House Homeland Security subcommittees examine alleged mass abuse of immigration parole

WASHINGTON — The House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability and its Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement held a joint hearing to examine what lawmakers and some witnesses described as the Biden administration’s ‘‘abuse of immigration parole’’ and to discuss legislative options to limit future use.

At the hearing, Chairman Michael Guest, chairman of the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement, said the prior administration ‘‘exceedingly expanded existing parole programs’’ and used tools such as the CBP‑1 appointment system to admit large numbers of noncitizens into the interior. Guest said that, according to committee findings, the CBP‑1 process ‘‘was used in a manner never authorized by Congress to create a fast track pathway for parole into the interior of the country’’ and that those appointments resulted in nearly 1,000,000 entries via that channel.

Why it matters: Parole is a limited authority in immigration law that, since changes enacted in 1996, is supposed to be used on a ‘‘case‑by‑case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,’’ witnesses and some members said. Republican members and two expert witnesses argued that the prior administration expanded parole into programmatic uses that overwhelmed vetting and removal processes and produced long‑term fiscal and safety consequences. Democratic members and other witnesses said the programs provided lawful pathways, reduced illegal crossings and that current enforcement practices under the subsequent administration raise civil‑liberties concerns.

Two experts who testified described legal and fiscal problems they say flowed from parole at scale. Ken Cuccinelli, senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, invoked the Immigration and Nationality Act and the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), saying the statute limits parole to ‘‘only on a case by case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit’’ and arguing Congress should cap parole slots (he suggested roughly 3,000 a year) to restore fidelity to that requirement.

Steve Cammarata, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, focused on fiscal impacts and argued that published data indicate the Biden administration used parole to release ‘‘nearly 2,900,000 people into the United States’’ and that many recent parolees have lower educational attainment and higher use of means‑tested programs than U.S.‑born residents. Cammarata estimated that portions of welfare and tax programs could cost billions annually once parolees become eligible for certain benefits.

By contrast, David Beer, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, said parole historically has been used frequently since 1952, that parolees can contribute economically and that some recent modeling suggests net fiscal benefits over a decade. Beer also criticized recent enforcement tactics, saying the administration’s enforcement has ‘‘deprioritized the worst of the worst’’ and that many noncriminals are being arrested in public spaces.

Democratic members raised separate concerns. Representative Lou Correa described economic reliance on immigrant labor in his district and warned of harms from aggressive deportation enforcement, giving a personal example of a long‑time resident detained by ICE. Representative Johnson urged Congress to honor commitments to Afghan allies who were evacuated and paroled, saying ‘‘fulfilling that promise is not just a policy. It’s about integrity. It’s about honor and honoring the commitment.’’ Witness David Beer said roughly 70,000 Afghans were paroled into the United States during evacuations and called for permanent status rather than temporary protections.

Several witnesses and members cited Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General reviews and other internal reports. The OIG reviews cited at the hearing found deficiencies including weak sponsor vetting, pauses for suspected fraud in some parole programs, and a lack of process to address parole expirations and removal of parolees whose authorized periods ended.

Members also disputed the character and scale of post‑parole enforcement. Committee Republicans emphasized alleged national‑security and public‑safety risks from poorly vetted parolees, citing instances in which parolees were later arrested on serious charges. Democrats and one witness argued that recent enforcement under the current administration has included mass street arrests and operations in public places that risk civil‑liberties violations and create fear in immigrant communities.

The hearing produced no committee votes. Members asked witnesses to file written responses; the record remains open for additional submissions. The subcommittees adjourned after two rounds of testimony and wide-ranging questioning that reflected sharp partisan differences about parole policy, border enforcement and broader immigration reform.