
Revoking Haitians' temporary immigration status is wrong and will hurt South Florida
Half-a-million Haitians temporarily living in the United States were plunged into uncertainty this week when the Trump administration announced it was rolling back their extension of Temporary Protected Status, meaning they could lose their work permits and be eligible for deportation as soon as August.
It's unclear how many Haitian TPS holders live in Florida but the state has one of the largest populations of Haitian Americans in the country, about 500,000, with the majority in South Florida. This move will devastate our friends and neighbors, our co-workers and employees and harm our economy. Democratic U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson of Miami called sending Haitians home amid the country's turbulence a 'kiss of death.'
Simmering apprehension is fast becoming a way of life here: The news about Haitians' TPS came about three weeks after the administration's gut-wrenching announcement that it would also revoke TPS for some 350,000 Venezuelans by April and another 257,000 by September.
In other parts of the country, talk of TPS may seem abstract and far away, part of the national conversation about immigration and the need to crack down on those who are in the United States illegally. But in Miami, this hits home. Hard.
We are community built, at least in recent times, by immigrants. Haitians and Venezuelans are an intrinsic part of our society. And people who are protected by TPS aren't here illegally; they have temporary legal status awarded to them by the U.S. government. Yes, it is a temporary status, but conferring that status should be based on logic, not political gamesmanship.
This is, though, about politics. President Donald Trump came into office on the promise of deporting a million people. The TPS designation was extended by the Biden administration, so Trump is trying to erase it. In the process, he is undermining the word of the U.S. government. Our allies and enemies alike might well wonder: If we don't keep our word about TPS from administration to administration, what other promises will we go back on?
For the government to simply change course when a new president takes office is unnecessarily cruel. These are human beings on TPS, not pawns. And they come from places in terrible turmoil.
TPS is a federal program that allows migrants from certain countries to temporarily live and work legally in the U.S. while conditions in their home countries are unsafe.
If there is any country in the world that should be eligible for the program, it's Haiti. Armed gangs control up to 90% of metropolitan Port-au-Prince, the capital. Sexual violence is commonplace, used as a way to control the population. The U.S. has spent more than $620 million to support a United Nations-authorized multinational security mission, which is struggling to impose order.
There are shortages of food and an ongoing lack of medical supplies, with at least 70% of hospitals not functioning. There were at least four gang-related massacres last year, leading to the deaths of more than 5,600 Haitians.
Schools have shuttered, doctors and nurses have been kidnapped for ransom, electricity goes on and off and a million people have fled their homes to escape violence, as William G. O'Neill, a U.N. expert on human rights in Haiti, wrote in an opinion article for the Herald asking the U.S. to reconsider this TPS decision.
If that is not the case for TPS, what is?
The same argument has been made — by this Editorial Board — regarding TPS for Venezuela, where conditions under leader Nicolas Maduro have worsened, if anything.
The reasoning to allow Haitians to remain on TPS isn't solely based on being humane, though. What happens when half-a-million people are suddenly deported? It's hard to picture. Families would be divided. Businesses would suffer.
Scaling back TPS, as many Republicans want, is one thing; yanking it out from under people who already have it is another thing entirely. Sending Haitians back to their devastated and dangerous country is, sadly, all about politics, not based on any threat to the U.S. or any reality in Haiti. This decision must be revisited.
