logo
‘Death sentence': CHNV ruling upends lives of South Floridians from troubled nations

‘Death sentence': CHNV ruling upends lives of South Floridians from troubled nations

Miami Herald2 days ago

Activists, lawyers and elected officials warned Friday of chaos and devastation to come after a Supreme Court decision upended the lives of half a million migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela, many living in South Florida, who could face deportation to their troubled nations after losing legal protections under a Biden-era parole program.
Among them: Orlando Valecillos, 71, and his wife, Fanny, Venezuelans who used the humanitarian parole program to reunite with their daughter and is scheduled to have an operation next month.
'I hope I won't be deported before my surgery,' Valecillos, who lives in Homestead, told the Miami Herald. 'I've had serious prostate issues, and treatment only began after we arrived in the U.S.'
The Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's request to lift a lower court order that protected immigrants coming through the Biden-era parole program from being potentially deported, following an earlier administration decision to strip them of their legal status. The program is known as CHNV, for the Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans protected under the Biden administration policy.
The litigation in the case continues, but in the short term, many migrants will be left with difficult choices.
According to some estimates, as many as half of the migrants who entered the United States through the program have applied for other immigration benefits to adjust their status and may have a path to remain in the country –for example, those who had already applied for asylum or for a green card under the decades-old. Cuban Adjustment Act. But others will need to decide whether they will remain in the U.S. without documentation — potentially facing detention and deportation proceedings — or voluntarily returning to countries wracked by violence, hunger and human-rights abuses.
The ruling 'sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the Trump administration to dismantle longstanding humanitarian protections for people fleeing persecution and abuse in countries in crisis', said Ida Sawyer, the director of the Crisis, Conflict and Arms division at Human Rights Watch. 'This marks a shameful betrayal of U.S. commitments under international law and human rights norms. The U.S. should be expanding protections, not closing the door.'
Ending the protections granted to Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans under CHNV will force many to return to countries experiencing 'widespread violence, repression, and instability—putting their lives at greater risk,' she said.
'Haitians, for example, could be sent back to Port-au-Prince, where they could be subjected to killings, kidnappings, forced recruitment, and widespread sexual violence by criminal groups who control nearly all the capital, and where more than half the population suffers from acute hunger,' she said.
Friday's decision, potentially green-lighting deportation orders for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, amounts to the 'largest…de-legalization in the modern era,' said Karen Tumlin, founder and director of the immigration advocacy group Justice Action Center.
'I cannot overstate how devastating this is: the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump Administration to unleash widespread chaos, not just for our clients and class members, but for their families, their workplaces, and their communities,' she said.
Elected officials from South Florida, where many of the migrants from the four countries have settled, joined in the criticism.
U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson called the ruling 'cruel and inhumane' in a post on X. 'These are folks who were escaping brutal dictatorships, gang violence, and turmoil,' she wrote. Wilson noted that the migrants affected by the ruling came to the U.S. legally and have made contributions to South Florida communities. 'Deporting them is a death sentence,' she added.
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz echoed the criticism in a post on X, saying it was 'sick and depraved to deport 500,000 people who applied from home, passed background checks, earned work permits, and paid their own way.' She stressed that the migrants are neither criminals nor undocumented. 'They came here legally. But Trump and the Republicans who bow to him could care less,' she added.
U.S. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, a Miami Republican, said the Supreme Court order must be respected but 'was not what many hoped for.' She too said the migrants came legally to the United States.
'One truth remains undeniable: These migrants entered the United States legally, relying on promises made by the Biden administration,' she said. 'These individuals are fleeing brutal regimes and life-threatening conditions. That's why I strongly urge the administration to use its executive authority and grant Deferred Enforcement Departure to prevent them from being sent back to violence and repression.'
Maureen Porras, an immigration attorney and vice mayor of Doral, home to large Venezuelan community, said the decision 'is not only devastating but also unprecedented. Its hard to believe that with the stroke of a pen, about half a million people will lose their lawful immigration status and work authorization.'
'It will have a chilling effect on communities across the U.S.,' she added.
Families reeling from the court decision
In cities like Miami, migrants who came through the program quickly assimilated into the communities here because they were granted legal work permits and had come to the country sponsored by relatives. But Friday's ruling has left many families again facing separation.
Valecillos arrived in the U.S. with his wife in August from Venezuela to reunite with their daughter in Miami.
