What is temporary protected status and who is affected by Trump's crackdown?
Millions of people live legally in the United States under various forms of temporary legal protection. Many have been targeted in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.
The latest move has been against people who have what's known as 'temporary protected status' (TPS), which grants people the right to stay in the US legally due to extraordinary circumstances in one's home country such as war or environmental catastrophe.
The Trump administration has in recent weeks announced its plan to end TPS for Haitians, Venezuelans, Afghans and Cameroonians. The move may force more than 9,000 Afghan refugees to move back to the country now ruled by the Taliban. The administration also is ending the designation for roughly half a million Haitians in August.
Here's what to know about TPS and some other temporary protections for immigrants:
Temporary protected status allows people already living in the United States to stay and work legally for up to 18 months if their homelands are unsafe because of civil unrest or natural disasters.
The Biden administration dramatically expanded the designation. It covers people from more than a dozen countries, though the largest numbers come from Venezuela and Haiti.
The status does not put immigrants on a long-term path to citizenship and can be repeatedly renewed. Critics say renewal has become effectively automatic for many immigrants, no matter what is happening in their home countries. According to the American Immigration Council, ending TPS designations would lead to a significant economic loss for the US. The non-profit found that TPS households in the country earned more than $10bn in total income in 2021, and paid nearly $1.3bn in federal taxes.
On Monday, the supreme court allowed the administration to end protections that had allowed some 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants to remain in the United States.
Many Venezuelans were first granted TPS in 2021 by the Biden administration, allowing those who were already in the US to apply for protection from deportation and gain work authorization. Then, in 2023, the Biden administration issued an additional TPS designation for Venezuelans, and in January – just before Trump took office – extended those protections through October 2026.
The Trump administration officials had ordered TPS to expire for those Venezuelans in April. The supreme court's decision lifted a federal judge's ruling that had paused the administration's plans, meaning TPS holders are now at risk of losing their protections and could face deportation.
More than 500,000 people from what are sometimes called the CHNV countries – Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela – live in the US under the legal tool known as humanitarian parole, which allows people to enter the US temporarily, on the basis that they have an urgent humanitarian need like a medical emergency. This category, however, is also under threat by the Trump administration.
In late March, the Trump administration announced plans to terminate humanitarian parole for approximately 530,000 Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Cubans and Haitians. In April, a federal judge issued a temporary order barring the elimination of the humanitarian parole program.
But last week, the administration took the issue to the supreme court, asking it to allow it to end parole for immigrants from those four countries. The emergency appeal said a lower-court order had wrongly encroached on the authority of the Department of Homeland Security.
US administrations – both Republican and Democratic – have used parole for decades for people unable to use regular immigration channels, whether because of time pressure or bad relations between their country and the US.
The case now returns to the lower courts. For the California-based federal court, the next hearing is on 29 May. For the Massachusetts case, no hearings are scheduled and attorneys are working on a briefing for the motion to dismiss filed by the government, according to WGBH, a member station of National Public Radio in Massachusetts. The appeals court hearing will be the week of 11 July.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
KEMI BADENOCH: A simple way to deter migrants? Make them wait for ten years before they can claim any benefits
The issue of immigration is a simple one for the Conservative Party: we need to crack down on it in every form, both legal and illegal. For me, this is about basic fairness. Britain today seems to work more favourably for those who jump the queue, who break the rules, who get into our country illegally but then denigrate our customs and our culture. And those of us who work hard and do the right thing, hoping one day to leave a better life for our children, are left footing the bill. The billions of pounds of taxpayers' money we are spending to put asylum seekers up in hotels, for example, is well known. Less well known, however, is the fact that low-paid immigrants and refugees who stay here for five years qualify for 'indefinite leave to remain'. This allows them to claim the same benefits British citizens are entitled to, such as social housing and Universal Credit. They become automatically entitled to make such claims regardless of whether they've paid taxes or have simply lived off the state throughout those five years. To my mind, that is fundamentally unfair to