Great Reset
Government Admission: Biden Parole Flights Create Security ‘Vulnerabilities’ at U.S. Airports Government Admission: Biden Parole Flights Create Security ‘Vulnerabilities’ at U.S. Airports

From the Center for Immigration Studies
DHS still refusing to say which airports are receiving inadmissible aliens from abroad
But while large immigrant-receiving cities and media lay blame for the influx on Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s busing program, CBP has withheld from the Center – and apparently will not disclose – the names of the 43 U.S. airports that have received 320,000 inadmissible aliens from January through December 2023, nor the foreign airports from which they departed. The agency’s lawyers have cited a general “law enforcement exception” without elaborating – until recently – on how releasing airport locations would harm public safety beyond citing “the sensitivity of the information.”
Now, though, CIS’s litigation has yielded a novel and newsworthy answer from the government: The public can’t know the receiving airports because those hundreds of thousands of CBP-authorized arrivals have created such “operational vulnerabilities” at airports that “bad actors” could undermine law enforcement efforts to “secure the United States border” if they knew the volume of CBP One traffic processed at each port of entry.
In short, the Biden administration’s legally dubious program to fly inadmissible aliens over the border and directly to U.S. airports has allegedly created law enforcement vulnerabilities too grave to release publicly, lest “bad actors” take advantage of them to inflict harm on public safety. Or, more specifically, here’s how CBP’s lawyers, in email communications with CIS and summarized in a CIS Joint Status Filing, characterized FOIA’s law enforcement exception (b)(7)(E) in explaining their refusal to release just the domestic U.S. airport locations:
Exception (b)(7)(E) has been applied to the identifying information for air ports of entry, which, if disclosed would reveal information about the relative number of individuals arriving, and thus resources expended at particular airports which would, either standing alone or combined with other information, reveal operational vulnerabilities that could be exploited by bad actors altering their patterns of conduct, adopting new methods of operation, and taking other countermeasures, thereby undermining CBP’s law enforcement efforts to secure the United States borders.
The agency’s attorneys floated a similar argument for withholding the locations of foreign departure airports, adding only that “bad actors” abroad who found out about the “resources expended toward travelers arriving from particular airports” could “extrapolate” from the numbers leaving foreign airports to identify the receiving U.S. airports and then undermine law enforcement’s ability to secure the border (which includes international airports).
The program at the center of the FOIA litigation is perhaps the most enigmatic and least-known of the Biden administration’s uses of the CBP One cell phone scheduling app, even though it is responsible for almost invisibly importing by air 320,000 aliens with no legal right to enter the United States since it got underway in late 2022. It remains part of the administration’s “lawful pathways” strategy, with its stated purpose being to reduce the number of illegal border entries between ports of entry. The countries whose citizens are eligible are Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, and Ecuador.
Under these legally dubious parole programs, aliens who cannot legally enter the country use the CBP One app to apply for travel authorization and temporary humanitarian release from those airports. The parole program allows for two-year periods of legal status during which adults are eligible for work authorization.
The government characterizes these programs as “family reunification programs”.
While seven of the nationalities, excluding Venezuelans and Nicaraguans, can claim eligibility under older family reunification parole programs, all can also just fly in if they can show they have a non-family financial sponsor (which can even be “an organization, business, or other entity”) and meet other requirements, such as owning a valid passport and passing security checks based on biometric information provided through CBP One.
Upon receiving authorization from Washington, they buy air passage to U.S. international airports where CBP personnel process them for release in short order. All are said to be responsible for paying for their own airfare.
They and inadmissible aliens from many dozens of other countries also get this parole benefit at eight U.S.-Mexico land ports of entry. That separate parole program has brought in another 420,000 immigrants from nearly 100 nations from May 2021 through December 2023, according to CIS lawsuit data updated through December 2023. (See links to the 2023 report below, which reflects data through August)
For most of the past year, big-city mayors and state governors have loudly complained about the hundreds of thousands of foreigners showing up in need of housing, food, medical treatment, clothing, and education, placing extraordinary unfunded financial burdens on local populations. Routinely, politicians and major media outlets have laid blame for the influx on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s busing program.
But the airport location information would undoubtedly provide a more accurate and complete picture of what is happening, though the administration would not be able to blame the Texas governor for these arrivals.
The redacted records received by CIS show a clear preference for some airports over others, with a dozen unnamed facilities receiving most of the 320,000.
Release by the government of the airport data would serve an important public interest in that it would provide voters and public officials with information to pressure the Biden government to reduce monthly arrival rates into their cities and states.
Colin M. Farnsworth, CIS’s Chief FOIA Counsel, said the Center rejects the government’s explanation about bad actors exploiting “operational vulnerabilities” at airports on grounds that CBP pre-screens and pre-schedules the arrival of CBP One applicants at each port of entry. He said CIS will litigate for a total release of the airport information.
Bad actors already have access to airport travel volumes, through CBP’s own “Traveler and Conveyance Statistics website.” Its statistics for cities whose travails with migrant arrivals are well-publicized show striking airport arrival increases from FY 2022, before the airlift program, through 2023.
Boston airports, for instance, spiked from 2.3 million during FY 2022 to 3.3 million in 2023, the public CBP website shows. Chicago, another migrant hotspot, rose from 6.3 million airport travelers in FY2022 to 7.9 million in 2023. New York City airports spiked from 17.7 million airport arrivals in 2022 to 22.9 million in 2023.
Related reports from Center for Immigration Studies FOIA litigation are based on data provided through August 2023 and the early part of September 2023. CBP has since provided data for all of September, October, November, and December 2023, which are reflected above in this report.
The following are the prior reports reflecting the earlier data:
- New Records: Biden DHS Has Approved Hundreds of Thousands of Migrants for Secretive Foreign Flights Directly into U.S. Airports
- New Records Unveil Surprising Scope of Secretive ‘CBP One’ Entry Scheme
- Thousands of ‘Special Interest Aliens’ Posing Potential National Security Risks Entering via CBP One App
- Powerful Senator Demands DHS Answer Questions About ‘Special Interest Alien” Approved Entries in CBP One app.
- Why is Biden Quietly Granting ‘Humanitarian Protection’ to Thousands of Mexicans?
Business
Justice Centre launches new petition: Keep cash legal and accessible. Stop Bill C-2

