When President Obama essentially created a new immigration program for entrepreneurs last week, he used what has become a favorite tool to reshape the way the administration can skirt Congress to bring foreigners into the United States.

Called “humanitarian parole,” the law gives the Department of Homeland Security secretary the authority to admit foreigners outside the normal immigration system for a “temporary period of time due to a compelling emergency.”

“There is no legal authority for parole in place. It’s part of a steady erosion of respect for immigration laws that we’ve seen.”

Critics say Obama has distorted the original intent of the law, which was designed to allow someone to come to the U.S. to, for example, undergo life-saving medical treatment unavailable in his homeland or testify in a court case.

“It was intended as a very, very limited power the president could exercise … It was intended to be used very rarely,” said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “Like a lot of powers, this president extended it as far as it could possibly be extended.”

In addition to waving foreigners into the country, Obama also has used “parole in place” to allow foreigners already in the United States to stay.

“There is no legal authority for parole in place,” Mehlman said. “It’s part of a steady erosion of respect for immigration laws that we’ve seen.”

[lz_jwplayer video= “H2XgiYaD” ads=”true”]

People living in the United States by way of parole do not have green cards and are not on a path to citizenship. But experts say that, in many cases, their status can be adjusted to permanent residency.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said past presidents have typically used parole for individual hardship cases or for specific classes of people tied to events related to the nation’s strategic interests. For instance, parole is the mechanism by which Cubans fleeing the Castro regime immigrated to America, codified in the Cuban Adjustment Act. Dwight Eisenhower used it to admit 32,000 Hungarians who escaped the 1956 Soviet invasion. He also allowed 923 orphans to enter so they could be adopted by military families.

Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson admitted 360,000 people from Indochina, displaced by the war in Vietnam.

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

“They were people fleeing some kind of unrest or civil war,” Vaughan said.

Vaughan said in many cases, past presidents have used parole in cases where Congress was in the process of passing legislation. For instance, President George H.W. Bush used parole to admit the relatives of people granted amnesty in the 1980s. Congress later passed a law codifying it.

In contrast, she said, Congress was not contemplating creating a new program for entrepreneurs when Obama announced the program last week.

“I do feel the criteria are a little looser,” Vaughan said. “It’s basically creating a new category allowing people to stay … I think the public interest is highly debatable, also.”

Perhaps the most controversial use of parole under Obama was the Central American Minors program, which admits children who have showed up at the U.S.-Mexican border in mass numbers without adults beginning in 2014. So far, about 9,000 have entered, along with another 100,000 Central Americans who have arrived at the border.

[lz_jwplayer video=”mBcSIM3o” ads=”true”]

Children admitted are allowed to remain in the United States while they pursue asylum claims. If they do not qualify, they are supposed to return to their home countries. But in practice, Vaughan said, few do.

The current administration has also extended parole to Haitians who have been sponsored for permanent residency. The administration’s policy allows them to wait for the processing in the United States rather their home country. Illegal immigrants related to members of the U.S. military have also been allowed to remain in the United States under parole.

Obama has used “advance parole” for illegal immigrants who qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program he announced in 2012 for so-called “dreamers” — illegal immigrants brought to America as children. Under that program, the administration will not deport participants — but they do not have permanent resident status.

Participants who can provide a valid reason to return to their homeland can receive permission to leave the country and return again. When they do — by virtue of parole — they convert to a status that allows them to be sponsored for a green card by a relative or an employer. Vaughan said about 23,000 dreamers so far have taken advantage of advance parole.

According to a report to Congress, from fiscal year 1989 to fiscal year 1998, 176,421 foreigners granted admission through parole got green cards. Vaughan said she believes the total granted during Obama’s eight years will exceed that figure.

[lz_related_box id=”193758″]

The latest parole rule proposed by U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services officials would allow foreigners in the United States to stay if they own at least 15 percent of a startup company that has attracted at least $345,000 from investors or government grants of at least $100,000.

David North, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, said it is hard to believe someone clever enough to start a successful business cannot figure out one of the other myriad avenues to allow foreigners to stay in the United States.

“I suggest this is for inept entrepreneurs,” he quipped.

The government already has a visa program for foreigners who invest at least $500 million in a U.S. business: the fraud-riddled EB-5 program. Vaughan said the entrepreneur program announced by the administration has even lower investment thresholds.

North conceded that giving parole to foreigners who create jobs is less egregious than other programs.

“It’s a little bit more defensible … but I’m opposed to it, because I don’t think it’s necessary,” he said.