Cato Institute challenges termination of CHNV immigration parole in Supreme Court

In early 2023, the United States Department of Homeland Security introduced a humanitarian parole program for citizens of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. This program allowed eligible individuals to request two years of humanitarian parole if sponsored by someone legally present in the United States, aiming to address urgent needs for assistance due to violence, oppression, and economic hardship in their home countries. The program was modeled after the Uniting for Ukraine initiative, which had previously proven effective, but was limited to a monthly cap of 30,000 parolees. Recently, the Trump Administration announced intentions to terminate this parole program, putting approximately 500,000 legal immigrants at risk of deportation back to their home countries, which are experiencing significant crises. Proponents of the parole program, including the Cato Institute, argue that its termination would not only jeopardize these individuals but also create a burden on the southern border of the United States by failing to address these humanitarian issues. They assert that the government's claim of the CHNV program being illegal is unfounded. The amicus brief filed by the Cato Institute provides a historical perspective on categorical parole programs in the United States, detailing how similar initiatives have been sustained since the Eisenhower Administration. These programs have facilitated the legal entry of countless migrants in times of need. The brief underscores that individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela have legitimate humanitarian reasons for seeking refuge in the United States due to the dire conditions in their countries, dominated by violence and oppressive governments. Moreover, the brief articulates that termination of the CHNV program could have wider implications, potentially undermining protection for over 100,000 parolees under the Uniting for Ukraine program, which also relies on similar legal histories. As the court case unfolds, the arguments surrounding the legality and implications of this program could significantly influence immigration policy and the treatment of individuals fleeing from oppression.