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree speaks to Bill C-2 (Screenshot from CBC video)
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has launched a petition calling upon the Prime Minister of Canada to strike the criminalization of cash payments of $10,000 or more from Bill C-2 and to introduce legislation protecting the right of Canadians to use cash of any amount for legal transactions.
Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree introduced Bill C-2, or the Strong Borders Act, in the House of Commons on June 3, 2025. According to a Government of Canada statement, Bill C-2 will equip law enforcement with tools to secure borders and to combat crime, the drug trade, and money laundering.
Buried deep within the Bill, however, are provisions that would make it a criminal offence for businesses, professionals, and charities to accept cash payments of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or in a series of related transactions.

Bill C-2 at page 59
Justice Centre President John Carpay warns that the criminalization of cash transactions threatens the privacy, freedom of expression, and autonomy of all Canadians. When cash transactions are criminalized, governments, banks, and law enforcement can track and interfere with legitimate purchases and donations.
“We must not criminalize everyday Canadians for using physical currency. Once $10,000 is criminalized, it will be all too easy for future governments to lower the threshold to $5,000, then $1,000, and eventually nothing.”
Bill C-2 is just one point in a concerning anti-cash trend in Canada.
Quebec’s controversial Bill 54, passed into law in March 2024, allows police to assume that any person carrying $2,000 or more in cash is connected to criminal activity. Officers can seize the cash, and citizens must prove their innocence to get the cash back.
“Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step towards tyranny,” continued Mr. Carpay. “Cash protects citizens from surveillance by government and banks, credit card companies, and other corporations. In a free society, violating the right of law-abiding citizens to use cash is not the answer to money laundering or the drug trade.”
Signers of the petition call upon the Prime Minister of Canada to strike the criminalization of cash payments from Bill C-2.
Signers of the petition also call upon the Prime Minister of Canada to introduce legislation that protects Canadians’ right to use cash of any amount for legal transactions.
Business
Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview

From LifeSiteNews
By Robert Jones
Durov, who was detained in France in 2024, believes governments are seeking to dismantle personal freedoms.
Tucker Carlson has interviewed Telegram founder Pavel Durov, who remains under judicial restrictions in France nearly a year after a surprise arrest left him in solitary confinement for four days — without contact with his family, legal clarity, or access to his phone.
Durov, a Russian-born tech executive now based in Dubai, had arrived in Paris for a short tourist visit. Upon landing, he was arrested and accused of complicity in crimes committed by Telegram users — despite no evidence of personal wrongdoing and no prior contact from French authorities on the matter.
In the interview, Durov said Telegram has always complied with valid legal requests for IP addresses and other data, but that France never submitted any such requests — unlike other EU states.
Telegram has surpassed a billion users and over $500 million in profit without selling user data, and has notably refused to create government “backdoors” to its encryption. That refusal, Durov believes, may have triggered the incident.
READ: Arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov signals an increasing threat to digital freedom
French prosecutors issued public statements, an unusual move, at the time of his arrest, fueling speculation that the move was meant to send a message.
At present, Durov remains under “judicial supervision,” which limits his movement and business operations.
Carlson noted the irony of Durov’s situating by calling to mind that he was not arrested by Russian President Vladimir Putin but rather a Western democracy.
Former President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev has said that Durov should have stayed in Russia, and that he was mistaken in thinking that he would not have to cooperate with foreign security services.
Durov told Carlson that mandates for encryption “backdoors” endanger all users, not just suspects. Once created, such tools inevitably become accessible to hackers, foreign agents, and hostile regimes.
“In the US,” he commented, “you have a process that allows the government to actually force any engineer in any tech company to implement a backdoor and not tell anyone about it.”
READ: Does anyone believe Emmanuel Macron’s claim that Pavel Durov’s arrest was not political?
Durov also pointed to a recent French bill — which was ultimately defeated in the National Assembly — that would have required platforms to break encryptions on demand. A similar EU proposal is now under discussion, he noted.
Despite the persecution, Durov remains committed to Telegram’s model. “We monetize in ways that are consistent with our values,” he told Carlson. “We monetized without violating privacy.”
There is no clear timeline for a resolution of Durov’s case, which has raised serious questions about digital privacy, online freedom, and the limits of compliance for tech companies in the 21st century.
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
WOKE NBA Stars Seems Natural For CDN Advertisers. Why Won’t They Bite?
-
Health1 day ago
Last day and last chance to win this dream home! Support the 2025 Red Deer Hospital Lottery before midnight!
-
Crime23 hours ago
UK finally admits clear evidence linking Pakistanis and child grooming gangs
-
conflict12 hours ago
Trump: ‘We’ have control over Iranian airspace; know where Khomeini is hiding
-
Business1 day ago
Carney praises Trump’s world ‘leadership’ at G7 meeting in Canada
-
Energy2 days ago
Could the G7 Summit in Alberta be a historic moment for Canadian energy?
-
conflict1 day ago
Israel bombs Iranian state TV while live on air
-
Crime2 days ago
Minnesota shooter arrested after 48-hour manhunt