Trump administration to end deportation relief for Haitians in the U.S.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem will end deportation protections for half a million Haitians, the latest move by the Trump administration to strip migrants of legal status as it ramps up deportations.
Noem, who shortened the duration of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for some 521,000 Haitians earlier this year, will terminate the status on September 2, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said.
President Donald Trump, a Republican, has sought to crack down on both legal and illegal immigration during the first four months of his presidency. Noem, who shares Trump's hardline stance, moved in February to end TPS for some 350,000 Venezuelans, as well as thousands of people from Afghanistan and Cameroon.
The Supreme Court ruled on May 19 that the Trump administration could proceed with ending TPS for those Venezuelans, signaling that other terminations also may be permitted to move forward.
The court in a separate order on May 30 said that the administration could immediately revoke a separate status known as parole for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans.
TPS — a humanitarian program created by the U.S. Congress in 1990 — is available to people whose home country has experienced a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event. Two months before the status expires, the homeland security secretary must determine whether to renew it, expand it to include new arrivals from the country, or terminate it.
'People think TPS is a free pass, but it's not,' Abigail Desravines, a 35-year-old Haitian immigrant who came to the U.S. following the earthquake, told NBC News earlier this year. 'You have to keep renewing, pay fees and live with the fear that it could end at any time. It's not an easy path.'
Trump sought to wipe out most TPS enrollment during his first term but was stymied by federal courts.
In a statement, a DHS spokesperson said conditions in Haiti would now allow people to return but did not explain what exactly had changed to lessen the risk.
'The environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home,' the spokesperson said.
Advocates argue that the conditions in Haiti warrant extending the relief. The country has not held an election in nearly a decade. Since the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in 2021, armed gangs have gained control over much of Port-au-Prince, creating a power vacuum that has made governing a challenge and fueled further violence, homelessness and starvation.
More than 5,600 people were killed and 1,400 were kidnapped amid gang conflicts last year, according to the United Nations. The violence has rendered 1 million people homeless in Haiti, forcing many into makeshift shelters and exacerbating the country's economic challenges.
Despite the dire conditions, the Trump administration has frozen some funding earlier pledged to support a U.N.-backed mission in Haiti.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
24 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Details of Iran attack still remain fuzzy from Trump and his team
President Donald Trump walks on the South Lawn upon arriving at the White House, Saturday, June 21 (PIcture: AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) Next Friday marks the first anniversary of Labour's landslide win in the 2024 General Election – what a difference a year makes. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Much has changed in the 51 weeks since Keir Starmer was swept to power on the back of a thumping majority. Many loyal voters have been disappointed by him in government, including 120 of his own MPs, and he faces rebellion from within the ranks on the Treasury's proposed benefit cuts. Yet there is still enough spare change down the back of the sofa to buy 12 fighter jets from the USA which will be capable of launching nuclear missiles. I'm sure that is a huge consolation to disabled people already struggling to make ends meet. At least Starmer stopped short of going into full Tony Blair mode, and the UK did not get involved in the US bombing mission to Iran, which may have broken international law. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While a year seems a long time in politics, much can change within the course of a week. Last weekend, many feared we were on the brink of World War Three, as Trump launched his raid on Iran's nuclear facilities and the Iranians responded with attacks on Qatar. By Thursday, the entire episode had descended into farce. The exact details still remain fuzzy at best. Trump claims Iran's entire nuclear capability had been obliterated and tweeted 'Bullseye!' Who knew he was such a fan of 1980s British TV game shows? By the start of this week, a leaked intelligence document suggested the impact had been limited, while the International Atomic Energy Agency said there was no leakage of radiation. To a lay person like myself, that suggests two possible scenarios. Either the mission was a failure or the underground nuclear facilities never existed in the first place. By midweek, the CIA had changed the official narrative. The nuclear site had received 'severe damage', which is a few steps down from obliteration. This was backed up by some grainy aerial photos which claimed to show what had happened, but actually proved nothing at all. This is all eerily reminiscent of 2003, with the false evidence trotted out to prove Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Kameini said the US failed to achieve anything significant and was claiming the incident to be a victory for Iran. The whole thing may have to referred to VAR for a final decision. On Thursday US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has faced allegations of alcohol abuse and anger management issues, weighed into the debate. The former Fox News presenter lambasted the press for their lack of patriotism in not believing the president. He called the mission a 'historic success' and repeated the claim that the facility had been 'obliterated' at the weekend. Or maybe he was referring to himself being 'obliterated' at the weekend. It's all very unclear. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The only thing we know with any certainty is that if Trump says he devastated Iran's nuclear capability then he definitely didn't. Judging by form, he's either rambling nonsense or deliberately lying. Although he did come up with an uncharacteristic gem of wisdom on Tuesday. He claimed neither Israel nor Iran 'knows what the f**k they are doing'. They're not the only ones, Mr President.