Instead of spending their golden years in peace, Valecillos and his wife have endured the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, which forced them to emigrate twice — first to Chile, where they lived for several years, and then to the United States, where they finally reunited with their only daughter after a long separation.
The couple entered the U.S. under the humanitarian parole program, which initially granted them two years of protection through August 2026. But less than a year after arriving, they received a notice from the Department of Homeland Security that their parole had been terminated, once again throwing their future into uncertainty.
They have since applied for political asylum. Valecillos says he remains hopeful their application will be approved. Their daughter is a green-card holder, and the family hopes that once she becomes a U.S. citizen, she will be able to petition for her parents to adjust their immigration status.
'We had hoped the election in Venezuela would help fix things. Instead, everything is worse,' Vallecillos said, his voice trembling. 'How are we supposed to go back? If we can't stay here, where are we supposed to go? There's so much uncertainty.'
Fear among migrants
Friday news also sent shock waves through Miami's Haitian community, which finds itself in a particularly troubling situation. Haitians who have fled rampant gang violence and political turmoil say returning to their home country is simply not an option.
Kenny Francois, the CEO of LETS Community Center in Miami Gardens, which serves the Haitian immigrant community, was shocked to learn of the Supreme Court's decision. On Friday morning, while he was at a graduation, he didn't know why he was getting so many phone calls.
'So basically, whatever Trump wants to do, he can just do it,' Francois said. 'You know that was the little hope people had, the Supreme Court? That was the only little hope people were holding on to.'
Little Haiti native Sammy Lamy, the founder of Jobs4Us, who has helped place more than 600 Haitians in jobs around the country since the Biden-era humanitarian program was launched, said the next few weeks and months are going to be tough.
'The dream has crashed and reality is hitting,' he said. 'I, of course, don't agree with the decision and now we have to figure out what's next, because a lot of people are in limbo.'
Lamy, whose parents were both Haitian immigrants, said the uncertainty and fear from Friday's decision will only deepen, especially among Haitians whose country is being gripped by violence and, in some cases, have had armed gangs taking over their homes.
One of the most immediate effects of the ruling is that many migrants will lose their jobs. Amid the uncertainty, companies helping resettle refugees are already refusing to hire migrants whose work authorizations expire in less than six months.
'Even if people have time left on their work permit, they're being denied work because they don't have the necessary time,' Lamy said.
Adding to the fear are commercials the Department of Homeland Security is running on popular YouTube programs in the Haitian community, warning folks to leave.
'It's a very daunting commercial,' said Lamy. 'People are scared,'
Leaving the U.S.
Among the four groups affected, Cuban migrants still might end up with better chances to remain in the country, thanks to the Cuban Adjustment Act, Wilfredo Allen, a Cuban-American lawyer, said.
The 1966 law says that after one year in the U.S. migrants inspected by immigration authorities and admitted or paroled into the country are entitled to apply for permanent residency. 'It doesn't matter if their parole is revoked later,' Allen said. Still, he is advising Cuban migrants with several months to go to meet the one-year requirement to apply for asylum if they can, advice he says also applies to Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans.
Allen said the administration is succeeding 'in spreading chaos and panic' among immigrants, and many will likely choose to leave on their own — which the administration has labeled 'self-deportation' — even if actual deportation proceedings in court take time.
Some immigrants have already decided that the risk of sudden detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is too much to face, especially when children are involved.
Lilian Bustos, a 42-year-old mother from Nicaragua, had been bracing herself for the termination of the CHNV parole program. She and her two daughters, ages 10 and 17, arrived in the U.S. under the program in August 2023. With less than three months left on their stay, she made the heartbreaking decision to send her daughters back to Nicaragua two days ago.
'It's been devastating,' she said. 'My two daughters have been crying non-stop since they left. My oldest wanted to finish high school here—she was fully adjusted and happy. But I didn't want to break the law. We couldn't apply for asylum because we haven't faced any political persecution.'
Bustos feels heartbroken that her 17-year-old daughter couldn't finish high school in the U.S. Now, she says, her daughter will likely face delays in completing her education back in Nicaragua. The family is from Chinandega, a rural region known for fishing and cattle ranching.
A trained kindergarten teacher in Nicaragua, Bustos recalls how difficult it was to survive on a single income back home. In Miami, she worked in cleaning services and hoped to save as much as possible before her parole expired. Her goal was to return to Nicaragua and open a small business with her husband—who was unable to join the family in the U.S. under the Biden administration's parole program.
Now, with the Supreme Court's ruling casting doubt on the program's future, she's unsure what will happen next, but she said she is also planning to return to Nicaragua to rejoin her family.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

For universities, Trump's punishments far exceed the alleged crimes
For universities, Trump's punishments far exceed the alleged crimes