Click here to send the letter.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
Federal judge again blocks deportation of anti-Israel Columbia protester
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from detaining a Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident whom federal agents have targeted for deportation after she took part in an anti-Israel demonstration earlier this year. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald's preliminary injunction on Thursday blocks Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from taking 21-year-old Yunseo Chung into custody. Chung is originally from South Korea and has lived in the U.S. since she was seven years old. ICE had attempted to arrest her in March but were unsuccessful and the court has now barred ICE from detaining her without prior approval. If the government tries to detain Chung for any reason other than her potential deportation, it must give 72 hours' notice to Chung's lawyers and the court and allow the court time to determine if the detention attempt is a pretext for First Amendment retaliation. The ruling also states that she remains free while her legal case proceeds. Ramzi Kassem, co-director of CLEAR, a legal nonprofit at City University of New York that is representing Chung, praised the ruling. "This is a win not just for Yunseo and for the legions of people who stand up for Palestinians and oppose the daily atrocities in Gaza that our government underwrites, but also for freedom of speech and the rule of law in our country," Kassem said in a statement, per the Washington Post. It comes after the same judge in March ordered immigration officials to cease their efforts to arrest Chung. The Trump administration has alleged that her participation in a protest poses a potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequence for the United States. Chung's attorneys say that the government's pursuit of the Columbia student is an "unjustifiable assault on [the] First Amendment." Chung sued the government earlier this year. The lawsuit states that Chung was a participant in the anti-Israel protests, not a leader, and was "one of a large group of college students" expressing "shared concerns" over the war in Gaza. Chung, according to the lawsuit, "visited" the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, a number of tents organized in the center of campus, but does not state whether she stayed there. The lawsuit also makes it clear that she did not make public statements or engage in high-profile activities while at the protests. Chung's lawsuit states that she was never arrested or disciplined in relation to events at the encampment. However, she was later arrested during a 2025 protest at Barnard College. The lawsuit claims that it is common in New York City for police to arrest many protesters and that charges are usually dropped or dismissed. The lawsuit states that on March 8, an ICE official signed an administrative arrest warrant for Chung and federal law enforcement went to Chung's parents' house the next day seeking to arrest her. An ICE official allegedly told Chung's attorneys on March 10 that her green card had been "revoked," according to the lawsuit. The government has the authority to rescind permanent resident status if it believes that a person has violated U.S. immigration law. Chung's attorneys say in the lawsuit that law enforcement searched Chung's dorm room on March 13 in accordance with a warrant. She was valedictorian of her high school senior class and has a near-perfect GPA heading into her senior year, according to court documents. Chung is double-majoring in English and women's and gender studies at Columbia, the Washington Post reported. The Trump administration has also sought to deport former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, whom it accuses of playing a major role in anti-Israel protests at Columbia University.


CNBC
8 minutes ago
- CNBC
Watch CNBC's full interview with House Speaker Mike Johnson
House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the public feud between President Trump and Elon Musk, Musk's criticism of the GOP reconciliation package, fate of the bill in the Senate, cutting government spending, and more.


Axios
9 minutes ago
- Axios
GOP backing for wind and solar is cratering, new poll shows
New polling shows steep declines in Republicans' support for solar and especially wind power — data that lands as GOP lawmakers weigh bills to curtail incentives. Why it matters: The Pew Research Center survey reveals Democrats' challenge in trying to exact a political price for scuttling IRA credits. If this poll is right, it doesn't look like ending the credits would create jeopardy with the GOP base — especially if these trend lines continue. But roughly 9 in 10 Democrats polled support more wind and solar, making renewables popular on an overall basis. That matters in swing districts. The big picture: The poll of 5,085 U.S. adults — conducted from April 28 to May 4 — shows steep erosion in just five years among Republicans (see above). Support for wind, which President Trump especially dislikes, is under 50%. "Republicans' views on the nation's energy priorities are now the reverse of what they were in 2020," Pew said. A few other data points from the wide-ranging poll... Nuclear support is growing across the aisle. Sixty-nine percent of GOP and GOP-leaning respondents want to see more nuclear power, up from 51% in 2016. Among Dems and Dem-leaners, it's at 52%, up from 38% in 2016. Pew highlights a wider GOP shift. Today 67% of Republicans surveyed say producing fossil fuels should be a more important priority than wind and solar. In 2020, 65% said renewables should be the higher priority. There's a sharp divide on regulations, too. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans say it's possible to cut back environmental rules while still protecting air and water. Just 32% of Democrats have the same view. What we're watching: George Mason University's Ed Maibach tells me that Pew's renewables results track with a soon-to-drop survey from the school's Center for Climate Change Communication and Yale researchers. "The erosion of support for clean energy among Republicans is almost certainly driven primarily by Donald Trump's, his administration's, Fox News' and other MAGA pundits' relentless bad-mouthing of clean energy," he said via email. "Relentless message repetition is the key to public communication effectiveness, even [when] the messages are factually wrong," said Maibach, the group's director and founder. The other side: Republicans who are paring back hundreds of billions of dollars in IRA credits and grants for renewables, EVs and much more call them part of a "green new scam." Senate environmental committee Republicans, in releasing their portion of the budget plan yesterday that scuttles many grants, said it "promotes fiscal responsibility by rescinding taxpayer dollars spent through the wasteful and bloated IRA." Of note: Responses from the entire sample of 5,085 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.6%.