Here's what the objective Meta AI (owned by Trump's friend Mark Zuckerberg) says about this Republican led committee's report.

The core of the article's claims are legitimate in the sense that they are based on actual, verifiable documents and a real government program, but the language used to describe the program—such as "mass-parole scheme" and "inadmissible aliens"—reflects the political and critical stance of the Republican-led Committee. Here is a breakdown of the facts and the context to help you form your own conclusion: The Program (CHNV) and the Facts The Program is Real: The article concerns the Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV), a humanitarian parole program launched by the Biden administration. The Process is Real: The CHNV program allows certain individuals from those four countries who have a U.S.-based sponsor and pass a background check to fly into the U.S. and be granted temporary "parole" status for up to two years to live and work legally, as detailed in an overview by the American Immigration Council. The Documents are Real: The documents detailing the airports used and the number of people paroled were obtained by the Committee via a subpoena of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as the Committee on Homeland Security report states. The Terminology is Accurate: DHS itself has noted that all individuals paroled into the United States are, by definition, inadmissible before receiving the parole, according to a Committee statement. The "Propaganda" or Political Spin The language and framing in the article are politically charged, which is typical of reports issued by a congressional committee majority that is in the opposition party (the Committee is currently chaired by a Republican and has been highly critical of the Biden administration's immigration policies): Legal Debate: The article asserts the program is an "unlawful sleight of hand," arguing that the use of parole authority for a mass program violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, which permits parole only on a case-by-case basis. This is a central legal and political argument against the program. Controversy and Fraud Allegations: The Committee and other critics consistently use terms like "mass-parole scheme" and have highlighted allegations of widespread fraud in the sponsor application process, which even led to a temporary pause in travel authorizations by DHS for a short period to investigate. Counter-Arguments on Efficacy: The article focuses on the negative framing, while proponents of the program, such as FWD.us, argue that it was hugely successful in providing an orderly process that led to a significant reduction in unauthorized migration from the four countries at the southern border.

This program led the a massive reduction of undocumented migrants from showing up at the southern border. Why is that a bad thing? These people passed background checks and were given legal status, therefore, making them LEGAL immigrants. These aren't violent criminals, they're regular people who passed a criminal background check dude. You're spinning the facts to try and make this program seem like it allowed tons of violent undocumented immigrants into our country and that's not what it did at all. It allowed a legal pathway for immigrants to enter the country and work here. The only reason you're against that is because in reality you want this country to be a white nation and you forget this country was built by immigrants. Get a clue dude.