Homeland Security is removing protections that kept some Afghans from deportation
The Department of Homeland Security in May said it was ending Temporary Protected Status for 11,700 people from Afghanistan in 60 days. That status had allowed them to work and meant the government couldn't deport them.
The number of Afghans protected by TPS is relatively small compared to the overall number of Afghans — about 180,000 — who have fled Afghanistan and come to the U.S. since the Taliban retook control of the country in 2021. It's also not clear how many of those 11,7000 covered by TPS have applied for or received other forms of protection like asylum that would keep them from being deported after Monday.
But the removal of the protective status for Afghans has struck a chord with many advocates and volunteers because of the suggestion that it is safe for Afghans — many who helped the U.S. during its two-decade long war there — to go home.
'Since so many of those losing their protections served alongside U.S. forces, we should honor that service by upholding our promise to provide safety and ensure that they have an opportunity to thrive here. We urge Congress to protect Afghans by providing them permanent status – a commitment that is long overdue,' Jennie Murray, President and CEO of the National Immigration Forum, said in a news release Monday.
At the time that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended the temporary protected status for Afghans, the department wrote in the decision that the situation in their home country was getting better.
'The Secretary determined that, overall, there are notable improvements in the security and economic situation such that requiring the return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan does not pose a threat to their personal safety due to armed conflict or extraordinary and temporary conditions,' according to the May announcement.
Temporary Protected Status can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people of various nationalities who are in the United States. They can't be deported and can work legally but they don't have a pathway to citizenship.
The status is inherently precarious because it is up to the Homeland Security secretary to renew the protections regularly — usually every 18 months. The first Trump administration tried to remove many of these temporary protected statuses but was largely foiled by the courts.
This time around, the Trump administration has moved even more aggressively to remove the protections, thus making more people eligible for removal from the country. The administration has pushed to remove temporary protected status from people from seven countries with Venezuela and Haiti making up the biggest chunk of the hundreds of thousands of people losing their protections.
Critics say that successive administrations essentially rubber-stamped these renewals regardless, and people covered by what's supposed to be a temporary status end up staying in the United States for years.
CASA, a nonprofit immigrant advocates group, sued the administration over the TPS revocation for Afghans as well as for people from Cameroon - those expire August 4. A federal judge last Friday allowed the lawsuit to go forward but didn't grant CASA's request to keep the protections in place while the lawsuit plays out.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DOJ urges Supreme Court to turn away Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal
The Department of Justice on Monday urged the Supreme Court to turn away an appeal from Ghislaine Maxwell, the former associate of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for conspiring with and aiding Epstein in his sexual abuse of underage girls. Maxwell, 63, had urged the court earlier this year to review her case, arguing that an unusual co-conspirator's clause in Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida barred her subsequent prosecution in New York. A district court and a federal appeals court previously rejected that argument, and the DOJ today urged the high court to do the same. "That contention is incorrect, and petitioner does not show that it would succeed in any court of appeals," wrote U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer. At the core of Maxwell's petition for SCOTUS review is her contention that the language of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) specifically limited his protection to the Southern District of Florida, whereas the language of the co-conspirator clause should have been read to prohibit her prosecution in any federal district. The co-conspirator clause stated that if "Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to" four of Epstein's assistants. Maxwell was not among the four women named. MORE: Timeline: Jeffrey Epstein memo causes controversy among MAGA base "Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein," her attorneys wrote in their petition to SCOTUS in April. The DOJ, however, argues in their response that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Florida -- then led by R. Alexander Acosta -- did not intend to bind other federal districts and had no authority to do so without the approval of those districts or the Criminal Division of the DOJ. "And there is no indication here that anyone involved in negotiating Epstein's NPA obtained the necessary approval for binding other USAOs or thought it was necessary," the DOJ's brief states. The DOJ also contends that – even if the co-conspirators clause could be read to apply nationwide as Maxwell claims - there is no evidence that the parties who negotiated the NPA intended for the co-conspirators clause to benefit Maxwell, who the government describes as "at most, an incidental third-party beneficiary of the agreement." "The government was not even aware of [Maxwell's] role in Epstein's scheme at that time," Sauer wrote, and urged the justices to deny Maxwell's petition for certiorari. In a statement Monday, an attorney for Maxwell hinted at the swirling controversy surrounding the Trump administration's decision not to release any further records related to investigations of Epstein. "I'd be surprised if President Trump knew his lawyers were asking the Supreme Court to let the government break a deal. He's the ultimate dealmaker—and I'm sure he'd agree that when the United States gives its word, it