Great Reset
Many Migrants in Biden’s ‘Humanitarian’ Flights Scheme Coming in from Safe Countries and Vacation Wonderlands

By Todd Bensman as published June 17, 2024 by the Center for Immigration Studies
In late 2022 and early 2023, President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security launched one of the most unusual humanitarian programs in U.S. immigration history: it unilaterally began authorizing inadmissible Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (thus the shorthand name CHNV Program) and their immediate family members to fly commercially from foreign countries into more than 40 American airports.
The administration has used this legally dubious program to authorize more than 460,000 ostensibly endangered nationals of those four countries to fly directly from undisclosed airports abroad into some 45 U.S. airports from October 2022 through May 2024. They are then released on temporary humanitarian parole of renewable two-year periods with work permits, during which time they are assumed (but not required) to be applying for asylum.
From this massive “rescue” program’s inception, the Biden administration has claimed that its purpose was to provide temporary U.S. sanctuary “for urgent humanitarian reasons” for those facing persecution in their native countries, and thus reduce the incentive to pass through Mexico on “dangerous routes that pose serious risks to migrant’s lives and safety” on their way to illegally cross the U.S. border.
But new information that the Center for Immigration Studies has forced from the government through litigation now reveals that, while all participants are nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, or Venezuela, many are flying to the United States from 73 other nations. (See the list of countries provided by DHS here.)
The departure country list casts serious doubt on whether the Biden administration has used the humanitarian rescue flights program as it was sold to the American public. In fact, the new departure country information shows that many migrants from these four nationalities have been heading to the U.S. from some of the safest, most prosperous nations on Earth, some heralded worldwide as vacation wonderlands. They could not have been suffering urgent humanitarian problems there, nor were they anywhere near dangerous migration trails.
Economic Giants and Vacation Hotspots
CHNV nationals are flying to the U.S. from Iceland and from Fiji and from Greece.
They are flying from the wealthy European Union countries of France and Germany, from Finland and Norway, from the Netherlands and Switzerland, and from Sweden and Italy. They are flying from Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Presumably, many Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans have reached these countries to settle and work.
The government’s list of 77 departure countries shows that, yes, ostensibly rescue-worthy Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans are indeed flying in from their own troubled countries to take their U.S. humanitarian protection, as most observers would presume.
But they are also getting authorizations to fly from beautiful Caribbean vacation hotspots like Barbados, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Martinique, St. Lucia. St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
The publicly stated purposes of the CHNV program, also called the Advanced Travel Authorization (ATA) program, are at odds with the reality that many are departing from models of prosperous stability and safety, whose own residents could never possibly qualify for U.S. humanitarian protection, nor would ask for it.
“I would say this data is evidence that the parole program is not being used to help aliens flee to safety but, rather, as a secondary immigration system that has not been authorized by Congress,” said Elizabeth Jacobs, Director of Regulatory Affairs for the Center for Immigration Studies, who served as Senior Advisor in the Office of the Chief Counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
“The Biden administration is likely paroling in aliens who are already ‘firmly resettled’ in safe and orderly countries but are nevertheless benefitting under the guise of urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons,” Jacobs said.
Withholding the true purpose of a major government program in this way is a serious disservice to the American public, she added.
“Congress delegated DHS limited authority to use parole only for urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons,” Jacobs said. “Misleading the public on the administration’s use of parole prevents voters from understanding the real impact of the administration’s policies and may prevent voters from holding the administration accountable for their abuse of the nation’s immigration laws.”
Managing Border Disorder or an Unauthorized Admissions Program?
In addition to humanitarian rescues, the government also cited a “significant public benefit” to the United States for its foreign flights program, that inadmissible aliens authorized to fly over the border into the U.S. would be less likely to illegally cross the southern border, thus lessening the chaos there.
