CHNV program reduces unauthorized immigration, study finds
A new working paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas indicates that the CHNV humanitarian parole program had mixed effects on unauthorized immigration. The study found a sustained drop in illegal crossings for Cuba and Nicaragua, a short-lived drop for Venezuela, and no clear pattern for Haiti.
Legal pathways, varied outcomes
The CHNV program, launched by the Biden administration, offered humanitarian parole to over 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela between late 2022 and mid-2024.
Migrants with a U.S. sponsor could apply from abroad for legal entry and a two-year stay.
Using synthetic difference-in-differences models, the study found a sustained drop in unauthorized attempted crossings between ports of entry for Cuba and Nicaragua.
Venezuela saw a short-lived drop, while Haiti showed no clear pattern.
This divergence may stem from some Haitian and Venezuelan migrants being eligible for other U.S. humanitarian protection programs.
The number of inadmissible migrants at ports of entry did not fall for any CHNV country.
The program was paused in summer 2024 and later formally terminated.
Incentives for legal entry
The CHNV program was a key response to the post-pandemic surge in unauthorized immigration, which recorded 6.3 million USBP encounters from 2021-2023.
It allowed up to 30,000 migrants monthly from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, requiring a U.S. sponsor and security vetting.
Beneficiaries gained legal entry, avoiding dangerous journeys, and could immediately apply for work authorization.
Unlike asylum seekers at the border, parolees did not face long waits for work permits.
The program was also paired with Mexico's agreement to accept expulsions and made those crossing illegally ineligible for parole, aiming to deter irregular migration.
Mixed signals for policy makers
The study provides valuable data on a complex policy, revealing that legal pathways yield varied outcomes across different migrant groups.
This nuanced reality challenges simple assumptions about migration deterrence and highlights the need for tailored approaches.
Future programs must consider country-specific factors and alternative protection options to achieve intended goals.