logo
US appeals court steps in as norms protecting Afghans set to expire

US appeals court steps in as norms protecting Afghans set to expire

An appeals court has stepped in to keep in place protections for nearly 12,000 Afghans that have allowed them to work in the US and be protected from deportation after they were set to expire as part of the Trump administration's efforts to make more people eligible for removal from the country.
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 could not deport them.
CASA, a nonprofit immigrant advocacy 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 did not grant CASA's request to keep the protections in place while the lawsuit plays out.
CASA appealed the case Monday and won a stay keeping in place the temporary status for Afghans that was set to expire Monday. The appeals court gave no reason for its decision, but indicated it would be deciding what to do swiftly. The stay is in place for one week, and the court has asked both sides to file briefs this week. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.
The number of Afghans protected by TPS is relatively small compared to the overall number of Afghans about 1,80,000 who have fled Afghanistan and come to the US 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.
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 including many who helped the US during its two-decade-long war there to go home.
"Since so many of those losing their protections served alongside US forces, we should honour 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," said Jennie Murray, President and CEO of the National Immigration Forum.
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump reiterates threat of levying 10% tariff on BRICS members
Trump reiterates threat of levying 10% tariff on BRICS members

Fibre2Fashion

time16 minutes ago

  • Fibre2Fashion

Trump reiterates threat of levying 10% tariff on BRICS members

US President Donald Trump yesterday reiterated his threat of levying a 10-per cent tariff on imports from BRICS group members, saying the group of developing nations would end very quickly if they ever formed in a meaningful way. Trump announced the new tariff on July 6, saying it would apply to any countries aligning themselves with what he termed the 'anti-American policies' of the BRICS group. However, BRICS leaders have rejected that allegation. President Donald Trump yesterday reiterated his threat of levying a 10-per cent tariff on imports from BRICS members. "When I heard about this group from BRICS, six countries, basically, I hit them very, very hard. And if they ever really form in a meaningful way, it will end very quickly," Trump said. He said he is committed to preserving the US dollar's global status as a reserve currency. "When I heard about this group from BRICS, six countries, basically, I hit them very, very hard. And if they ever really form in a meaningful way, it will end very quickly," Trump said without naming the countries. "We can never let anyone play games with us," he was quoted as saying by global newswires. He is committed to preserving the US dollar's global status as a reserve currency and pledged to never allow the creation of a central bank digital currency in America, Trump said. Despite Brazil nixing BRICS plans to push for a common currency in February this year, the group is mulling over a cross-border payment system called BRICS Pay that would facilitate trade and financial transactions in local currencies. The BRICS group expanded last year beyond its core members, i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, to include other countries like Iran and Indonesia. Leaders at the group's summit in Brazil indirectly criticised US military and trade policies. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (DS)

Trump hails aide, congratulates Tulsi Gabbard on exposing 2016 ‘election fraud': ‘Panel was fantastic on prosecuting Obama'
Trump hails aide, congratulates Tulsi Gabbard on exposing 2016 ‘election fraud': ‘Panel was fantastic on prosecuting Obama'

Indian Express

timean hour ago

  • Indian Express

Trump hails aide, congratulates Tulsi Gabbard on exposing 2016 ‘election fraud': ‘Panel was fantastic on prosecuting Obama'

US President Donald Trump praised Special Assistant Harrison Fields and congratulated US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard for her recent statements alleging election fraud in 2016, accusing former President Barack Obama's administration. 'Great job by young and talented Harrison Fields on Fox News. The Panel was fantastic on prosecuting Obama and the 'thugs' who have just been unequivocally exposed on highest level Election Fraud,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'Congratulations to Tulsi Gabbard. Keep it coming!!!' he added. Gabbard publicly accused Obama and several of his top officials of orchestrating what she described as a 'treasonous conspiracy' to undermine Trump's victory in the 2016 election. Thank you, Mr. President. Accountability is coming. Glory to GOD. — Harrison Fields (@HFields47) July 19, 2025 Accompanied by newly declassified intelligence documents, Gabbard claimed that senior Obama-era national security officials 'manufactured' and politicised intelligence assessments about Russian interference. She alleged these actions were a coordinated effort to discredit Trump and 'subvert the will of the American people.' Posting on X, she wrote: 'For months preceding the 2016 election, the Intelligence Community shared a consensus view: Russia lacked the intent and capability to hack US elections. But weeks after President Trump's historic 2016 victory defeating Hillary Clinton, everything changed.' 🧵 Americans will finally learn the truth about how in 2016, intelligence was politicized and weaponized by the most powerful people in the Obama Administration to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President @realDonaldTrump, subverting the… — DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) July 18, 2025 Gabbard's statement, as reported by The Guardian, demanded a full criminal investigation. 'No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,' she said. She specifically named former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former FBI Director James Comey in her allegations. According to documents released by Gabbard's office, assessments from the intelligence community before and immediately after the election suggested that Russia likely did not aim to alter the outcome using cyber means. The report further claims that following a December 2016 White House meeting, Obama administration officials shifted their messaging—relying on still-unverified intelligence, including the Steele dossier—to assert that Russian interference had influenced the election result. (With inputs from The Guardian)