should keep it. With all the talk about who's being prosecuted and who isn't, it's especially unfair that Ghislaine Maxwell remains in prison based on a promise the government made and broke," wrote David Oscar Markus. MORE: Trump supporters angry over Justice Department's Epstein memo Sigrid McCawley, an attorney who has represented hundreds of alleged Epstein victims, including one of the trial's key witnesses against Maxwell, told ABC News in a statement that Maxwell should stay behind bars. "After two-plus decades of recruiting and abusing young girls trapped in Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking enterprise, Ghislaine Maxwell has again attempted to escape accountability by trying to hide behind the non-prosecution agreement. Maxwell does not deserve any protection, and she should remain in prison for the horrific crimes she committed," wrote McCawley, a managing partner at Boies Schiller Flexner. Maxwell -- who pleaded not guilty to all the criminal charges against her -- was convicted by a jury in 2021 on five of six counts, including conspiracy, sex trafficking of a minor, and transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. Prosecutors alleged that Maxwell played a "key role" in a multi-state sex trafficking scheme in which she allegedly "befriended" and later "enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein" and was also, at times, "present for and involved" in the abuse herself. "A unanimous jury has found Ghislaine Maxwell guilty of one of the worst crimes imaginable -- facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of children," then-U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement following the verdict.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DC Council partially funds ranked choice voting, falls short of full implementation
The Brief D.C. council voted to partially fund a ranked choice voting measure, supported by 73% of D.C. residents. The initiative has not passed yet; however, the Council is headed towards approving it ahead of the 2026 election season. The council is expected to meet again in August to further discuss implementation options. WASHINGTON - The D.C. council voted to partially fund Initiative 83, which includes ranked choice voting, but fell short of fully implementing it on Monday afternoon. What we know In ranked choice voting, voters can rank candidates in order of preference, rather than choose one. If passed, the initiative would take effect in time for the 2026 election, so voters can rank mayoral candidates regardless of party affiliation, and rank their preferred candidate at number one. Why you should care D.C. is a diverse city with a not-so-diverse voting population. In a 2024 poll, 92% of registered voters were Democrats, and 6% were Republicans. With ranked choice voting, voters can rank Democrats rather than just pick one. What they're saying DC Shadow Representative, Oye Owolewa, says he appreciates the council for "hearing the voices of the people" and for the initial funding of ranked choice voting. "As someone who fights for DC's full democracy on the national stage, I'm encouraged to see progress at home," Owolewa says. The Source Information in this story comes from U.S. Representative Oye Owolewa's press release.
Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
EU Targets Bourbon, Cars, Boeing in Countermeasures List
00:00 The European Union has finalized a list of counter measures to target U.S. goods worth €72 billion, including cars, Bourbon and Boeing aircraft. The measures represent the EU's response to President Trump's earlier so-called reciprocal tariffs. Bloomberg's demand news director, Charles Manson, is here with the details. Ross, what do we know then about the EU's countermeasures? Well, as you were saying, though, finalize this list of countermeasures. This is actually cut down from the initial list, which was over €90 billion. But it does include some essential items, including targeting Boeing, particularly the aircraft side, but then everything from medical equipment to plastics to agricultural equipment to musical equipment. It doesn't include military equipment, which should not be subject to any tariffs from the EU. But it is about sending a message to the U.S. that the European Union is prepared with very specific measures targeting certain U.S. goods in the event that this all disintegrates and there isn't a deal before the 1st of August. And some of these items that they're targeting very much with with an eye to the US midterm elections, even you're thinking about bourbon. Some of the states where bourbon comes from in the U.S., can they be key states in the US midterm elections for those companies and therefore for Republican politicians as well? And the message in all of this is that the EU wants to keep negotiating. Certainly we're seeing that happen. The impetus is to try and get a deal. They do want to avoid a broader trade conflict with the US. Certainly European companies want to avoid a broader trade conflict with the US. However, they're warning the US we are prepared. We have a specific list of things we're going to enact if we have to. We need to have all options on the table. What are the current expectations, Roz, that maybe there is a deal by August the first between the EU and between Washington? Well, the climate's become a bit trickier because Donald Trump keeps referring, excuse me, to his letters as deals. These are not deals. This is the US imposing a tariff rate on countries or blocs including the EU, and negotiating in that climate is quite difficult because you're trying to address very complex issues, not just tariffs, but non-tariff barriers that are seen as existing to trade, very complex conversations going on about sectors for the EU, steel, aluminum, cars, you name it. And so you need to have a bit of a climate of trust going on there. I mean, Donald Trump said yesterday he's willing to keep talking with the EU. Certainly, we know that the chief negotiator was on the phone last night with the US commerce secretary. So those conversations are going on, but they're getting to a deadline now of August the first. That's the fresh deadline and there's a lot it seems to wade through. And so the EU is quite wisely saying, well, we have to have a lot of issues in our back pocket, including these potential countermeasures.