The Hill

time26 minutes ago

  • The Hill

For universities, Trump's punishments far exceed the alleged crimes

The adage 'let the punishment fit the crime,' articulated by the Roman philosopher Cicero some 2,060 years ago, reflects a principle fundamental to every modern legal system. The notion of reciprocal justice — 'an eye for an eye' and not 'two eyes for an eye' — also appears in the Code of Hammurabi and the Book of Exodus. The Magna Carta in 1215 mandated that an offender should be fined 'only in proportion to the degree of his offence,' a concept later reflected in the English Bill of Rights, the Common Law tradition and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of proportionality to the rule of law, often framing it in terms of balancing tests or 'levels of scrutiny.' Perhaps more important, proportionality is central to Americans' sense of fundamental fairness, from the playground to the courtroom. In the Trump administration, however, scorched earth warfare has replaced the idea that punishment should fit the crime. Accusing Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism, the administration has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and terminated its ability to enroll international students. While inflicting enormous damage, these sanctions are not tied to any discernible gain. Harvard has sued the government, and its legal case is strong. A judge recently issued a temporary restraining order securing its right to enroll international students. But even if Harvard prevails in the courts, the cost will be exorbitant. And Harvard is just one of many universities under attack. People of good will can differ about whether Harvard and its peer universities have met their legal obligations to Jewish students. But, by any standard, the Trump administration's response has been grotesquely disproportionate. Proportionality analysis in law takes different forms. Common elements intended to constrain excessive government actions include such phrases as 'legitimate goal' — as in, government sanctions should be designed to further a legitimate goal, with a rational connection between the sanction and that goal. Another is 'necessity,' meaning sanctions should be necessary to achieve the goal and the least restrictive means available. A third is 'undue burden,' meaning that penalties should be commensurate with the moral culpability of the person or institution sanctioned and should not cause society more harm than good. These principles are reflected in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the main anti-discrimination statute the government is relying on to justify its attacks on higher education. Title VI contains multiple procedural safeguards 'designed to spur agencies into seeking consensual resolutions with recipients.' The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which oversees most Title VI cases, may only seek to terminate federal funding as 'a last resort, to be used only if all else fails,' because 'cutoffs of Federal funds would defeat important objectives of Federal legislation, without commensurate gains in eliminating' discrimination. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White once explained, 'to ensure that this intent would be respected, Congress included an explicit provision … that requires that any administrative enforcement action be 'consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken.''' And as the Justice Department's guidelines for the enforcement of Title VI make clear, 'in each case, the objective should be to secure prompt and full compliance so that needed Federal assistance may commence or continue.' In the early years of Title VI, the Office of Civil Rights did ultimately terminate federal funding for Southern schools that refused to desegregate. But as Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the lead author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, observed, 'it is not expected that funds would be cut off so long as reasonable steps were being taken in good faith to end unconstitutional segregation.' During the 30 years before the Trump administration's decision in March to cancel $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University — taken without a hearing or any semblance of due process — no college or university was stripped of federal funding under Title VI. The administration's slash-and-burn approach fails every conceivable proportionality test. Combating antisemitism is, of course, a legitimate goal. But even assuming that the administration is not using antisemitism as a pretext to pursue a broader political agenda of undermining critics, democratic institutions and the rule of law, there is no rational connection between terminating research on cancer, artificial intelligence or nanotechnology and ending antisemitism. Nor has the administration even tried to demonstrate how barring Harvard from enrolling all international students, as opposed to students proven to have engaged in antisemitic activity, advances its supposed objectives. If implemented, the Trump administration's sanctions would devastate Harvard's ability to remain one of the world's leading research universities. And the sanctions are hardly the least restrictive means available to address campus antisemitism. Harvard has acknowledged the challenges it faces in ensuring a safe and supportive environment for its Jewish community. And, unlike the Southern schools whose continued resistance to Title VI's antidiscrimination mandate in the 1960s was clear, Harvard had already taken significant steps to combat antisemitism and indicated a willingness to address the government's concerns before officials sent it an extravagant list of demands. (Many of those demands, such as plagiarism reviews for all faculty, bore little or no connection to antisemitism.) Whether Harvard has done enough, quickly enough, is a matter that can be debated. But the administration has certainly not proven that Harvard displayed the 'deliberate indifference' that warrants a finding of institutional responsibility for the harassment of Jewish students under Title VI, much less a degree of culpability to justify the penalties the government continues to pile on. Nor is it possible to conclude that slashing funding for scientific and medical research, banning all international students or revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status do more good than harm. The Trump administration is imposing crushing penalties wholly incommensurate with any fault of the targeted institutions simply because it can — or thinks it can — and because it believes that 'shock and awe' will compel all institutions of higher education and their faculty to fall in line. Abandoning the principle that the punishment must fit the crime would set our democratic standard of justice back to the 'might makes right,' Sticks and Stone Age. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.

