Supreme Court ruling on TPS stuns South Florida, leaves Venezuelan families in fear
A U.S Supreme Court ruling that allows the Trump administration to strip deportation protections and work permits from hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans — including many Miami area residents — sent shock waves through South Florida and across the Sunshine State on Monday.
'That the U.S. would terminate the protections for Venezuelans now, when nothing has improved back home, is just unbelievable,' said Betsy Diaz, a Venezuelan-American in Hialeah whose two daughters, five grandchildren and several other relatives will lose the protections.
In a two-paragraph order, the nation's highest court on Monday granted an emergency request from the White House to roll back a lower court judge's order that kept in place Temporary Protected Status for about 350,000 Venezuelans. It was part of an ongoing lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco challenging the Trump administration's February decision to revoke the protections granted to Venezuelans and other nationals from certain countries in turmoil.
The court provided no explanation for why it had lifted the lower court judge's order, which prevented the Trump administration from removing the protections while the litigation is ongoing. The court did not address the merits of the lawsuit, which continues in the lower federal court and could ultimately keep TPS in place for the thousands of Venezuelans who were protected under a 2023 designation.
READ MORE: Supreme Court allows Trump to revoke protected immigration status for thousands of Venezuelans
The Trump administration has made it abundantly clear that the lower court judge's order was the only thing in its way from ending TPS immediately for Venezuelans under the 2023 TPS designation, whose protections were set to expire in April.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans could now be at risk being sent back to a homeland deep in the throes of political repression and economic collapse. Many TPS holders came to the U.S. to flee life-threatening dangers in Venezuela, including government persecution.
'This administration and their cruel choices disregard any basic humanity we are seeking for,' said Cecilia González Herrera, a Venezuelan TPS holder from Kissimmee and one of the individual plaintiffs in the San Franciso case. 'Returning to Venezuela is not safe at all.'
For the loved ones of TPS beneficiaries, the Supreme Court decision ignites fear of family separations and the loss of livelihoods. When it moved to revoke the TPS protections in February, the Department of Homeland Security said Venezuela had seen 'notable' improvements in economy, public health and crime.
But Diaz, the Hialeah grandmother, pointed to a recent State Department travel advisory that warned Americans to not travel there because of the high risk of wrongful detention, torture, terrorism and kidnapping, as well as crime, civil unrest, and the country's poor health infrastructure.
'And yet they're eliminating TPS for Venezuelans?' she asked. 'It doesn't make any sense.'
Marisol Silva, 64, and her husband came to Doral in 2021 to reunite with their daughter, a journalist. She had fled Venezuela years before them because the country's government had persecuted her because of her work. She feared facing the same fate as several of her colleagues, imprisoned for reporting on the country's humanitarian crisis.
Silva and her husband will keep their work permits through a pending immigration process, but she's deeply worried about losing deportation protections through TPS. Still, she holds out hope that there will be other pathways to stay.
'I still believe there will be other legal avenues for our community,' said Silva.
Another group of 300,000 Venezuelans have protections under a separate 2021 designation that is set to run out in September. The Trump administration has not yet officially eliminated the protections, but will almost certainly move to do so in the coming year.
Activists: Ruling is a death sentence
Other Venezuelan community leaders in South Florida also expressed dismay following Monday's ruling. Even if the courts ultimately uphold TPS for Venezuela, it won't make much of a difference for those who are deported while litigation is pending because the high court lifted the lower court judge's order.
Adelys Ferro, a Miami-based immigration activist whose organization, the Venezuelan American Caucus, is part of the San Francisco lawsuit, told reporters on Monday it was a very difficult day for the Venezuelan community.
'The fight is not over. The fight does not stop. The fight is barely starting,' said Ferro. 'This is everyone's home. Especially those who cannot return to Venezuela under any concept.'
José Antonio Colina, founder of VEPPEX, a nonprofit of politically persecuted Venezuelans who now live in exile, told the Miami Herald the decision is 'totally disastrous' and 'a tragedy.' He said hundreds of thousands of people would now be at risk of being sent to a country run by a government that routinely violates human rights and tortures its citizens.
