DHS revokes temporary status of Haitians, other nationalities; Chaos, confusion set in
Millions of Haitians and other nationalities may be forced to leave the United States after one federal agency revokes their temporary status.
People at the Haitian Support Center in Springfield are worried, confused, and scared. Not knowing what it all means or how long they can call the city of Springfield home.
Viles Dorsainvil is the Executive Director at the Haitian Support Center and said, 'It's chaotic. It's confusing because at some point in time it's like a catch-22.'
Around 15,000 Haitians live and work in Springfield, legally. Now, the Department of Homeland Security is emailing termination notices notifying hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans that their temporary permission to live and work I the United States has been revoked and they should leave the country.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WHIO-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
TRENDING STORIES:
Over 400K driver's license suspensions removed under new Ohio law
Longtime local bowling alley gets new owner
Israel attacks Iran, kills top military personnel; Tehran retaliates
'You came here just to work and have a life, and all of a sudden you find yourself in all of this chaos, which was not their or our expectation,' Dorsainvil said.
While he's not aware of any notices sent to Haitians living in Springfield, he said there is confusion.
'I got a call from employers yesterday asking me which decision they should take about them. If they have to keep them or let them go,' Dorsainvil said.
News Center 7 caught up with Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, who said Ohio businesses are worried about their bottom line.
'These Haitians are contributing to society. They're allowing us to produce things, and without them, these companies are going to have a very difficult time doing what they need to do,' DeWine said.
For the time being, the Haitian Support Center is working to provide understanding to Haitians and legal help.
'So, our role is to work with them through this process,' Dorsainvil said.
Haitians with a more permanent status and Green Cards are also worried, wondering if their status will come into question. But they are also scared that families will be split up.
They are seeking more clarification in the coming days.
[SIGN UP: WHIO-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal prosecutors now charging immigrants who don't submit fingerprints under dormant 1940s law
Federal officials have begun carrying out President Donald Trump's orders to enforce a World War II-era criminal law that requires virtually all non-citizens in the country to register with and submit fingerprints to the government. Since April, law enforcement in Louisiana, Arizona, Montana, Alabama, Texas and Washington, D.C., have charged people with willful 'failure to register' under the Alien Registration Act, an offense most career federal public defenders have never encountered before. Many of those charged were already in jail and in ongoing deportation proceedings when prosecutors presented judges with the new charges against them. The registration provision in the law, which was passed in 1940 amid widespread public fear about immigrants' loyalty to the U.S., had been dormant for 75 years, but it is still on the books. Failure to register is considered a 'petty offense' — a misdemeanor with maximum penalties of six months imprisonment or a $1,000 fine. In reviving the law, the Trump administration may put undocumented immigrants in a catch-22. If they register, they must hand over detailed, incriminating information to the federal government — including how and when they entered the country. But knowingly refusing to register is also a crime, punishable by arrest or prosecution, on top of the ever-present threat of deportation. 'The sort of obvious reason to bring back registration in the first place is the hope that people will register, and therefore give themselves up effectively to the government because they already confessed illegal entry,' said Jonathan Weinberg, a Wayne State University law professor who has studied the registration law. But the Trump administration also has another goal. It says one purpose of the registration regime is to provoke undocumented immigrants to choose a third option: leave the country voluntarily, or, in the words of the Department of Homeland Security, compulsory 'mass self-deportation.' Those efforts, alongside the administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and a more aggressive approach to immigration raids, are meant to achieve a broader, overarching campaign promise: the largest deportation program in the history of America. 'For decades, this law has been ignored — not anymore,' the department said in a February announcement that it would enforce the law. The department called 'mass self-deportation' a 'safer path for aliens and law enforcement,' and said it saves U.S. taxpayer dollars. The Department of Homeland Security did not answer questions about its enforcement policies. The Alien Registration Act was passed in 1940, amid fears about immigrants' loyalties. A separate provision of the statute criminalizes advocacy for overthrowing the government. For about two decades, that provision was used to prosecute people who were accused of being either pro-fascist or pro-Communist. The registration provision, though, remained largely dormant, and had not been enforced in 75 years. It applies to non-citizens, regardless of legal status, who are in the U.S. for 30 days or longer. Certain categories of legal immigrants have already met the requirement. Immigrants who have filed applications to become permanent residents are considered registered by DHS, for example. And even some undocumented U.S. residents are already registered: U.S. residents who have received 'parole' — a form of humanitarian protection from deportation — are also considered registered. Still, DHS estimates that up to 3.2 million immigrants are currently unregistered and are affected by the new enforcement regime. The administration has created a new seven-page form that non-citizens must use. The form requires people, under penalty of perjury, to provide biographical details, contact information, details about any criminal history and the circumstances of how they entered the U.S. After DHS issued regulations to enforce the registration requirement in April, the administration announced that 47,000 undocumented immigrants had registered using the new form. The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and other advocacy groups filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's move to revive the registration requirement in March. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, initially expressed skepticism toward the administration, saying in a recent hearing that officials had pulled a 'big switcheroo' on undocumented immigrants. But McFadden in April refused the plaintiffs' request to temporarily block the policy, saying the Coalition likely lacks the legal standing to sue because it has not shown that it would be harmed by the policy. The group has appealed McFadden's decision. In the meantime, the administration has begun to prosecute people for failure to register for the first time in seven decades. The prosecutions so far have stumbled. On May 19, a federal magistrate judge in Louisiana consolidated and dismissed five of the criminal cases, saying prosecutors had no probable cause to believe the defendants had intentionally refused to register. Judge Michael North wrote that the Alien Registration Act requires 'some level of subjective knowledge or bad intent' behind the choice not to register. The prosecutions, the judge wrote, are impermissible because most people are simply unaware of the law, and the government 'did not provide these Defendants — as well as millions of similarly situated individuals here without government permission — with a way to register' since 1950. But North also pointed out that the government may have an easier path to proving probable cause in the future, given that DHS created a new registration form in April. And government attorneys have appealed the five dismissed cases. The Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana declined to comment on recent charges filed under the law. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia said the office 'is aggressively pursuing criminals in the district and will use all criminal justice resources available to make D.C. safe and to carry out President Trump's and Attorney General Bondi's direction to support immigration enforcement." The other federal district attorneys whose offices filed charges did not respond to a request for comment. Michelle LaPointe, legal director at the American Immigration Council, an immigrants' rights advocacy group, said these initial cases are the 'tip of the iceberg.' LaPointe is among the attorneys representing the Coalition in its lawsuit against the administration. 'I don't expect them to abate just because there were some dismissals,' LaPointe said, pointing to North's statements about future charges. 'They have already stated that they intend to make prosecution of the few immigration-related criminal statutes a priority for DOJ, and it's very easy for them to at least charge, even if they're not always gonna be able to sustain their burden to secure a conviction.' Weinberg, the Wayne State law professor, agreed that the administration will likely continue attempting broad enforcement. 'If they bring a whole lot of prosecutions and end up losing all, they may step back,' Weinberg said. 'If they bring a whole lot and win a few, they'll say, 'Well, that's the basis on which we can move further'' and appeal — potentially all the way to the Supreme Court, he noted.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Even Donald Trump Is Starting to See the Absurdity of Stephen Miller's Deportation Targets
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. If the past week has shown us anything, it's that President Donald Trump is desperate. He wants to deport 1 million immigrants from this country by the end of his first year in office, a level no modern U.S. president has ever hit. His administration has made it clear they're more than willing to push the limits of the law to try to make it happen, whether it's through invoking obscure wartime laws, baselessly revoking people's visas, or calling in the National Guard against civilian protestors. These acts of desperation are highly unlikely to result in 1 million deportations in 2025, but there's a bigger reality here: Trump's deportation targets were always extreme, absurd, and impossible to hit. Even as his administration ramps up attacks on civil society, it seems like Trump himself is beginning to realize this. It's necessary to understand some immigration basics to see why Trump's stated plans are almost comically doomed to failure. The Department of Homeland Security executes numerous different types of deportations, but those boil down to two main methods: 'removals' and 'returns.' Removals are deportations in the most common understanding of the term; an immigration judge or officer issues a formal order of removal against someone who is considered unlawfully present in the United States and returns them to a country of origin. Typically these are people who enter the country illegally, have certain criminal convictions, or overstayed their visa. Returns, meanwhile, typically involve immigrants who are apprehended at the U.S.–Mexico border, turned away at an airport, or fall under expedited removal. Returns at one point in time were the highest portion of deportations because they involved people who tried entering U.S. land borders, which have historically had a much higher volume of activity than interior enforcement. It's not exactly clear how Trump is defining his 1 million deportations goal—specifically whether it includes returns—but it may not matter. Experts I spoke to believe the president is unlikely to achieve that number in one year's time even if the heavier volume of returns are included and if there's a significant increase in removals. 'The idea that Trump is going to hit a million removals strains credulity,' Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, told me. 'I do not think that is possible. The record for interior deportations was 238,000 under President Obama in fiscal year 2009, and that's a quarter of a million in one year. Getting up to a million removals even in the next four years seems, to me, virtually impossible.' That doesn't mean Trump isn't trying with everything in his tool kit. On the very same day Trump took his oath of office, he made it clear that his administration would be taking a hard line on immigration. Through a flurry of executive orders, Trump shut down the U.S.