By Miriam Jordan, Hamed Aleaziz and Serge F. Kovaleski
A federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked earlier this week a Biden administration program that could offer a path to citizenship for up to half a million immigrants in the country without legal permission who are married to U.S. citizens, ruling in favor of 16 Republican-led states that sued the administration.
Judge J. Campbell Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an administrative stay that stops the administration from approving applications, which it started accepting last week, while the court considers the merits of the case.
In suspending the initiative, Barker said the 67-page complaint filed Friday by the coalition of states, led by Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, raised legitimate questions about the authority of the executive branch to bypass Congress and set immigration policy.
“The claims are substantial and warrant closer consideration than the court has been able to afford to date,” wrote Barker, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump.
The administration can continue to accept applications for the program, but can no longer approve them, according to the order. The suspension initially remains in place for 14 days while the parties submit arguments in the case; it could be extended.
The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal actions that Texas has spearheaded challenging federal immigration policies.
The Biden administration program, called Keeping Families Together, drew sharp criticism from Republicans, who have made illegal immigration a central campaign issue this election cycle. In the lawsuit, the Republican-led states said that the program amounted to an “amnesty” for immigrants who are in the country unlawfully.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said in an email statement Monday that the program “enables U.S. citizens and their family members to live without fear of separation, consistent with fundamental American values.”
Immigrants whose applications were approved before the judge issued the stay would not be affected by the ruling, the statement said, and spouses of U.S. citizens could continue to apply, though no approvals would be granted while the stay remains in effect.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The program eases legalization for immigrants married to Americans and have been living in the United States for more than 10 years. The potential beneficiaries have l been in the country for 23 years, on average, according to the Homeland Security Department.
Even though marrying a U.S. citizen generally provides a pathway to U.S. citizenship already, those who cross the Southern border illegally are required to return to their home countries to complete the green card process. Often, families remain separated for years during the process, which discourages immigrant spouses from seeking to adjust their status.
The new program allows them to bypass that step and stay in the United States while their application is adjudicated. If approved, they are granted a form of “parole,” which shields them from deportation and allows them to receive work authorization. Once they have obtained legal permanent residency, beneficiaries become eligible, down the road, for U.S. citizenship.
The judge’s order Monday was swiftly rebuked by immigrant advocates and others who supported the policy.
“It is bad for the economy and against human decency to prevent people who have been here working and paying taxes, often for more than 20 years, and married to U.S. citizens, from obtaining legal status more quickly,” said Rebecca Shi, the executive director of the American Business Immigration Coalition, representing 1,400 CEOs of U.S. companies.
Earlier Monday, immigrant advocacy groups had filed a request with the court to participate in the lawsuit by bringing testimony from couples who would be harmed by a court ruling against the program.
“An order like this is an extreme measure that — by law — should only be taken in the most urgent of situations,” said Karen Tumlin, the director of the Justice Action Center, one of the groups that filed a motion to intervene.
Texas and the other 15 states in the lawsuit argued that their finances would be adversely affected because the program would allow immigrants without legal status to remain in the country.
Tumlin said Texas “has not been able to provide an iota of evidence” that it would be harmed by the policy.
“This is heartbreaking for our clients and the thousands of couples who hope to benefit from this process and be able to live without fear that their family will be separated,” she said.
The program, unveiled by President Joe Biden in mid-June, is one of the most sweeping moves to help immigrants without legal status since Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA, was enacted in 2012 to protect immigrants who came to the United States as children.
The lawsuit contends that Biden’s program is illegal and incentivizes illegal immigration, and it accuses the administration of creating the program “for blatant political purposes.” The suit was filed by Texas and Idaho, along with 14 state attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming.
Comments