Don’t link humanitarian parole programs with border security
To the editor:
An open letter to Sen. Marco Rubio and other members of Congress re: Ukraine Aid and “Border Security”
Dear Sen. Marco Rubio:
As a Republican constituent of Southwest Florida, I am appalled by the fallacy produced by certain Republicans in Congress, who promote the termination of Humanitarian Parole for displaced people as a “solution” to border security.
Recently, my family and I sponsored a young Ukrainian couple on Humanitarian Parole. They fled their war-torn country when mass murderer Vladimir Putin launched his brutal killing spree in Ukraine. Together with friends, we have invested our time and energy to resettle this couple.
But the “border security” proposal under consideration would needlessly undo all of our efforts to help our friends resettle in the U.S.
Also known as the “Senate Republican Working Group Solutions for the Southern Border Crisis,” the proposal would limit grants of humanitarian parole to one year, with up to one 1-year extension, or shorter. The refreshed talks of HR-2, which came dead on arrival in the Senate earlier this year, would force Ukrainians to leave the US one year after their current parole expires.
The reforms on Humanitarian Parole actually contradict “border security” because the creation of these programs have actually REDUCED unauthorized entries along our southern border, according to DHS.
The added twist we cannot ignore, is that these needless reforms are being tied to urgent military aid to Ukraine.
Given the fact that an overwhelming three-quarters of Americans view the southern border situation as a “crisis” of “serious concern” (per Gallup), one might think authentic border security policy should be able to stand on its own, without the added bonus of Ukraine Aid, and certainly without flawed immigration laws under the guise of “national security.”
Yet in the press, Sen. James Lankford insisted that the talks were about the border and not immigration.
“It really is,” Lankford said to the Hill. “It’s a national security bill, so we’re dealing with all national security issues.”
But it’s really not.
If Congress showed any discretion for national security, they would not have tied border politics that lawmakers routinely fail to solve, with critical military aid that is urgently needed in Ukraine’s counteroffensive. As winter approaches, when ice and mud will make it impossible to move incoming heavy artillery, where is the sense of urgency in Congress? This is the second time in two months that Congress failed to make progress on urgent military aid to Ukraine.
Always with something to write home about, our very own Congressman Byron Donalds during an Oct. 31 interview on Fox Business stated, “LOOK, I’VE BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT UKRAINE. WE NEED TO SECURE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER.” In Donalds’ isolationist purview, he seems to grasp in the fog of his own equivocation-for him there is no distinction from “border security” and the “blocking” of aid to Ukraine. I bet Donalds would find himself hard-pressed to explain why axing humanitarian parole to Ukrainian war refugees is a “solution” to end the influx of Fentanyl being peddled into our country by Mexican cartels.
Americans want real border security solutions. Not flawed policy changes which ultimately fall short of the action required to stop masses of illegal border crossings. It takes more than a wall. But Congress failed, and now is doing the most-at the expense of innocent people who entered our country LEGALLY.
Pastor Chris Surber, D.Min., of First Congregational Church of Naples knows a thing or two about Humanitarian Parole. Through these programs, he has helped many refugees resettle into the Southwest Florida community, and his mission “Supply and Multiply” has been instrumental in helping Haitians fleeing dire conditions.
“Let’s not confuse illegals of questionable vetting at the Southern Border with the man whose family we sponsored after knowing him like a brother in our mission work. We’ve sweat, bled, and cried together in Haiti. He’s family,” said Surber. “This program is saving lives and bringing motivated people to America during a worker crisis. These people are coming legally looking to work. Why would we set aside compassion even when it makes sense?”
Ukrainian refugees aren’t the only ones who would be severely impacted by the reforms, but also the Haitians, Afghans, Cubans, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, Columbians, El Salvadorians, Guatemalans, and Hondurans, and many other foreign nationals, all of whom would face termination of their humanitarian parole under the passage of HR-2.
From what I’ve seen through my humanitarian work since Russia’s full-scale invasion, is that the process of resettling people does put a certain strain on our society — both as individuals and as a state, yet many Americans have taken up this strain voluntarily.
This is precisely why one year is barely enough time for refugees to overcome the strain of resettlement before they would have to endure displacement all over again.
A May 2023 study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office concluded that of the two-thirds of aliens already on humanitarian parole in our country, an estimated half of them would end up residing unlawfully in the United States under the passage of HR-2 border policy.
The policy is lose-lose. At best would actually invalidate the legal status of refugees based on an arbitrarily decided period, and at worst, would spark more mass migration, and even mass death by sending parolees back to the brutal conditions they fled in the first place. Think of Russian asylum-seekers who, if deported back to Russia, would be forced to fight to the death against our Ukrainian allies.
These reforms do not enhance national security.
Sen. Lindsay Graham stated, “We must make policy changes to reduce the flow of immigration. The world is on fire and threats to our homeland are at an all-time high.”
But we also cannot allow emotionally-driven policy to lead us down that same Soviet-style communistic path after World War II, when we turned away thousands of Jewish refugees, fearing they were Nazi-spies. It’s completely backwards that Congress entertains this kind of policy today.
Pastor Surber said, “I’m convinced that the highest principles of our Judeo-Christian societal moral inclinations to love the stranger and welcome the sojourner are appropriately conveyed in a continued willingness to embrace peoples from war-torn areas around the world.
“What we need is more support from government, church, and the community for these refugees. These are the same hurting hoping masses that many of our great grandparents were just a few generations ago.”
Americans are interested in a path to immigration for humanitarian parolees and asylum-seekers — we have helped them integrate, intertwine within our society, and become a part of our economies, our families, our lives.
I hope Congress chooses to create a long-term legal pathway for the humanitarian parolees who have come here legally, so they can take stake in our country and live meaningful lives-instead of telling them they’ll be forced to leave in a matter of one year or less.
Sen. Rubio, I wrote to you because throughout 15 years of observing your public work, you always struck me as a defender of oppressed people, no matter where they came from.
Please appeal to your colleagues to pass Ukraine Military Aid on its own merits, and please do not cripple Humanitarian Parole programs in the name of “Border Security.”
CC: Sen. Rick Scott, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Tom Cotton, Sen. James Lankford, Speaker Mike Johnson, Rep. Byron Donalds
Alexandra Zakhvatayev
Cape Coral