Evaluates effectiveness of humanitarian parole in immigration policy, suggesting a need for balanced implementation.
One prominent immigration strategy employed by the Biden administration is a tool called "humanitarian parole," which has been controversial due to its perceived illegality. However, my thesis aims to move beyond these legal critiques and answer the question: are Biden's parole policies effective, according to the goals of the administration? Through an analysis of CBP data, I conclude that parole fulfills two stated goals, of deterring illegal entry and re-directing migrants to internal POE. However, interview data illuminates that parole was implemented in such a way that humanitarian relief was unevenly distributed. Lastly, I caution the Biden administration against an understanding of parole as an alternative to asylum or refugee resettlement, given parole's revocability. While parole can be a useful immigration strategy, future administrations should take care to implement it evenly and in combination with other tools whenever possible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Emiline Wright (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: