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

From the Center for Immigration Studies

By Todd Bensman

DHS still refusing to say which airports are receiving inadmissible aliens from abroad

Thanks to an ongoing Center for Immigration Studies Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the public now knows that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has approved secretive flights that last year alone ferried hundreds of thousands of inadmissible aliens from foreign airports into some 43 American ones over the past year, all pre-approved on a cell phone app. (See links to prior CIS reports at the end of this post.) 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.

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:

Related Topics:#CenterForImmigrationStudies #IllegalImmigration #ToddBensman #USCustomsAndBorderProtection

Up Next

Trudeau’s AG claims Emergencies Act use was justified over ‘risk of serious violence’

Don't Miss

Intel docs reveal top Trudeau gov’t virologist had ‘clandestine relationship’ with Communist China

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Manhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband

Canadian Energy Centre / 2 hours ago

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Alberta / 2 hours ago

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Censorship Industrial Complex

Alberta senator wants to revive lapsed Trudeau internet censorship bill

Published on June 14, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Senator Kristopher Wells and other senators are ‘interested’ in reviving the controversial Online Harms Act legislation that was abandoned after the election call.

A recent Trudeau-appointed Canadian senator said that he and other “interested senators” want the current Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.

Kristopher Wells, appointed by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last year as a senator from Alberta, made the comments about reviving an internet censorship bill recently in the Senate.

“In the last Parliament, the government proposed important changes to the Criminal Code of Canada designed to strengthen penalties for hate crime offences,” he said of Bill C-63 that lapsed earlier this year after the federal election was called.

Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, was put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online.

While protecting children is indeed a duty of the state, the bill included several measures that targeted vaguely defined “hate speech” infractions involving race, gender, and religion, among other categories. The proposal was thus blasted by many legal experts.

The Online Harms Act would have in essence censored legal internet content that the government thought “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group.” It would be up to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints.

Wells said that “Bill C-63 did not come to a vote in the other place and in the dying days of the last Parliament the government signaled it would be prioritizing other aspects of the bill.”

“I believe Canada must get tougher on hate and send a clear and unequivocal message that hate and extremism will never be tolerated in this country no matter who it targets,” he said.

Carney, as reported by LifeSiteNews, vowed to continue in Trudeau’s footsteps, promising even more legislation to crack down on lawful internet content.

Wells asked if the current Carney government remains “committed to tabling legislation that will amend the Criminal Code as proposed in the previous Bill C-63 and will it commit to working with interested senators and community stakeholders to make the changes needed to ensure this important legislation is passed?”

Seasoned Senator Marc Gold replied that he is not in “a position to speculate” on whether a new bill would be brought forward.

Before Bill C-63, a similar law, Bill C-36, lapsed in 2021 due to that year’s general election.

As noted by LifeSiteNews, Wells has in the past advocated for closing Christian schools that refuse to violate their religious principles by accepting so-called Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs and spearheaded so-called “conversion therapy bans.”

Other internet censorship bills that have become law have yet to be fully implemented.

Last month, LifeSiteNews reported that former Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault, known for his radical climate views, will be the person in charge of implementing Bill C-11, a controversial bill passed in 2023 that aims to censor legal internet content in Canada.

Censorship Industrial Complex

Conservatives slam Liberal bill to allow police to search through Canadians’ mail

Published on June 14, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Conservatives are warning that the Liberals’ new border bill will allow police to search Canadians’ mail.

During a June 5 debate in the House of Commons, Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Frank Caputo voiced concerns over Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, which will permit police and government officials to open and examine Canadians’ mail.

“This is something I know I am going to get mail about,” Caputo said. “We are now talking about language in the Charter, what is referred to as an expectation of privacy.”

Bill C-2, introduced by the Liberals under Prime Minister Mark Carney, is framed as legislation to combat drugs making their way across the border. However, many have pointed out that it severely infringes on Canadians’ Charter rights.

The Liberals have failed to address this concern in their 130-page legislation, leading Conservatives to demand accountability.

“If they can put out a 130-page bill, certainly they can put out a four or five-page Charter statement,” he said. “Certainly, somebody in the government asked if it was Charter compliant — but they won’t say.”

Under Bill C-2, Canada would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to “remove barriers that prevent police from searching mail, where authorized to do so in accordance with an Act of Parliament, to carry out a criminal investigation.”

It also seeks to “expand Canada Post inspection authority to open mail.”

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, legal organizations have warned that the legislation could lead to a cashless economy as it would ban cash payments over $10,000.

In a June 4 X post, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) warned that “If Bill C-2 passes, it will become a Criminal Code offence for businesses, professionals, and charities to accept cash donations, deposits, or payments of $10,000 or more. Even if the $10,000 payment or donation is broken down into several smaller cash transactions, it will still be a crime for a business or charity to receive it.”

The JCCF pointed out that while cash payments of $10,000 are not common for Canadians, the government can easily reduce “the legal amount to $5,000, then $1,000, then $100, and eventually nothing.”

“Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step towards tyranny and totalitarianism,” the organization warned. “Cash gives citizens privacy, autonomy, and freedom from surveillance by government and by banks, credit card companies, and other corporations.”

Similarly, Carney’s move to restrict Canadians is hardly surprising considering his close ties to the World Economic Forum and push for digital currency.

In a 2021 article, the National Post noted that “since the advent of the COVID pandemic, Carney has been front and centre in the promotion of a political agenda known as the ‘Great Reset,’ or the ‘Green New Deal,’ or ‘Building Back Better.’

“Carney’s Brave New World will be one of severely constrained choice, less flying, less meat, more inconvenience and more poverty,” the outlet continued.

In light of Carney’s new leadership over Canadians, many are sounding alarm over his distinctly anti-freedom ideas.

Carney, who as reported by LifeSiteNews, has admitted he is an “elitist” and a “globalist.” Just recently, he criticized U.S. President Donald Trump for targeting woke ideology and has vowed to promote “inclusiveness” in Canada.

Carney also said that he is willing to use all government powers, including “emergency powers,” to enforce his energy plan.