But never disclosed until now is that the Biden DHS is also authorizing untold numbers to depart on U.S.-bound flights from many safe countries so far away from the U.S. border and Latin America that beneficiaries would never need to march the dangerous trails and crowd the U.S. border.
Cubans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Venezuelans the U.S. government has cleared for departure are flying in from far-flung prosperous, low crime countries nowhere near the migrant trails of Latin America or the southern border, like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.
Some are departing from Israel. Before the war with Hamas.
They are flying from Australia.
And from the oil-rich states of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
The government is authorizing some number to fly in from African nations like South Africa, Morocco, and Senegal. Were any of these threatening to add their number to the southern border’s congestion?
Even Vietnam is on the departure country list.
Dispersed Around the World
Immigrants from all four nations apparently have dispersed all over the world seeking work and improved lifestyles. Perhaps things weren’t working out so well in adoptive countries when the Biden administration threw them a lifeline in the flights program. Europe is a good example.
For several years now, thousands of Cubans have flocked to illegally cross the European Union’s external borders, claiming asylum while seeking to work just as they have in the United States. Many have entered the Balkan countries through Serbia or Greece, popular illegal immigration portals of late, seeking eventual resettlement in Spain, Germany, France and elsewhere. While Greece has cracked down somewhat with reported pushbacks of illegal immigrants to Turkey, plenty of Cubans have found long-term residence in other European countries like Italy.
Venezuelans made up about 6 percent of all EU asylum applications in 2023, amounting to about 60,000, mostly in Spain. Unlike the Cubans, Venezuelans can fly to Europe visa-free for tourism and probably need not have crossed borders illegally for their asylum claims. Nicaraguans also have been known to head for Europe in increasing numbers since 2018.
While Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans are rarely deported from the safety and social welfare systems of Europe, perhaps some of them saw surer economic or family reunification prospects when the Biden DHS launched its flights program and decided on a lifestyle upgrade by coming to the United States.
“This information suggests that these people are firmly resettled and if they need to seek protection, then they can seek it in the countries they’re living in,” said Andrew Arthur, a Center fellow and former immigration judge. “If they are coming from anyplace other than Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, they’re simply trading up from the third country that they’re coming from. This literally has nothing to do with asylum claims or anything else.”
The Government’s Fight for Secrecy
The CBP public affairs office did not respond to the Center’s emailed questions asking for an explanation about the surprising diversity of those rescued from often safe and prosperous departure nations. The cold shoulder is no surprise.
The obvious Grand Canyon between the administration’s public justifications for its humanitarian flights program and what it is really doing might explain why the Biden government has fought hard in court to keep the list of departure nations under wraps.
For more than a year, CBP has refused to comply with a Center for Immigration Studies Freedom of Information Act request to name them. CBP lawyers were so steadfastly opposed to their release that they forced the Center into a long and tedious lawsuit. The effort has finally produced only the names of departure countries but little else the Center requested, such as the specific departure airports and the numbers of people leaving each for American airports.
Government lawyers gave the list of 77 countries but refused during settlement negotiations with the Center to provide even a list in rank order of departure volume. In the end, the agency would only agree to disclose the 77 countries in alphabetical order.
The administration was equally secretive about which U.S. airports were receiving the immigrants, and has never agreed to release them to date, although the Center was eventually able to divine that most were flying into Florida. (See “The Florida Gateway: Data Shows Most Migrant Flights Landing in Gov. DeSantis’s Sunshine State”.) The House Homeland Security Committee, which obtained the airport locations by subpoena, later released the information.
Colin Farnsworth, the Center’s Chief FOIA Counsel, said the litigation is now settled and no more information will be forthcoming. He explained, “Although the government had no legitimate claims for withholding the foreign airports the participants of the ATA program were flying from, and their respective departure volumes, CIS determined it was in the public’s interest to quickly obtain the list of related foreign countries by settling the lawsuit, instead of allowing the government to extensively delay the release of any records through a lengthy legal process.”