all the hard-working Brits who have dutifully paid into the system – and I'm determined to stop it. But it's likely to come as no surprise that the Labour Government has no such interest. It voted against our Deportation Bill last month, which would have introduced a strict cap on the number of newcomers to these shores, as well as doubling the time it takes for immigrants to be able to claim benefits from five to ten years. The same ten-year rule would also apply to people seeking the privilege of British citizenship, up from the current five years. And, to make sure those who come here are serious about contributing to our society, rather than just ripping it off, the Bill would have barred anyone who'd claimed benefits from getting indefinite leave to remain. It would also have given the government the power to remove settled status from those who commit any crime – preventing them from claiming that precious British passport. All in all, that Bill was designed to protect our borders and uphold fairness in our benefits system. But thanks to Labour, it was shot down. To be honest, many – if not all – of the measures it contained would probably have ended up going the same way as the former government's abandoned scheme to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda. That became bogged down in our courts and frustrated by unnamed foreign judges interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mel Stride (pictured), when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC (pictured), and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights Other potentially transformative policies of ours have floundered in similar ways. Mel Stride, when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them. I call this lawfare – the use of litigation as a political weapon. Even if these legal activists aren't successful, the costs and delays they incur are crippling to democracy. It is turning us into a country afraid of its own shadow. This must change. I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC, and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do – get control of our borders, protect our welfare system and restore fairness – can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights. They will get to the bottom of how we got into this legal quagmire, and the challenges to getting us out. If their conclusions are that we cannot enact reasonable policies to put British citizens first when it comes to social housing and scarce public services, then I will know that we need to leave. The commission's findings will also help me make a workable plan to get us out of the ECHR, while taking into account the need to ensure essential human rights remain protected. The greatest danger we now face is allowing lawfare to make this country less fair, less safe and less democratic. But I'm determined that, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will protect our values, our democracy, our country – and, ultimately, our people.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
LORD ASHCROFT: 'We can sniff Starmer's fear of Farage' say voters as they back winter fuel U-turn and insist two-child benefit cap must stay
Mrs Merton, the comic interviewer created by the late Caroline Aherne, famously asked Debbie McGee what first attracted her to the millionaire Paul Daniels. In the same satirical spirit, voters have been wondering what it was about the Reform party's surge in the local elections that prompted Keir Starmer to tighten his immigration policy and row back on cuts to the winter fuel allowance. Some welcome the winter fuel reversal and even give Labour some credit for listening and learning. More sceptical voters, of whom there are plenty, see a weak Government that can't make a decision and stick to it. Some wonder which taxes will rise to pay for the U-turn. On all sides, the link between Labour's plummeting popularity and the winter fuel climbdown is obvious (in my research, Starmer's explanation that his newfound largesse was the result of an improving economy just made people laugh). 'You've kind of gotta sniff a bit of desperation,' one 2024 Labour voter told us. The same is true of Starmer's recent conversion to tighter immigration controls, with promises of stricter education and language requirements and a longer wait for settled status. On this issue, voters are, if anything, even more doubtful – for at least three reasons. First, they don't think he means it: the human rights lawyer and free-movement advocate has not suddenly seen the merits of firm border control ('If that was what you truly believe, it should have been on the table months ago,' a Reform supporter said). Second, they don't think it will happen: my poll found only just over a quarter of all voters think Labour would succeed in cutting immigration numbers, even if it wanted to – which most think it doesn't. Third, they think he's aiming at the wrong target. As my poll also showed, people care much more about illegal migration, and the vast hotel costs that follow, than about those coming here legitimately to work. Some worry that Starmer's new rules will make it harder to recruit, especially in crucial areas such as the care sector, even as migrants arrive on our beaches in record-breaking numbers. In a double blow for Starmer, the people who take his new immigration rhetoric most seriously are the ones who like it least, often inside his own party. Most of them don't think he means it either, but some longstanding Labour voters find it profoundly depressing that the Prime Minister seems willing, as they see it, to pander to the Right. Many found his warning that Britain risked becoming an 'island of strangers' particularly worrying. 