'Sending those people with TPS back to Venezuela is condemning them to death,' said Colina.
He also said that Venezuelans with TPS should consult immigration attorneys to explore ways they may have to stay in the U.S. legally. However, Colina said he worries about Venezuelans who felt secure in the U.S. and spoke out against the Nicolas Maduro regime.
'No one can ensure their safety,' he said.
Colina and other activists said the Venezuelan government could target deportees for their social media postings under a recently approved law that establishes penalties such as up to 30 years in prison and disqualification from holding public office for those who support sanctions on the country imposed by other nations.
'Nothing good awaits them,' said Helene Villalonga, president of a Doral-based human rights group, adding that returned Venezuelans would face 'fierce persecution.'
South Florida officials react
From Doral, home to the largest concentration of Venezuelans in the U.S., where more than 40% of residents are Venezuelan and a third are U.S. citizens who influence local elections, only lukewarm statements have emerged from city officials in response to the Supreme Court's decision.
Rafael Pinyero, the only Venezuelan American council member in Doral, said in a statement he received the news of the Supreme Court's decision 'with a somber heart.'
'I deeply empathize with the immense stress, fear, and uncertainty this ruling brings to many in our community,' Pinyero said. 'Venezuela remains in a state of political and economic collapse. Every day, innocent people are unjustly imprisoned, tortured, and silenced for daring to stand up to a regime that continues to violate basic human rights.'
Read more: A delicate balance: Why Doral GOP pols fight for Venezuelans, but avoid clash with Trump
Maureen Porras, the vice mayor of Doral, said the decision would 'likely lead to more confusion' as the case continues through the courts.
'The final decision on termination is still being litigated. Venezuelans are living in limbo, enduring uncertainty and a back and forth from the different courts. I think it's important to provide stability and keep the status quo until a final decision is made,' said Porras.
Doral's mayor Christi Fraga called for 'calm and reassurance.'
The recent response from Doral city officials to the Supreme Court decision stands in sharp contrast to their own statements made just two months earlier. In March, the same three officials warned that ending TPS would lead to an economic collapse for the city.
Read more: Venezuelans fight back against TPS termination, battling for right to stay in the U.S.
Venezuelans are a significant demographic in Florida. Over 44% of all residents of Venezuelan origin in the United States live in the state — many of them in South Florida.
Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, home to the largest Venezuelan community in the U.S., said she was 'heartbroken' for the families who followed the legal process and now face deportation to a brutal dictatorship.
'We continue to stand with those seeking protection from oppression and persecution,' Levine Cava said in a statement in X.
Read more: 'It's painful.' Venezuelans torn over Trump as his deportation agenda disrupts lives
Federal lawmakers from South Florida also came out in support of TPS for Venezuela on Monday.
U.S. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, a Trump supporter from Miami who has positioned herself as a champion for Venezuelans and others fleeing Latin American dictatorships, said in a statement she was 'deeply disappointed' with the high court's decision.
She also said she would ask Trump to grant another form of deportation protection, known as Deferred Enforcement Departure, or DED. She is also requesting the protections for over half-a-million beneficiaries from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haitia of a Biden-era parole program the Trump administration has also moved to end. Trump had previously granted deferred enforcement departure to some Venezuelans during his last term. At the time, he said that the Maduro government was 'responsible for the worst humanitarian crisis in the Western Hemisphere in recent memory.'
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat from Weston, home to many Venezuelans, condemned the Supreme Court ruling. Along with Salazar and others, she has co-sponsored bipartisan legislation to restore and redesignate Venezuela's Temporary Protected Status.
