It did not take long. Mere days after the PIP opened, Texas, Idaho, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming filed a Complaint for injunction with the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint against the Parole in Place (PIP) Keeping Families Together program, raises arguments that challenge the legality and appropriateness of the program. However, these allegations reveal significant oversights. Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C. has reviewed the complaint and the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed in this case. Our firm remains committed to advocating for the protection of nuclear families, particularly those involving noncitizen members, while strictly adhering to the applicable legal standards and procedures. Through this blog, we aim to offer insights into why preserving these families serves a substantial public interest.
Allegations Challenging the Executive’s Parole Authority
The complaint alleges that the Department of Homeland Security is overstepping its authority by using parole to allow noncitizens to remain in the United States instead of going for consular processing abroad. It claims that the parole authority should only be exercised on a case-by-case basis for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” and that the PIP program circumvents this by effectively creating a pathway to permanent residency for a large number of individuals. This argument is grounded in a restrictive interpretation of the parole authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). The complaint points to the language of the statute, allowing for parole “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit” and alleges that PIP does not account for this statutory requirement. It is ironic that the states that claim to support families now argue against a program whose purpose is to prevent the disruption of established families, particularly those involving U.S. citizen children, which falls within the realm of “significant public benefit.” By allowing these families to remain undisrupted, the program indeed addresses urgent humanitarian concerns and promotes social stability, which is a substantial public benefit recognized in both statutory and case law. Additionally, the complaint’s argument that parole should only be granted in narrowly defined, individual cases overlooks the program’s requirement that each person apply individually and individually qualify for the PIP. The PIP program does not grant permanent residency or citizenship. It simply allows individuals to remain with their families while their immigration status is resolved. This approach is humane and legally justified under the existing statutory framework.
The Allegations that it Encourages Illegal Immigration
The complaint alleges that the PIP program will encourage illegal immigration by providing a pathway for those who entered the country unlawfully to adjust their status without leaving the U.S. This, the plaintiffs argue, undermines the immigration system established by Congress and invites more people to come in the hope that they one day will be allowed to stay. This assertion is speculative. The individuals eligible for the PIP program are not new arrivals but are people who have been living in the United States for many years, often decades, many brought as children, who have established deep ties to the community, including marriage to U.S. citizens and the raising of U.S. citizen children. These individuals did not come to the U.S. expecting to receive PIP. They have lived here, contributed to the economy, and integrated into society. The complaint also fails to consider the substantial deterrents already in place for illegal immigration, such as the lengthy and uncertain process of obtaining legal status and the risk of deportation. The PIP program is not an “incentive” but rather a practical solution to a humanitarian issue that may leave hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizen children with a single-parent household, addressing the reality of mixed-status families in the U.S.
The Allegations that the PIP Circumvents of Congressional Intent
The plaintiff states allege that the PIP program circumvents the immigration system established by Congress, particularly the provisions that require individuals who entered the U.S. unlawfully to leave the country before they can adjust their status. While this is true, Congress has also provided the executive branch with discretionary authority to grant parole in specific cases. The PIP program operates within the bounds of this discretionary authority, addressing the unique circumstances of each noncitizen, evaluating their strong family ties in the U.S., contributions, and hardships their U.S. family will face if forced to leave the country. The complaint’s restrictive interpretation of congressional intent fails to consider the flexibility that Congress has intentionally built into the parole authority. This parole authority exists precisely to allow the government to respond to humanitarian concerns and significant public benefits that Congress may not have fully anticipated. The PIP program aligns with this purpose by addressing the needs of the nuclear family, social cohesion, and even preventing dual loyalties of U.S. citizen children who will be forced to split their loyalties to the countries of each parent if one of their parents must stay abroad.
Who Will Speak for the Children?
The plaintiff states claim that the PIP program will irreparably harm the plaintiff states by increasing the number of noncitizens who can access public benefits, thus imposing a financial burden on the states. This argument is speculative as many individuals eligible for PIP are already contributing members of society, paying taxes, and supporting their families without reliance on public assistance. The complaint also overlooks the economic contributions of these individuals, who are often employed and engaged in their communities. More importantly, the complaint entirely ignores the potential costs to the states of not implementing the PIP program, such as the increased social and economic costs associated with family separation, including higher rates of poverty, homelessness, mental health, depression, alienation, loss of social, mental, family support, and reliance on state welfare programs among children who are left behind when a parent is deported.