Censorship Industrial Complex
Freedom of speech under threat on university campuses in Canada

From the Fraser Institute
By Michael Zwaagstra and Matthew D. Mitchell
Obviously, when students feel that their grades are at risk, they will be far less likely to express their genuine opinions or even ask questions during class discussions. Not only does this make classes less interesting, it also undermines the entire purpose of a university education.
Universities should be places where all ideas are welcomed and explored. In many Canadian university classrooms, however, only the “correct” viewpoint is heard.
According to a new survey (conducted by Leger and published by the Fraser Institute) of 1,200 Canadian university students and recent graduates, politically left-of-centre students were far more likely than their right-of-centre classmates to report that their views were welcomed and encouraged in class.
For example, 83 per cent of right-leaning students believe that professors advocate a left-of-centre view—and 45 per cent of left-leaning students agree with them.
Forty-two per cent of right-leaning students say they experienced a university classroom environment that limited discussion and questions on controversial topics to only one side of the argument. In contrast, only 29 per cent of left-leaning students felt the same way.
To make matters worse, 50 per cent of right-leaning students said they sometimes felt uncomfortable expressing their opinions due to the views of the professors leading the class. Only 36 per cent of left-leaning students reported the same experience.
Interestingly, when asked whether there was a “safe” point of view on controversial topics in university classes, a majority from both groups answered “yes” with little difference between right-leaning students (58 per cent) and left-leaning students (51 per cent).
A significant number of right-leaning students (37 per cent) also said they feared formal consequences for expressing honest thoughts, opinions or even asking questions in their classes. Among right-leaning students who expressed this concern, 74 per cent feared their professors would lower their grades for expressing the “wrong” opinion in class.
Obviously, when students feel that their grades are at risk, they will be far less likely to express their genuine opinions or even ask questions during class discussions. Not only does this make classes less interesting, it also undermines the entire purpose of a university education.
Other studies also reveal the politically one-sided nature of university campuses. For example, a 2022 survey published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute found that 88 per cent of Canadian university professors vote for parties of the left and only 9 per cent support parties on the right. No wonder students feel their class discussions are consistently one-sided.
Similarly, a 2024 survey published by Heterodox Academy and College Plus found that more than half of students were reluctant to discuss certain issues such as the current Israel/Hamas conflict and transgender identity, and nearly half were reluctant to even broach the subject of politics. More alarmingly, a majority of students favoured limiting free expression on campus.
While many university professors are quick to describe themselves as strong supporters of diversity, this does not seem to include diversity of thought. A truly diverse campus would welcome a variety of intellectual perspectives in the spirit of open and scholarly debate. A campus where everyone looks different but thinks the same is not meaningfully diverse. As economist and philosopher John Stuart Mill argued many years ago, we are all impoverished when we silence one perspective.
It’s concerning that most students feel there’s a “safe” political view on controversial topics, particularly when students who hold a minority viewpoint feel the least safe expressing their views.
Of course, things won’t change overnight. But the first step to dealing with a problem is to admit that you have one. In that light, university administrators, professors and politicians should acknowledge that the current lack of viewpoint diversity on campus is a serious problem for all Canadians. Democracies function best when people freely express, and vigorously debate, competing ideas. As institutions of higher learning, universities should exemplify what free and open discussion looks like.
While there’s nothing wrong with professors holding political views and sharing those views with their students, they should not restrict free and open debate in their classrooms. This means ensuring that all students, including those whose opinions are in the minority, are guaranteed the right to share their views without fear of reprisal.

Matthew D. Mitchell
Health
Canadians left with no choice but euthanasia when care is denied

From LifeSiteNews
Ontario’s euthanasia regulators have tracked 428 cases of possible criminal violations without a single criminal charge being laid.
Once again, a government report affirmed what every Canadian should know by now: People are being killed by euthanasia because they cannot access the care they actually need and in some cases are denied that care.
