Republicans quickly criticized President Joe Biden‘s most recent professional order on immigration as an “amnesty” that will result in new tides of border crossings without authorization.
On Tuesday, the White House announced constitutional safeguards and an easier path to citizenship for unlawful immigrants married to U. S. people, a policy that may protect as many as 500, 000 workers from imprisonment. As part of the alternative card method, families will no longer be required to travel to their home state, which raises allegations that the Biden administration is “inviting” illegal immigrants.
” Biden’s mass , amnesty , schedule will undoubtedly lead to a greater boom in migrant violence, cost taxpayers millions of dollars they cannot afford,  , overwhelm public services, and steal Social Security and Medicare rewards from American seniors to finance benefits for laborers”, Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, said in a statement on Tuesday.
Former President Donald Trump’s ex- senior adviser for policy, Stephen Miller, even suggested the action was worthy of impeachment.
Numbers USA, a Washington- based nonprofit group that lobbies for lowering immigration, called the immigration program, which will be rolled out by the end of the summer, unconstitutional while noting the recent surge in border crossings.
Biden earlier this month issued a separate executive order to restrict immigration, but his most recent action is intended to address the concerns of his left-wing.
President Biden has overreached his executive power by using an unconstitutional process, bribeing voters and their elected representatives in Congress, to tell the Washington Examiner that those who enter the country illegally are eligible for amnesty, according to NumbersUSA CEO James Massa in a statement to the Washington Examiner. ” The action is unconstitutional. The timing is unconscionable”.
Former acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement director Tom Homan described it as another “giveaway program” from the White House and a disregard for parole programs that are intended to be used on a highly selective basis rather than in large numbers like in this case.
” They’ve twisted the parole in place”, Homan said, visiting fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, during a call with reporters on Tuesday. The American people should not vote against this because it only serves to garner votes.
According to the White House fact sheet released on Tuesday, spouses must have resided in the country for at least 10 years to be eligible. If approved, spouses also have a three-year window to submit an application for lawful permanent residency. According to estimates, the order will also protect 50, 000 children under the age of 21.
Meanwhile, the president expedited the visa process for any foreign- born students, including” Dreamers”, who graduate from U. S. higher education institutions and hold an offer of employment from an American company.
Democrats, including those on the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, cheered the move, but not without some hesitancy, given that it could be undone.
” While there is no substitute for congressional action, and the DACA program hangs in the balance, today’s actions will provide much- needed relief to , American families across the country”, CHC Chairwoman Nanette Barragan ( D- CA ) said in a statement.
CLICK HERE TO ACCESS MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
World Relief, a global Christian humanitarian organization, warned that only Washington’s lawmakers would be able to codify the executive order into law and make sure immigrants were given the protections in the future.
” While we are grateful for this step, this executive action, enacted by one president, could easily be undone by a future president, and may also face legal challenges, so we believe the better solution is for Congress to act in a bipartisan way to address this and other elements of our immigration laws that separate families”, Matthew Soerens, vice president of advocacy and policy for World Relief, said in a statement.