'Venezuelan TPS holders fled the Maduro regime and built lives in America. They sought refuge in America from his oppression and tyranny,' said Wasserman. 'This atrocious decision allows Trump to deport non-criminals back to this murderous dictator.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Haley on Trump call with Putin: ‘A backhanded slap to all of our allies'
Former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley (R) sharply criticized President Trump on Wednesday for suggesting Russia could play a mediating role in nuclear negotiations with Iran. 'Russia has been receiving drones and ballistic missiles from Iran to use in its kidnapping of Ukraine,' Haley wrote in a post on X. 'Iran and Russia are partners,' Haley continued. 'It is ludicrous to think we would allow Putin to be chief negotiator between the US and Iran on the Iran deal in exchange for the US helping Russia with Ukraine.' 'That is a backhanded slap to all of our allies,' she added. Trump on Wednesday spoke by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin for roughly one hour and 15 minutes. The president said in a Truth Social post that they discussed the recent Ukrainian drone attack on Russian bombers, as well as 'various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides.' They also discussed ongoing efforts by the Trump administration to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, Trump said. 'President Putin suggested that he will participate in the discussions with Iran and that he could, perhaps, be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion,' Trump wrote. 'It is my opinion that Iran has been slowwalking their decision on this very important matter, and we will need a definitive answer in a very short period of time!' Haley — the final candidate standing in the 2024 GOP presidential primary against Trump — has been a fierce and consistent critic of Iran and of the previous nuclear deal brokered during the Obama administration. Before Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal in 2018, Haley urged him to do so, in her capacity as ambassador to the U.N. Haley has recently expressed skepticism of the Trump administration's efforts to strike a fresh deal with Tehran. 'Iran has violated every agreement they have ever been a part of. We can't trust them to have any amount of nuclear production,' Haley said in April, adding, 'Iran should not have a nuclear program, period.'
Washington Post
7 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump is no man of steel
President Donald Trump is hardly the first chief executive to try to save the U.S. steel industry. Going back to George W. Bush's presidency, the U.S. government has imposed multiple rounds of tariffs meant to protect an iconic sector that built American heavy industry starting in the 19th century. The levies have been bad for the United States' 21st-century economy. But Trump wants to go even bigger, imposing on Wednesday a whopping 50 percent tariff on imported steel and aluminum.
CNN
9 minutes ago
- CNN
The White House's fuzzy math is starting to haunt the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill'
Elon Musk's 36-word social media missile directed at the cornerstone of President Donald Trump's legislative agenda marked the latest, if most visceral, example of a growing problem for the White House. Nobody buys its math. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk posted in the middle of the White House press briefing in a dramatic escalation of his initial objections to the giant domestic policy bill's cost. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.' Musk's post (and its Wednesday follow up) landed at the most delicate moment for an essential pillar of Trump's entire domestic agenda. Senate Republicans are set to launch their high-stakes effort to pass the bill, while Trump and his top advisers seek to aggressively counter the widespread consensus among economists, nonpartisan budget scorekeepers and Wall Street analysts that the bill will pile trillions of dollars onto the soaring US debt. Trump's top economic officials insist, unequivocally and repeatedly, that the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' won't add to the debt over 10 years. The definitive statements serve as an unabashed outlier among the catalogue of budget scores, growth forecasts and macroeconomic analyses produced since House Republicans passed their version of Trump's agenda by the narrowest of margins. Differences of opinion between economists, scorekeepers and analysts are commonplace, as are the heated rhetorical attacks lobbed at the Congressional Budget Office. They aren't exclusive to this White House. But the near-universal agreement that the bill's combination of tax and spending cuts net out as a significant deficit driver lays bare an unusually dramatic disconnect with the view of Trump's economic team. White House officials defend their outlier projections with their view that the bill will spark a durable surge in economic activity that, paired with their broader economic agenda, will far outpace the median economic forecasts. That, in turn, would drive up federal tax receipts and fill most, if not all, of the hole created by $3.7 trillion loss of revenue to the government projected over 10 years at the same time Trump's tariffs would drive a dramatic surge in revenue not included in any budget score tied to the bill. The $1.3 trillion in mandatory spending cuts over a decade would mark the starting point White House officials will take into the looming spending battle on Capitol Hill, where Trump and Republican leaders will drive a hardline view that any bipartisan agreement must include deep discretionary spending cuts. To put it plainly, the White House rationale is tied to a combination of projections and assumptions that crash head-on with economic, political and geopolitical consensus views of reality. 