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘We are privileged': liberal Afrikaners reject Trump's ‘white genocide' claims
For some white Afrikaner South Africans, Donald Trump's offer of refugee status in the US has been seen as a godsend. For others, it has provoked anger and frustration that they are being falsely portrayed as victims of a 'white genocide', 31 years after their community's own oppressive minority rule ended. In February, Trump signed an executive order claiming Afrikaners, who make up about 4% of South Africa's population, or about 2.5 million people, were victims of 'unjust racial discrimination'. The order cut aid to the country and established a refugee programme for white South Africans. The first group arrived in May. Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch colonisers and French Huguenot refugees who came to South Africa in the late 17th century, implemented apartheid from 1948. The regime violently repressed the black majority, while keeping white people safe and wealthy. South Africa remains deeply unequal. White South Africans typically have 20 times the wealth of Black people, according to an article in the Review of Political Economy. The spectacle of white people being flown to the US while Trump blocked refugees from war zones bemused and angered South Africans of all races. For some liberal Afrikaners, it felt personal. 'In terms of being singled out, for progressives it's extremely painful,' said Lindie Koorts, a history lecturer at the University of Pretoria. Koorts mentioned the phrase 'ons is nie almal so nie' ('we are not all like that'). She said the phrase is used by progressives to reach out across South Africa's divides without disavowing their Afrikaner or South African identities – despite it having become a cliche that conservative Afrikaners use to mock them. The rightwing Solidarity Movement, which includes a trade union and the campaigning group AfriForum, has lobbied Trump since his first presidential term for support in helping Afrikaners stay in South Africa, to preserve what Solidarity Movement says is a culture under threat. The group argues, for instance, that a recently implemented education law will limit Afrikaans schooling, something the ruling African National Congress disputes. There is not comprehensive polling data on Afrikaners' political views. However, the Freedom Front Plus party, which is seen as representing conservative Afrikaners, received about 456,000 votes in the 2024 national elections. Emile Myburgh, a lawyer who grew up during apartheid believing that Afrikaners were God's chosen people, said: 'I remember when I was a child often hearing Afrikaners say that: 'The one who rules the tip of Africa rules the world.' So we'd feel very special.' Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion As an atheist, Myburgh, 52, said he now felt excluded from the deeply religious community he grew up in. However, he disputed the claim that his culture was under threat, noting that he regularly attended Afrikaans book launches. 'In the circles that I move in, we do celebrate Afrikaans culture,' he said. Zahria van Niekerk, a 22-year-old fashion student, who was raised bilingually to help her get into university, disagreed that the Afrikaans language, of whom the majority of speakers are now non-white, was threatened. 'My whole family speaks Afrikaans … As long as I can speak it with my family, I'm not really concerned.' In May, Trump ambushed South Africa's president, Cyril Ramaphosa, in the Oval Office with claims that white farmers were being murdered for their race. However, Emil van Maltitz, an economics graduate and farmer's son, disagreed. The 21-year-old, who speaks Sesotho, Afrikaans and English, said: 'Most farmers are white Afrikaners, so it can easily be interpreted as racial targeting. I just think, personally, people are very vulnerable in those areas and they don't have a lot of help from the police.' In the last quarter of 2024, South African police recorded 12 murders on farms, including Black-owned smallholder plots, out of almost 7,000 murders across the country. Van Maltitz recalled young black farmers coming to his father to seek agricultural advice, saying it showed the value of South Africans working together. 'I love diversity, I love being around different people,' he said. Schalk van Heerden is a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church, the largest Afrikaans church. He joked that he was a 'missionary' within the DRC, which supported the apartheid regime. Van Heerden co-founded Betereinders in 2017 to bring about 50 to 100 Afrikaners to monthly brais (barbecues) with up to 200 black people in townships, where most black South Africans still live. Betereinders means 'better-enders' and is a pun on 'bittereinders' ('bitter-enders'), Afrikaners who refused to surrender to the British when their side lost the Boer war. When Trump introduced the refugee scheme for Afrikaners, Beterenders put up 10 billboards around Johannesburg and Pretoria saying, 'Not USA. You, SA.' Van Heerden said: 'We want to be proud about who we are … [But] we are not the big victims in this story. We are privileged, we are very grateful and we are thankful for everything we have.'
Sky News
31 minutes ago
- Sky News
Why critics believe Trump's big win in Supreme Court is 'terrifying step towards authoritarianism'
As the president himself said, this was a "giant" of a decision - a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news. The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump. By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president. Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges. The federal judges, branded "radical leftist lunatics" by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration. They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions - thus blocking the Trump administration's policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy frankly," the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room. "Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," he said. In simple terms, this ruling, from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges, frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts. "This is such a big day…," the president said. "It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power. "And it's really going to be... a very monumental decision." The country's most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court". In a statement, Schumer wrote: "By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution - it's defacing it. "This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy." 2:57 Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government - the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts). They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful. This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship - that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here. A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has deferred its judgement on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges. The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: "As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab - but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. "Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are... (wait for it)... the district courts." Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: "Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling. Writing for the majority, she said: "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply 'class action' - to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation. There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers. The ruling ends a giddy week for the president. 0:51 Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire. By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands. At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire "within a week" in Gaza.