When a parent is removed from the United States or lives under the threat of deportation, their children are profoundly affected, both emotionally and behaviorally. Research shows that children with a deported parent are significantly more likely to exhibit internalizing problems such as anxiety, depression, and withdrawal, as well as externalizing problems like aggression and conduct issues. The removal of a parent disrupts the child’s sense of security and attachment, leading to increased stress, emotional distress, and potential long-term developmental issues. Additionally, children may experience trauma from witnessing the arrest or deportation of a parent, compounding their emotional and behavioral difficulties. Living in uncertainty, where a parent might be deported, also exacerbates these problems, as children live with the constant fear of family separation, which can severely impact their mental health and well-being. See for example, Allen, Brian; Cisneros, Erica M.; Tellez, Alexandra . (2015). The Children Left Behind: The Impact of Parental Deportation on Mental Health. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(2), 386–392. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9848-5 . See Zayas, Luis H.; Aguilar-Gaxiola, Sergio; Yoon, Hyunwoo; Rey, Guillermina Natera . (2015).
The constant threat of parental deportation or actual deportation leaves these children with elevated levels of anxiety, depression, and behavioral issues. Children whose parents have been detained or deported exhibit more depressive symptoms, including negative moods and lower self-esteem, compared to those whose parents are not under deportation orders. This trauma is not only immediate but can have long-lasting effects on the children’s mental health and development. The uncertainty and fear surrounding their parents’ legal status contribute to a heightened state of distress, negatively impacting their ability to function normally in their daily lives, including in school and social settings. The anxiety and insecurity caused by the potential loss of a parent to deportation can lead to serious emotional problems, which underscores the importance of keeping families together as a matter of public and humanitarian interest. This evidence further strengthens the argument that immigration policies should be crafted with consideration of the profound and lasting impact on U.S. citizen children, who are innocent victims of the legal complexities surrounding their parents’ immigration status. The Distress of Citizen-Children with Detained and Deported Parents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3213–3223. doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0124-8
The plaintiff states’ allegations against the PIP program disregard the humanitarian and public benefits of keeping families together. The PIP program is grounded in law and provides for a compassionate response to the complex realities of mixed-status families in the United States. It operates within the statutory framework established by Congress and addresses significant public benefits by promoting social stability, economic contribution, and the well-being of U.S. citizen children. We hope that the court will allow the program to continue while sorting out the plaintiff states’ allegations.
Documenting Significant Public Benefit
When building an application to demonstrate the substantial public benefit in keeping a nuclear family together, it is important to include a detailed and compelling narrative supported by robust documentation. One of the most impactful application elements can be job letters from noncitizen employers, which confirm steady employment and highlight the individual’s work ethic, reliability, and contributions to the workplace. Letters from nonprofit organizations where the applicant has volunteered or contributed can underscore their commitment to the community and civic engagement.
Including awards and accomplishments of the U.S. citizen children adds a powerful dimension to the application, illustrating the positive environment the parents have created that fosters their children’s success. School awards, participation in extracurricular activities, and recognition for academic achievements can all serve as evidence of the stability and support provided by the parents.
Additionally, letters from teachers or school counselors are invaluable in painting a picture of the applicant as a devoted parent. These letters can detail the parent’s involvement in the child’s education, participation in school events, and the nurturing of their child’s academic and personal growth. Testimonials from teachers may speak to how the parent regularly communicates with educators, supports homework and learning at home, and contributes to the child’s overall well-being.
Such documentation collectively weaves a narrative that this family is not just a unit but a vital thread in the fabric of their community. It shows how the parent’s presence directly contributes to the success and development of their children, and how their removal would negatively impact not just their own family but the broader society. Combining personal accomplishments, community involvement, and educational success, this approach makes a compelling case for why it is in the public interest to keep this family together.
Our immigration lawyers represent immigrant families with compassion and care, and do not like when our clients are politically abused. We wish that the PIP had been introduced at the beginning of the Biden administration so that the administration would defend it in court. Now, with the elections uncertain, the PIP program appears to be a political calculation that may be without defenders in case the new administration is unwilling to defend it. We hope that the court will let it continue.
We care about families, don’t we?