Did money or politics cause Colbert cancellation? Either way, the economics are tough for TV
Did money or politics cause Colbert cancellation? Either way, the economics are tough for TV

First Post

timean hour ago

  • First Post

Did money or politics cause Colbert cancellation? Either way, the economics are tough for TV

As recently as 2018, broadcast networks took in an estimated $439 million in advertising revenue for its late-night programs, according to the advertising firm Guidelines read more CBS says its decision to end Stephen Colbert's late-night comedy show is financial, not political. Yet even with the ample skepticism about that explanation, there's no denying the economics were not working in Colbert's favor. The network's bombshell announcement late Thursday that the 'Late Show' will end next May takes away President Donald Trump's most prominent TV critic and the most popular entertainment program in its genre. The television industry's declining economic health means similar hard calls are already being made with personalities and programming, with others to be faced in the future. For the late-night genre, there are unique factors to consider. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As recently as 2018, broadcast networks took in an estimated $439 million in advertising revenue for its late-night programs, according to the advertising firm Guidelines. Last year, that number dwindled to $220 million. Once a draw for young men, now they've turned away Late-night TV was a particular draw for young men, considered the hardest-to-get and most valuable demographic for advertisers. Increasingly, these viewers are turning to streaming services, either to watch something else entirely or catch highlights of the late-night shows, which are more difficult for the networks to monetize. More broadly, the much-predicted takeover of viewers by streaming services is coming to pass. The Nielsen company reported that during the last two months, for the first time ever, more people consumed programming on services like YouTube and Netflix than on ABC, CBS and NBC or any cable network. Networks and streamers spent roughly $70 billion on entertainment shows and $30 billion for sports rights last year, said Brian Wieser, CEO of Madison & Wall, an advertising consultant and data services firm. Live sports is the most dependable magnet for viewers and costs for its rights are expected to increase 8% a year over the next decade. With television viewership declining in general, it's clear where savings will have to come from. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Wieser said he does not know whether Colbert's show is profitable or not for CBS and parent company Paramount Global, but he knows the direction in which it is headed. 'The economics of television are weak,' he said. In a statement announcing the cancellation, George Cheeks, Paramount Global's president and chief executive officer, said that 'This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.' Cheeks' problem is that not everyone believes him. Colbert is a relentless critic of Trump, and earlier this week pointedly criticized Paramount's decision to settle Trump's lawsuit against CBS over a '60 Minutes' interview with Kamala Harris. He called Paramount's $16 million payment to Trump a 'big fat bribe,' since the company is seeking the administration's approval of its merger with Skydance Media. On Friday, the Writers Guild of America called for an investigation by New York's attorney general into whether Colbert's cancellation is itself a bribe, 'sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD CBS' decision made this a pivotal week for the future of television and radio programming. Congress stripped federal funding for PBS and NPR, threatening the future of shows on those outlets. Journey Gunderson, executive director of the National Comedy Center, called the decision to end Colbert's show the end of an era. 'Late-night television has historically been one of comedy's most audience-accessible platforms — a place where commentary meets community, night after night,' Gunderson said. 'This isn't just the end of a show. It's the quiet removal of one of the few remaining platforms for daily comedic commentary. Trump, who has called in the past for CBS to terminate Colbert's contract, celebrated the show's upcoming demise. 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'His talent was even less than his ratings.' Some experts questioned whether CBS could have explored other ways to save money on Colbert. NBC, for example, has cut costs by eliminating the band on Seth Meyers' late-night show and curtailing Jimmy Fallon's 'Tonight' show to four nights a week. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Could CBS have saved more money by cutting off the show immediately, instead of letting it run until next May, which sets up an awkward 'lame duck' period? Then again, Colbert will keep working until his contract runs out; CBS would have had to keep paying him anyway. CBS recently cancelled the 'After Midnight' show that ran after Colbert. But the network had signaled earlier this year that it was prepared to continue that show until host Taylor Tomlinson decided that she wanted to leave, noted Bill Carter, author of 'The Late Shift.'

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