'There are a lot of arguments Republicans can make here – and the White House makes them, too – about the merits of this package and our long-standing belief that scorekeepers consistently fail to capture the effect of tax cuts,' said a Republican economic official who has served in multiple GOP administrations. 'But I'm not sure why they insist on going this particular route given the design of the bill.' But White House officials, who regularly point to several projections that undershot Trump's first term economy, have elevated that message at a critical moment. The White House's messaging is intended to undercut public opposition from Republican Sens. Rand Paul and Ron Johnson, as well as the private anxiety of a handful of others as the Senate mulls changes to the House-passed version of the plan, according to multiple Senate GOP aides. 'I want to see the tax cuts made permanent, but I also want to see the $5 trillion in new debt removed from the bill,' Paul said Tuesday. 'At least four of us in the Senate feel this way.' But it's also directed at an audience that carries far more sway over Trump's economic agenda than any politician: bond investors, who have grown increasingly jittery in recent months. Escalating concern over stratospheric US debt levels drove last month's credit rating downgrade from Moody's, which helped spark another round of tumult in the world's largest and most liquid bond market. Investors had already signaled unease with Trump's expansive 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, but as the House moved toward a vote on the bill last month, bond investors once again got jittery. That signaled bond investors' willingness to consider whether the decades-long warnings of a looming, but theoretical, US fiscal collapse may be inching closer to reality. 'You are going to see a crack in the bond market, OK?' said JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon during a May 30 discussion at the Reagan National Economic Forum in California. Dimon, who also said he supports the Republican bill because of the certainty it will bring to US tax policy, said he couldn't predict when exactly that kind of dramatic disruption would occur. But Dimon said the current US fiscal position, absent a major and sustained policy shift, makes a crisis inevitable. 'It's going to happen,' Dimon said. White House officials dismiss that worst-case scenario. They insist the administration isn't rattled by the spike in long-term US borrowing costs or the tumultuous few months in the US Treasury market. They say the bond market's fluctuations aren't aren't tethered to the realities underpinning the world's largest economy. 'I've known Jamie a long time, and for his entire career he's made predictions like this,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation. 'Fortunately, none of them have come true.' Bessent's blunt dismissal of Dimon's prediction reflected a prevailing view inside the West Wing that boils down to, essentially (and sometimes, depending on the adviser, explicitly): 'Everyone else is wrong.' After all, the bill represents an essential component of Trump's economic agenda. The package is more or less what every Republican elected in 2024 campaigned on with Trump. This package includes the tax cuts at the heart of his economic agenda and a series of regulatory reforms that accelerate his sweeping deregulatory agenda. The bill also includes significant military and immigration enforcement spending that would fulfill campaign pledges. Narrow majorities in both chambers were always going to make the effort a high-wire act to balance the hardline fiscal hawks' desires with the needs of the more moderate members who populate the conferences in both chambers. But failure – and the devastating economic and political consequences it would bring – isn't really an option here for the White House or GOP leaders. Still, the deficit concerns are very real and pose the most acute risk at this stage of Senate consideration. They also represent a far higher-stakes threat if bond investor jitters turn into something more dire. White House officials are keenly aware they need to aggressively make their case to uneasy bond investors – and make it well. That reality, more than anything else, raises the question of why officials insist on declaring the bill won't drive up deficits by even a dollar over 10 years. The big assumptions that underpin that projection go something like this: 1) Tariffs will produce trillions of dollars in revenue without hurting US economic growth. 2) Courts allow the White House's sweeping deregulatory agenda, including DOGE cuts, to go forward. 3) Business investment surges, even after the front-loaded corporate tax incentives expire in a couple years. 4) Backloaded spending cuts remain in place over a four-year period and Republicans secure major discretionary spending cuts that will require Democratic support. You can see the sheer number of variables, many outside of Trump's control, inherent in those assertions. That underscores the connective tissue between Trump's first and second terms – and the number of Trump advisers who were by his side then and now. Trump's advisers remain animated by the unyielding belief that the economic experts were proven wrong in Trump's first term. They are betting that's the case again, with Trump's entire economic agenda hanging in the balance. Musk's social media unburdening this week certainly wasn't helpful to the cause. But there is no discussion about any major course change at the White House. 'Nothing has changed from our view of the world,' Vought told reporters outside the West Wing a couple of hours of Musk's Tuesday post.
