Texas and other GOP states sue DHS over new immigration initiative

Sixteen states, under Republican leadership, have initiated a lawsuit aimed at halting a federal program that could provide nearly half a million undocumented immigrants married to U.S. citizens with a potential path to citizenship.

The coalition, spearheaded by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, filed the legal action on Friday against a program introduced by President Biden in June. The lawsuit asserts that the Biden administration circumvented Congress to create what it describes as a pathway to citizenship driven by “blatant political purposes.”

According to the lawsuit, “This action incentivizes illegal immigration and will irreparably harm the Plaintiff states.”

The new policy, which started accepting applications on Monday, allows many undocumented spouses to apply for a status referred to as “parole in place.” This status grants them permission to remain in the U.S., apply for a green card, and ultimately pursue citizenship.

The initiative has stirred significant controversy, especially within the context of an election year where immigration remains a pivotal issue. Many Republicans have criticized the policy, claiming it amounts to amnesty for individuals who have broken immigration laws.

In a statement issued on Friday, Paxton condemned the plan, stating it “violates the Constitution,” and contributes to the ongoing illegal immigration crisis impacting Texas and the broader United States.

The lawsuit targets the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and other officials in the Biden administration, accusing them of attempting to parole spouses “en masse,” which the state officials argue is an abuse of their authority.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody expressed her discontent on social media, stating her state is challenging the “parole in place” policy because she believes the Biden administration is “illegally using ‘parole’ in a systematic way to advance their open-borders agenda.”

A spokesperson for the White House responded to the lawsuit, asserting that the administration would “vigorously defend” the new policy. The spokesperson criticized Republican officials for prioritizing political games over the needs of American families and the need to rectify the country’s immigration challenges.

The spokesperson further insisted that this lawsuit unfairly forces U.S. citizens and their families to “continue to live in the shadows,” despite the program seeking to support them.

Meanwhile, a DHS spokesperson defended the policy, emphasizing that it is “grounded in well-established legal authority,” and that its goal is to allow families of U.S. citizens to live without the fear of separation. This goal aligns with core American values, according to the spokesperson.

To be eligible for the program, immigrants must have resided continuously in the U.S. for at least ten years, have no security threats or disqualifying criminal records, and must have been married to a U.S. citizen by June 17, which is the day prior to the program’s announcement.

Applicants are required to pay a fee of $580 and complete an extensive application process that needs to include an explanation justifying their request for humanitarian parole, along with a comprehensive array of supporting documents to verify their duration of stay in the country.

Applications are submitted to the DHS, and if approved, individuals will have three years to pursue permanent residency, during which time they can also obtain work authorization. The administration estimates that approximately 500,000 individuals could qualify for the program, along with an additional 50,000 of their children.

The DHS agency announced it would continue to accept and process applications, despite the legal challenges. Prior to the introduction of this program, those who were in the U.S. illegally faced complex hurdles in obtaining green cards after marrying American citizens. Many had to return to their home countries for extended periods, facing substantial uncertainty about their ability to re-enter the U.S.