AGs defend federal 'Keeping Families Together' immigrant program

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) — On October 25, New York Attorney General Letitia James and 19 other attorneys general filed a brief supporting the federal Keeping Families Together program. It lets certain undocumented spouses and stepchildren of American citizens apply for permanent residency without leaving the country.

On August 19, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched the initiative to let qualifying noncitizens apply for parole in place. On a case-by-case basis, parole in place lets them stay temporarily in the U.S. while updating their immigration status. This way, family members trying to become a legal permanent resident don't have to break up their family unit.

Eligibility requirements for noncitizens included having married a U.S. citizen before June 17, having no serious criminal record, and living in the U.S. continuously since June 2014. Unmarried stepchildren under 21 can also qualify.

Applicants must pay $580 and complete a background check. DHS estimated that 500,000 spouses and 50,000 stepchildren can take advantage of the program.

But on August 23, 16 states sued DHS and federal officials, claiming that Keeping Families Together bypasses Congressional authority and encourages illegal immigration. Filed in the Eastern District of Texas, the federal lawsuit challenged parole in place, which should only exist when there's an “urgent humanitarian reason” or “significant public benefit.”

The lawsuit argued that federal law prohibits giving benefits to undocumented immigrants, and that there wasn't enough input from the public before DHS implemented the program. Law enforcement costs could also increase as crime and social issues grow, the plaintiffs said.

Plaintiff states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgie, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming—wanted a stay on Keeping Families Together in the short term and a permanent injunction going forward. Their suit claimed that the policy would give outlaws an unfair advantage over legal immigrants while overburdening their resources.

The plaintiffs argued that the program undermined their authority over immigration, and that supplying healthcare and education to the undocumented would costs millions. Texas, for instance, annually faces emergency Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program costs totaling hundreds of millions. Florida's expenses, meanwhile, exceeded $4.7 billion a year for services, they said.

Louisiana reported spending over $362 million annually on education and healthcare for roughly 70,000 undocumented residents, while Missouri estimated over $273 million for about 50,000. Tennessee claimed a similar burden, costing taxpayers over $593 million for about 128,000 undocumented residents. Ohio reported costs over $485 million for roughly 89,000 individuals, South Carolina spent $471 million on 88,000, and North and South Dakota reported $27 million and $28 million, respectively. Wyoming, with about 7,000 undocumented individuals, faced over $26 million in related expenses, according to the lawsuit.

The Migration Policy Institute estimated that 204,000 undocumented immigrants in Texas, 93,000 in Florida, 34,000 in Georgia, 9,000 in Kansas, 7,000 in Alabama, 6,000 each in Arkansas and Iowa, and 4,000 in Idaho are married to citizens and could join the program.

On August 26, U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker granted the temporary stay for two weeks, which was later extended. During this time, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) stopped processing pending applications for parole in place, but kept accepting new ones. Applications approved before the stay remained valid, however.

The attorneys general amicus brief from other states said that Keeping Families Together represents a public good, strengthening communities by prioritizing the well-being of children who should not be separated from parents. It also lets noncitizens work, so they contribute to the economy, increase the tax base, and soften labor shortages. They also pointed out a long history of the federal government using parole programs to minimize family separation.

“Tearing families apart because of their immigration status is incredibly cruel,” James said when announcing the brief. “The Keeping Families Together program offers mixed-status families a path to citizenship without having to worry about being separated. It is a common-sense policy.”

Urging the court to dismiss the "Texas v. DHS" lawsuit, they also said that the program does not create any new benefits or encourage immigration. James and her coalition said the lawsuit highlighted only local issues that have no effect on other states, ultimately failing to justify a nationwide injunction. The Eastern District of Texas is slated to hear the case on November 5.

The coalition included Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state, Wisconsin, and Washington D.C. Below, check out their amicus brief, led by James:

Then, take a look at the initial complaint: