logo
News Of Haitian TPS, Travel Ban & Supreme Court Order Stun Immigrants

News Of Haitian TPS, Travel Ban & Supreme Court Order Stun Immigrants

Forbes2 days ago
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA - FEBRUARY 07: Supporters of immigrants' rights protest against U.S. President ... More Donald Trump's immigration policies on February 07, 2025 in Homestead, Florida. President Trump has directed agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. (Photo by)
News of three U.S. immigration-related developments recently surprised immigrants and immigration advocates. The cancellation of Haitian Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands, the revival of a broad travel ban targeting 19 countries (including eight Muslim-majority nations), and a quiet yet significant victory at the Supreme Court limiting the power of federal judges to block unconstitutional executive actions nationwide were momentous decisions with wide-ranging consequences for the United States. Each action raises serious legal and moral concerns. Collectively, they indicate a dangerous mix of policy overreach, discriminatory motives, and the weakening of judicial protections that could affect not only this government but future ones—Democratic or Republican.
TPS Terminations: Focusing on the Most Vulnerable
In late June, the Trump administration announced its plan to end TPS for about 430,000 Haitians, effective September 2, 2025. At first glance, the figure seems shocking—but it hides even a much harsher reality. Nearly half of these individuals, around 200,000, have already been deported through previous measures: Title 42 expulsions, humanitarian parole terminations, and strict border interceptions.
TPS, a humanitarian provision embedded in U.S. immigration law, offers legal residence and work authorization for individuals fleeing natural disasters, conflict, or extraordinary conditions in their home countries. It is not a loophole. It is a lawful status granted and extended by successive administrations of both parties in recognition of humanitarian necessity.
Revoking this protection on a large scale, especially when around 1.75 million immigrants from various countries currently in the United States could be affected by such actions, not only upsets lives and families but also breaches the trust in the rule of law. TPS holders are not undocumented immigrants. They entered legally or were granted lawful residence due to circumstances beyond their control. Their removal does not serve a mandate to deport 'illegal immigrants,' but instead shows a preference for politically convenient targets. In Trump's zeal to meet his goal of 'deporting 11 million immigrants who are in the country illegally,' he is deporting legal immigrants.
Worse still, the administration seems to be skipping necessary legal procedures. Before TPS can be revoked, the Department of Homeland Security must properly review country conditions, consult with other federal agencies, issue a 60-day notice, and offer a wind-down period of 6–18 months. These protections are in place to prevent deportations from returning individuals to danger. The courts might still step in, as they did in Ramos v. Nielsen, when a lower court found that the Trump administration's previous TPS cancellations were discriminatory and biased.
The administration's new attack on TPS might follow a similar path—litigation, injunctions, appeals. But for thousands of Haitians, the uncertainty is already traumatic.
The Travel Ban Revisited: Familiar Faces, Persistent Bias
Adding to the TPS decision is the Trump administration's reimposition of a travel ban, now expanded to include 19 countries, eight of which are majority-Muslim. Though presented as a national security measure, the origins and focus of the policy resemble the earlier 'Muslim Ban' that was partially struck down by courts and widely condemned as discriminatory.
This recent iteration does little to ease those concerns. The list of affected countries remains unclear, the criteria are random, and the process lacks transparency or meaningful oversight by Congress. Entire families—spouses, children, students—are now denied entry, regardless of their personal history, reason for travel, or connections to the U.S.
These bans do not improve national security. They alienate allies, harm economies, and increase xenophobia. Even more, they weaken the core Canadian promise: that people are judged by their deeds and character, not their nationality or religion.
Supreme Court's Injunction Ruling: A Win for Executive Authority
Perhaps the most far-reaching—and least noticed—development is the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Casa case, which significantly narrows the ability of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions.​ The case originated from Trump's executive order to limit birthright citizenship. The constitutional issue—whether the 14th Amendment protects the citizenship rights of all U.S.-born children—was avoided by the Court, which instead chose to focus on procedural matters. In doing so, the Court determined that federal judges can no longer routinely issue injunctions that block presidential actions nationwide.
This decision, while cloaked in administrative reasoning, has explosive implications.
Historically, nationwide injunctions have been one of the few effective tools to limit executive overreach. When a federal court uncovers credible evidence of constitutional violations—such as family separations, discriminatory bans, or revocation of legal status—it must be able to halt the action consistently. The alternative is chaos: legal rights that vary depending on the region, with one federal district upholding citizenship and another not.
The criteria for these injunctions are strict:
These are not impulsive decisions. They are rooted in law, precedent, and thorough judicial review. Removing courts' authority in this area creates a fragmented legal system, causes delays in justice, and exposes vulnerable groups to lasting harm while appellate review processes unfold slowly.
While conservatives may celebrate the ruling as a victory over 'judicial activism,' they might soon regret it. Future Democratic governments could now implement sweeping directives—on guns, climate, or abortion access—without fearing immediate nationwide injunctions. Judicial restraint, once a safeguard against tyranny, has now been selectively weakened.
Checks, Balances, and Consequences
The Trump administration's recent immigration developments are not just isolated mistakes. They reflect a deliberate plan: to push the boundaries of executive power, sideline the courts, and change immigration law by decree rather than through legislation.
In each of the three ​instances—TPS cancellation, the travel ban, and the limitation on nationwide injunctions—the pattern remains consistent. Lawful immigrants and minorities are targeted. Established legal procedures are ignored or weakened. And judicial oversight is reduced or compromised.
The Constitution envisions a balance of powers — not an unchecked presidency. When courts can no longer act quickly to stop illegal or discriminatory acts, it is not only immigrants who suffer but also the integrity of the law itself.
The cancellation of the Haitian PTS program, the introduction of a broad travel ban, and the Supreme Court's decision to limit nationwide injunctions issued by lower federal courts should concern all Americans—regardless of political affiliation. Today, it affects Haitian families and Muslim travellers who face the consequences. Tomorrow, it could be any group that falls out of political favour. The real question is not whether Trump's actions were lawful but whether they were right—and whether future leaders will feel unjustly constrained by them.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump signals deference to farmers on undocumented workers
Trump signals deference to farmers on undocumented workers

The Hill

time30 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump signals deference to farmers on undocumented workers

President Trump late Thursday signaled deference to farmers in the U.S. who employ undocumented migrants, aiming to shield some of them from his administration's deportation efforts. 'Farmers, look, they know better. They work with them for years. You had cases where, not year, but just even over the years where people have worked for a farm, on a farm for 14, 15 years and they get thrown out pretty viciously and we can't do it. We gotta work with the farmers, and people that have hotels and leisure properties too,' Trump told the crowd at the 'Salute to America' event in Des Moines, Iowa. The president indicated during his speech, which formally kicked off the year-long celebration of the 250th anniversary of the nation's founding, that his administration is working on legislation that would permit some migrants without authorization to stay in the country and keep working on farms. 'We're gonna work with them and we're gonna work very strong and smart, and we're gonna put you in charge. We're gonna make you responsible and I think that that's going to make a lot of people happy,' Trump said, acknowledging that 'serious radical right people, who I also happen to like a lot, they may not be quite as happy but they'll understand.' Trump then turned toward Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who was in attendance, and asked if 'they'll understand that.' 'You're the one that brought this whole situation up. Brooke Rollins brought it up and she said, 'So we have a little problem. The farmers are losing a lot of people,' and we figured it out and we have some great stuff being written,' the president said in Iowa, the state that has over 86,000 farms. 'Let the farmers be responsible.' The White House has gone back and forth on the issue of migrant labor on farms and in the hotel industry. The administration has directed immigration agents to mostly halt raids at hotels, plants and farms in early June, though it reversed course days later. Later in June, Trump said during an interview on Fox News that a temporary pass would be issued to migrants in the hospitality industry and on farms to allow their employers to have more control. 'I cherish our farmers. And when we go into a farm and we take away people that have been working there for 15 and 20 years, who were good, who possibly came in incorrectly. And what we're going to do is we're going to do something for farmers where we can let the farmer sort of be in charge,' Trump said on Fox News's 'Sunday Morning Futures' with Maria Bartiromo. 'The farmer knows he's not going to hire a murderer.' During his speech in Iowa, the president warned that if the farmers do not do a 'good job, we'll throw them out of the country.' 'We'll let the illegals stay and we'll throw the farmer the hell out, okay? Get ready, farmer,' he said.

AICPA submits recommendations for transition to EFDS
AICPA submits recommendations for transition to EFDS