'When you're quoting Enoch Powell, I draw a line at that,' one told us last week. Evidently aware of these tensions, Labour figures are dangling the prospect of an end to the rule under which families can only claim child-related benefits for up to two children. This would please the Left and many party activists, but infuriate rather more than that. In my poll, most Labour voters backed the two-child benefit limit, while Conservatives and Reform voters did so overwhelmingly. They see it as an issue of fairness: 'I've got six children and I agree with the cap, because all the extra children I had, I've paid for,' one participant put it. These debates underline the dilemmas facing Chancellor Rachel Reeves as she prepares to unveil her spending review on Wednesday. With the economy struggling to grow under the weight of her extra taxes and regulations, she faces difficult choices over how to maintain public services – and the Government's new commitments on defence – while sticking to her fiscal rules. I found voters tend to want her to balance the books by controlling spending rather than raising taxes, but think she will do the opposite. Starmer has tried to divert attention from Labour's troubles by highlighting the contradictions in his opponents' plans. It is certainly true that Nigel Farage is offering simultaneously to slash taxes and boost spending – not least by scrapping the two-child benefit cap. But these attacks on Reform slightly miss the point. Those drawn to the party know its policies are a work in progress; it is the change of direction they want to see. They want a government that takes them seriously and puts Britain first. They won't be fact-checked into submission. More interesting is Starmer's acknowledgment that Reform is now Labour's chief opponent – a view shared by voters of all parties. Strikingly, my poll found Farage is considered the most likely of the current leaders to be PM after the next election. This is not good news for Kemi Badenoch. Most in my poll expected her to be swapped out before the election. This is not because it would be a good thing or would help the Tories' chances, but because that's what they believe the party does. No Tory leader has served a full term since David Cameron. The leadership circus has long been part of the Conservatives' problem. Another round would signal to many potential supporters that the party is not serious. And with Labour in trouble and Reform promising whatever it pleases, seriousness is above all what the Tories need to prove.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Immigration raids in LA expand despite protests with teargas and flash-bangs
US immigration authorities extended activity in the Los Angeles area on Saturday in the wake of protests at a federal detention facility and a police response that included teargas, flash-bangs and the arrest of a union leader. Border patrol personnel in riot gear and gas masks stood guard outside an industrial park in the city of Paramount, deploying teargas as bystanders and protesters gathered on medians and across the street, some jeering at authorities while recording the event on smartphones. 'Ice out of Paramount. We see you for what you are,' a woman announced through a megaphone. 'You are not welcome here.' One handheld sign said: 'No Human Being is Illegal.' The boulevard was closed to traffic as US Customs and Border Protection circulated through the area. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) representatives did not respond immediately to email inquiries about weekend enforcement activities. Arrests by immigration authorities in Los Angeles come as Donald Trump and his administration push to fulfill promises to carry out mass deportations across the country. On Friday, Ice officers arrested more than 40 people as they executed search warrants at multiple locations, including outside a clothing warehouse where a tense scene unfolded as a crowd tried to block agents from driving away. The Los Angeles mayor, Karen Bass, said the activity was meant to 'sow terror' in the nation's second-largest city. In a statement on Saturday, Ice acting director Todd Lyons chided Bass for the city's response to protests. 'Mayor Bass took the side of chaos and lawlessness over law enforcement,' Lyons said in a statement. 'Make no mistake, ICE will continue to enforce our nation's immigration laws and arrest criminal illegal aliens.' Protesters gathered Friday evening outside a federal detention center in Los Angeles where lawyers said those arrested had been taken, chanting: 'Set them free, let them stay!' Other protesters held signs that said 'ICE out of LA!' and led chants and shouted from megaphones. Some scrawled graffiti on the building facade. Federal agents executed search warrants at three locations, including a warehouse in the fashion district of Los Angeles, after a judge found there was probable cause the employer was using fictitious documents for some of its workers, according to representatives for homeland security investigations and the US attorney's office. Advocates for immigrant rights say people were detained Friday by immigration authorities outside Home Depot stores and a doughnut shop.