The “choice” that is left to them is a lethal injection. Ontario’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Death Review Committee’s (MDRC) latest report, “Evaluating Incurability, Irreversible Decline, and Reasonably Foreseeable Natural Death,” highlights this fact once again.
As Dr. Ramona Coelho, an advocate for people with disabilities and one of the most eloquent opponents of Canada’s MAiD regime highlighted in her analysis of the report, Health Canada dictates that a “person can only be considered incurable if there are no reasonable and effective treatments available (and) explicitly state that individuals cannot refuse all treatments to render themselves incurable, and thereby qualify for MAiD.”
However, the MDRC’s report cites cases that do not appear to qualify:
Consider Mrs. A: isolated, severely obese, depressed, and disconnected from care; she refused treatment and social support but requested MAiD. Instead of re-engaging her with care, MAiD clinicians deemed her incurable because she refused all investigations, and her life was ended.
Or Mr. B: a man with cerebral palsy in long-term care, he voluntarily stopped eating and drinking, leading to renal failure and dehydration. He was deemed eligible under Track 1 because his death was consequently considered “reasonably foreseeable.” No psychiatric expertise was consulted despite signs of psychosocial distress.
Or Mr. C: a man in his 70s with essential tremor, whose MAiD provider documented that his request was mainly driven by emotional suffering and bereavement.
In short, Coelho concludes, “Canada’s legal safeguards are failing. Federal guidelines are being ignored. The public deserves to know: Is Canada building a system that truly protects all Canadians – or one that expedites death for the vulnerable?” It has been clear what kind of system we have created for some time, which is why Canada is considered a cautionary tale even in the UK, where assisted suicide advocates violently and indignantly object to any comparisons of their proposed legislation and the Canadian regime.
The National Post also noted examples found in the MRDC’s report, noting that: “A severely obese woman in her 60s who sought euthanasia due to her ‘no longer having a will to live’ and a widower whose request to have his life ended was mainly driven by emotional distress and grief over his dead spouse are the latest cases to draw concerns that some doctors are taking an overly broad interpretation of the law.”
None of this seems to concern the federal government, much less law enforcement. Horror stories are simply not addressed, as if ignoring them means that they did not happen. Constant revelations of lawbreaking are met with silence. “A quarter of all Ontario MAiD providers may have violated the Criminal Code,” journalist Alexander Raikin warned last year in The Hub. “Does anyone care?” In fact, Ontario’s euthanasia regulators had tracked 428 cases of possible criminal violations – without a single criminal charge being laid.
“Canada’s leaders seem to regard MAiD from a strange, almost anthropological remove: as if the future of euthanasia is no more within their control than the laws of physics; as if continued expansion is not a reality the government is choosing so much as conceding,” Elaina Plott Calabro wrote in The Atlantic recently. “This is the story of an ideology in motion, of what happens when a nation enshrines a right before reckoning with the totality of its logic.”
There is an opportunity to stop the spread of Canada’s MAiD regime. MPs Tamara Jansen and Andrew Lawton are championing the “Right to Recover” Act, which would make it illegal to euthanize someone whose sole qualifying condition is mental illness. I urge each and every reader to get involved today.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex8 hours ago
Freedom of speech under threat on university campuses in Canada
-
Business8 hours ago
Carney engaging in Orwellian doublethink with federal budget rhetoric
-
Energy8 hours ago
Canada’s LNG breakthrough must be just the beginning
-
Business9 hours ago
Court’s ‘Aboriginal title’ ruling further damages B.C.’s investment climate
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta deserves a police force that actually reflects its values
-
Crime2 days ago
Charlie Kirk Killer’s Ammo Reportedly Marked With Transgender, Anti-‘Fascist’ Messages
-
Alberta2 days ago
OPEC+ chooses market share over stability, and Canada will pay
-
Crime2 days ago
Former FBI Agent Says Charlie Kirk Assassination May Have Been ‘A Professional Hit’