Jeffries says Americans ‘aren't interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king'
Jeffries says Americans ‘aren't interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king'

The Hill

time27 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Jeffries says Americans ‘aren't interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king'

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that Americans 'aren't interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king,' referring to President Trump. 'Donald Trump has learned an important lesson, the American people aren't interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king,' Jeffries said on CNN's 'State of the Union' to the outlet's Dana Bash. 'It's the reason why Donald Trump actually is the most unpopular president at this point of a presidency in American history,' he added. The president's approval rating currently sits at 45.9 percent in the Decision Desk/The Hill polling average, with 51.7 percent in the average not backing the president. The president recently went through consistent drops in his approval ratings, but his approval rating in the Decision Desk/The Hill average now sits above 2 points higher than it was at the start of May. Trump and his administration have taken swift action on issues such as how the federal government functions, immigration, trade policy, and LGBTQ rights in his first few months since returning to Washington. The action has drawn pushback from those on the American left and Democrats, but Democrats have also been criticized for a perceived lack of response to Trump administration moves. 'Democrats, of course, are the party that is determined to make life more affordable for everyday Americans, for hardworking American taxpayers,' Jeffries said Sunday. Republican strategist Karl Rove said in a recent opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal that President Trump's tariff rhetoric could cost the GOP its majorities in Congress. 'Republicans should hope the president really believes in reciprocity—the policy that if countries lower their tariffs, we'll lower ours. He should have confidence that America can compete if the playing field is level,' he added. The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.

Video: Top Democrat exposes major secret behind Biden White House
Video: Top Democrat exposes major secret behind Biden White House

American Military News

time32 minutes ago

  • American Military News

Video: Top Democrat exposes major secret behind Biden White House

A new video shows Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) David Hogg telling an undercover journalist that Anthony Bernal, former First Lady Jill Biden's chief of staff, had 'an enormous amount of power' in the White House during former President Joe Biden's administration. In a video published Wednesday on X, formerly Twitter, by Project Veritas, Hogg was asked by an undercover reporter how corrupt he believed the DNC was. In response, Hogg said, 'I think the fact of the matter is the DNC is always going to be like a campaign arm of the president ultimately. The bigger issue was like the inner circle that was around Biden.' READ MORE: Video: Trump questions cover-up of Biden's cancer diagnosis, cognitive issues 'Like, Jill Biden's chief of staff had an enormous amount of power,' Hogg added. Deterrian Jones, a former staff member for the White House Office of Digital Strategy, told the undercover journalist that the 'enormous amount of power' wielded by Anthony Bernal during the Biden administration 'was an open secret' and that the former first lady's chief of staff was a 'shadowy, Wizard of Oz-type figure.' 'I would avoid him,' Jones added. 'He was scary.' After explaining that Bernal worked behind the scenes out of view of the American people, Jones told the undercover Project Veritas journalist, 'He wielded an enormous amount of power, and I can't stress to you enough how much power he had at the White House.' Sharing the first video of a two-part series on Hogg's revelations regarding the DNC, Project Veritas tweeted, 'Undercover Meeting with DNC Leader @davidhogg111 Reveals who REALLY ran the Biden White House.' BREAKING: Undercover Meeting with DNC Leader @davidhogg111 Reveals who REALLY ran the Biden White House 'He wielded an enormous amount of power… I can't stress to you enough how much power he had at the White House.' "It was an open secret… I would avoid him, he was… — Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) May 28, 2025 In a new book titled 'Original Sin,' CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios political correspondent Alex Thompson explained that Bernal and Biden aide Annie Tomasini helped guide the former president's campaign during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown and had significant influence in the Biden White House. 'The significance of Bernal and Tomasini is the degree to which their rise in the Biden White House signaled the success of people whose allegiance was to the Biden family – not to the presidency, not to the American people, not to the country, but to the Biden theology,' Tapper and Thompson wrote, according to Fox News. Anonymous sources previously told The New York Post last year that Bernal had allegedly 'bullied and verbally sexually harassed colleagues' for over 10 years but was considered to be 'untouchable' due to his close relationship with Jill Biden. 'I don't think people understand how much power and influence he has,' one of the sources said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store