war as collateral damage, which is indeed a bad thing. Ideally, we would avoid unnecessary war and, when unavoidable, limit civilian deaths as much as possible.
How does this compare to murdering non-combatants in a non-war simply in order to terrorize other non-combatants?
No one flees Socialism Ilya! Socialism is beautiful and produces high quality of life, just ask the Democrats.
I don't understand why these people are coming to a racist hellhole like America when Mexico is right there.
Good point. Why would you want to live in a majority white (for now) nation when you can live in a place like Mexico brimming with vibrant mestizo culture.
Mexico would probably expect some gratitude for having providing the refuge while the stupid Gringo will give you everything no matter how badly you treat him.
Ma Gov Maura Healey is calling out the National Guard to provide "services" to the 6000 illegal aliens whom we are providing free hotel rooms to.
I understand why they laugh at the Gringo...
This would be the same Cuba they (correctly) got bent out of shape over with Elian Gonzales. And the same Cuba the left wanted to ship him back to.
"Dear God, please smear this worthless planet. Amen."
"Welcoming migrants fleeing their governments is a powerful signal of the superiority of ours."
If only even a majority of these migrants were moving for such a reason and knew why. Instead, supermajorities are coming for money from the sky and want a new socialist dictator in charge here.
supermajorities are coming for money from the sky
Any proof for this claim, or are you just a bigot?
want a new socialist dictator in charge here
Just a bigot then.
Bigotry is a bad thing?
The comedy stylings of Dr. Ed, folks!
Other than Cubans in Florida, which refugee group does not support the socialist party in the US?
Don't know and I don't care.
Taking individuals and treating badly them based on group generalizations is bigotry.
So you have an ideological commitment to a future socialist dictator in the US?
An example of the "We Deserve It" sense of entitlement in the 3rd World -- Western nations send (largely for free) bales of used clothing to Africa because we are trying to be nice to the people who live there. 60% of it is stuff that people want to wear and local Africans sell it to them, and 40% of it is stuff that people don't want to wear because it is stained or torn or something (heaven forbid one wear stained clothes around the house...).
So instead of figuring out how to cart the 40% off to the dump -- or, perish the thought, remanufacturing it into something useful like mops or rope -- or burning it to produce electricity -- they simply dump it on the ground where it eventually washes out to sea.
Last I checked, Ghana is a sovereign nation (with borders), it doesn't have to let the bales of used clothing into its country, nor does it have to tolerate it's own citizens dumping the ones they don't want on the ground. Ghana could theoretically shoot people for dumping piles of unwanted clothing on the ground -- Singapore (another sovereign nation) well might, particularly when you consider their punishment for dropping chewing gum on the ground...
HOW THE HELL IS THE WEST RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?!?!?!?
They are able to use 60% of it, but instead of saying "thank you" to the West, they have their hands out demanding reparations.
This is the problem with the illegal aliens -- not that they are illegal but that they have this same sense of entitlement.
https://www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/rags-not-riches-ghana-drowns-in-western-castoffs?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
“Why don’t Africans summarily execute people for littering like they do in civilized countries?”
You can’t make this shit up.
Isn't there a Temporary Protected Status law which can be used for this purpose?