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

AICPA submits recommendations for transition to EFDS

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has submitted recommendations to the Department of the Treasury concerning the transition to an electronic federal disbursements system (EFDS), as mandated by Executive Order 14247, Modernizing Payments To and From America's Bank Accounts. The order stipulates that all federal payments should be processed electronically by ceasing issuance of paper checks by 30 September 2025 and aims to enhance efficiency and security while reducing costs. The AICPA supports the move towards electronic payments but highlights the challenges it poses, particularly for taxpayers without a US bank account. This includes seniors and the unbanked population, who may be excluded from the system due to international banking regulations that restrict automated clearing house transfers with non-US financial institutions. The AICPA's letter references a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report indicating that nearly seven million taxpayers received refunds through non-electronic means in the latest tax year. The AICPA's recommendations include exceptions for individuals and entities not based in the US or without a US bank account, and exemptions for temporary non-US individuals. It also suggests expanding the capabilities of the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System to allow business accounts to process payments on behalf of individuals, and delaying the implementation for trusts and estates until the IRS can address specific administrative issues. Furthermore, the AICPA proposes guidance for applying exceptions for qualified taxpayers, extending the timeframe for implementing the order, seeking statutory authority for the mandates, and involving stakeholders in establishing the rules for the transition. AICPA senior manager for Tax Policy & Advocacy Daniel Hauffe said: 'For many years, the AICPA has advocated for and supported the modernisation of the IRS and its payment systems; although this executive order is a step in the right direction, there are many considerations before implementing changes, which means updated processes and carefully tailored rules will need to be developed.' 'The AICPA's recommendations allow for the modernisation of the IRS' tax payment systems while mitigating the impact of the administrative burden on taxpayers, tax practitioners and the IRS, that could be caused by this executive order.' In June 2025, the AICPA also expressed concerns regarding the pass-through entity tax state and local tax (SALT) deductions in recent reconciliation bills. "AICPA submits recommendations for transition to EFDS" was originally created and published by The Accountant, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Are Texans Most Likely To Lose the Most Due to Tariffs?
Are Texans Most Likely To Lose the Most Due to Tariffs?

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Are Texans Most Likely To Lose the Most Due to Tariffs?

The Trump administration's campaign of taxing foreign governments in an effort to 'Make America Great Again' may have unforeseen domestic ramifications. This is particularly true in the state of Texas, as its economy is intimately tied to its southern neighbor Mexico. In fact, some analysts foresee nothing short of a calamity for the Texas economy if the tariffs go forth as planned. But that's also a big 'if.' Read Next: Check Out: Here's a look at the potential effect on the Texas economy due to the Trump administration's tariffs as currently planned. One of the problems with economic indicators is that some are lagging, meaning they only give a picture of what has already happened. On that level, Texas looks A-OK, as job growth was good in the first quarter of 2025. But according to the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, which has more up-to-date information on economic trends and sentiment, business activity is weakening. And this is before the full effect of the tariffs are even being felt. Be Aware: Every month, the Dallas Fed conducts a manufacturing outlook survey to gauge the real-time, on-the-ground response of businesses to various economic stimuli. In the first quarter of 2025, manufacturing activity actually picked up a bit in Texas, but some of that was likely due to orders being pulled forward ahead of the implementation of tariffs. The fact that manufacturing activity is now rapidly declining, with the index actually turning negative in April, helps validate that theory. Perhaps not surprisingly, businesses are uncertain about the future due primarily to the tariff policy. According to the Dallas Fed, the uncertainty level among Texas businesses has reached multiyear highs, and this in and of itself can hurt economic prospects. Businesses that are unsure what to expect may opt to hunker down and reduce capital expenditures or even hiring until the path ahead becomes more clear. This self-imposed slowdown can exacerbate the economic damage created by the actual tariffs themselves. Texas is the leading trade state in the country, so tariffs on foreign countries are likely to affect it disproportionately. Mexico is the state's No. 1 trading partner, according to the Office of the Governor of Texas, to the tune of $272.3 billion worth of goods exchanged in 2023 alone. And it's not just one-way trade either. Mexico is both the leading source of imports and the top export market for Texas. The bottom line here is that when Mexico is subject to tariffs, it also has a large effect on the state of Texas. According to Trade Partnership Worldwide, Texas businesses could see a $47 billion economic loss. And a Perryman Group analysis found that a sustained 25% tariff on Mexican goods could cost the state over 287,000 jobs. Although no one can tell with 100% accuracy what the final tariff policy will be — and how it will affect Texans — there are some steps you can take to prepare. Just as businesses are hunkering down in the wake of the tariff uncertainty, it makes sense as an individual to boost your cash reserves as well. Since any type of economic contraction could lead to job loss, it's best to sock away at least three to six months' worth of income in a savings account. From a longer-term perspective, it can make sense to upskill yourself so that your value as an employee can outlast any economic turndowns. This will help ensure job security even beyond the potentially temporary tariff issues. If you have the luxury of flexibility, consider exploring other industries that might be less affected by tariff concerns than, for example, construction and auto manufacturing. Service-oriented industries are a good option, as are businesses that don't source materials or trade with tariff-impacted countries like Mexico. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Are You Rich or Middle Class? 8 Ways To Tell That Go Beyond Your Paycheck This article originally appeared on Are Texans Most Likely To Lose the Most Due to Tariffs? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store