Biden’s Immigration Blunder: Uncertainty and Deception under ‘Keeping Families Together’

Earlier in the week, Maria García was filled with optimism when she left her lawyer’s office in Los Angeles, having successfully submitted the necessary documents for her husband Roberto’s potential residence application under the Biden administration’s new immigration policy. An opportunity that looked like it might finally legalize his status as the husband of a U.S. citizen was dashed mere hours later when a Texas judge ordered a temporary suspension of the program. Quite intriguingly, this program, which was poised to confer benefits on about half a million immigrants in the country, is one of the most significant decrees by a U.S. president towards liberalizing the pathway to citizenship in recent years.

The injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker, came as a response to a suit filed by 16 states led by Republican attorneys general. The suit was lodged almost immediately after the program started accepting applications and constitutes one of the many obstacles this administration has faced. Judge Barker’s administrative stay is temporary, set to last 14 days, but could potentially be prolonged.

The protesting states argued that the proposed policy would trigger irreparable damage and have accused the administration of overstepping its bounds by bypassing Congress to enforce this program for nakedly political reasons. In their opinion, it is nothing more than a ploy to earn political points at the expense of economic stability and national security.

Showing unwavering defiance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a statement on Tuesday said that the government intended to continue accepting applications and defending the program in court. Covering their bases, the DHS also made it clear that any applicants whose parole was granted before the order would remain unaffected. Unfortunately, DHS did not provide answers to questions regarding the number of applications received or approved or the duration required to reach a decision on a case.

The government named this program Keeping Families Together. According to the DHS, it would allow U.S. citizens and their family members to live without anxiety about separation, which they claim is in harmony with fundamental American values. Critics, however, note that the optics look more like a tactic for gaining public sympathy rather than a well-thought-out policy.

Gregory Chen, director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, disclosed reports from affiliated lawyers of hundreds of individuals applying for the program since its launch on August 19. Some were reportedly even approved the next day. He adds that the network of lawyers is now scrambling to interpret the implications of this order for their clients’ cases.

According to Chen, their listserv for lawyers following the Keeping Families Together program experienced a surge in activity. The decision late Monday caused an avalanche of queries about its meaning. The organization has since conducted three webinars to enlighten lawyers about the program. One of these seminars attracted about 1,000 lawyers – an unusually large audience for one of their educational offerings, indicating a heightened interest in the program.

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has been instrumental in paving the way for the lawsuit, hailed the judge’s order. Evidently pleased, he declared, ‘This is just the first step. We are going to keep fighting for Texas, our country, and the rule of law.’ It seems clear, on the other hand, the administration will have to work even harder to stick to its politically driven motives.

For couples like the Garcias, the roller-coaster developments around this policy are nerve-wracking. Roberto Garcia is not a U.S. citizen but supports his family single-handedly. Having crossed the border in 2009, he has dedicated his life to supporting his family on both sides of the border. Yet, the new policy developments are adding to their stress and discord.

The circumstances surrounding his wife, Maria, further complicate the family’s situation. Following a car accident in 2023, she has undergone three surgeries and is currently unable to work or even drive. ‘I didn’t think this was going to happen. It’s very hard,’ shared Roberto Garcia about the program suspension. He expressed his frustration over being overlooked and manipulated emotionally by policy changes at the whim of political leaders.

To be eligible for this program, applicants must have lived in the country for 10 years, not pose a security threat or have disqualifying criminal history, and have been married as of June 17, which was when the program was announced. The requirements already appeared steep at first glance but were broadly accepted. However, the significant $580 submission fee on top of a lengthy application process has made many reconsider their options, including Maria Garcia.

The Garcias had already incurred about $3,000 in lawyer’s fees preparing the required documents for the parole-in-place program. Now, with the policy on hold, Maria is understandably skeptical about incurring further costs for an application that may not be processed. If approved, applicants are given three years to seek permanent residency, during which they can secure work authorization, however, such prospects are now increasingly uncertain for many.

Prior to this program, the process for individuals residing illegally in the U.S. to secure a green card after marrying an American citizen was fraught with complications. They risked being required to return to their home countries—often for years—and enduring the constant threat of being refused re-entry into the United States. Tired and nearly broken by the policies and the constant back and forth, Maria mentioned possibly relocating to Mexico, where she at least has the comfort of knowing her husband’s family is based.

Despairingly, Maria voiced her perceived injustice: ‘We will never be able to buy a house here,’ she lamented. Driven to distraction by the parody of their reality and the political games that are infringing their pursuit of happiness, she opined, ‘Here if you do things wrong, they reward you. If you do things right, they punish you.’ It is, indeed, quite a conundrum and calls into question the authenticity of the so-called ‘American Dream.’