–Mexico land border and suspended the refugee resettlement program. But Trump did not stop at those historically lawful actions. He signed an executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship, a blatant overreach of executive power that flew in the face of the 14th Amendment and instantly drew lawsuits. But by the time he hit his first 100 days in office, deportations did not drastically increase. Even now, with the high-profile enforcement efforts in Los Angeles, the numbers aren't high enough to top 'Deporter-in-Chief' Barack Obama. Obama's administration deported over 3 million people over the course of his first four-year term, largely driven by administrative returns at the U.S. southern border. Ironically, those returns have plummeted under Trump because of his executive order closing the border for refugees. NBC News calculated that from February through April, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported about 40,500 people. At that pace, the Migration Policy Institute estimated Trump would only end up deporting roughly half a million people this year—that's less than former president Joe Biden's top number in 2024. This is all expected—the Trump administration essentially set itself up for failure. But we know the president is not one to take a loss graciously, so if he can't find enough immigrants to deport legally, it seems he'll just ignore the Constitution to try to hit the 1 million mark. We're seeing the natural outcome of those policies: utter chaos followed by pushback from the judiciary. Over the past several months, we've witnessed the Trump administration mistakenly deport at least four immigrants: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Jordin Melgar-Salmeron, Daniel Lozano-Camargo, and at least one other Guatemalan man. And despite admitting its errors and judges ordering these men be brought back to the U.S. to receive their due process rights, the federal government has often simply refused. 'We just have to look at the front pages of the newspapers today to understand how the administration plans to accomplish its goal,' Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, told me. 'They intend to violate the law and the Constitution, terrorize communities, and mislead the public about instigators of violence. These are all really concerning tactics that obviously are correlated to warning signs of a government that is increasingly authoritarian in nature.' Characteristic of this situation was the report that deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller pressured ICE agents to arrest at least 3,000 immigrants a day, to hell with a warrant or honoring due process. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has shown it is unfazed by cruelty. Despite their stances on immigration, nearly every U.S. president has allowed in a certain number of refugees. Trump, on the other hand, completely gutted the refugee resettlement program so not a single refugee would be legally authorized to enter the country—minus a group of white Afrikaners. That decision left thousands of refugees stranded after going through a rigorous vetting process that often takes years to complete. Then there's the termination of temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, a program that the federal government has the legal authority to oversee. Trump directed Homeland Security Secretary Kristin Noem to revoke TPS from migrants by removing their home countries from the program despite ongoing civil wars, political persecution, and other atrocities. These actions, though technically legal, have not been done by previous administrations because they are inexplicably cruel. Families get torn apart, U.S. communities lose integral members, and critical labor is lost. The chaos unfolding in Los Angeles is another predictable result of Trump's delusional deportation goal. As immigration agents raided workplaces, residents of California took to the streets to protest. The Trump administration, unable to withstand any criticism of its agenda, forced National Guard members onto Los Angeles, going against the authority of the city's mayor and governor. 'This is intentional chaos,' Karen Bass, mayor of Los Angeles, said. A district judge recently ruled that it was also an unconstitutional commandeering of forces meant to be under the control of the state's governor, Gavin Newsom. The reality underlying this chaos is that immigration has no correlation with public safety threats. Crime data from 1980 to 2022 found immigrants—including people in the country without legal permission—are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born people, according to a report by the American Immigration Council. Even as the share of immigrants has increased within the U.S. population over the years, national crime rates have trended downwards. And the AIC concluded that 'there's no evidence to suggest that more aggressive immigration enforcement policies lead to less crime.' The Marshall Project came to a similar conclusion after analyzing crime rates between 2007 and 2016, finding that most types of crime, including robberies, murders, burglaries, and larcenies, had a nearly flat trend line even as the population of people without permanent legal status fluctuated. We know that the president rode a wave of xenophobia back into the White House, selling voters on a vision that immigrants are rapists and killers who are causing crime and 'poisoning the blood of our country.' But Trump is proving through his administration's own futile deportation efforts that this imagined threat could never be as dire as the president claimed. On Thursday, Trump himself told supporters in farming and the hospitality business that more 'common sense' was needed in how the Department of Homeland Security approached removals of 'very good workers, they have worked for [American farmers] for 20 years.' Trump further acknowledged that his administration 'can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back.' Given the escalating situation in Los Angeles and Trump's own hostility to immigrants, it's extremely unclear that this promise means anything. Either way, Trump's mass deportation plans will continue to go up in smoke, whether he likes it or not.
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Federal prosecutors now charging immigrants who don't submit fingerprints under dormant 1940s law
Federal officials have begun carrying out President Donald Trump's orders to enforce a World War II-era criminal law that requires virtually all non-citizens in the country to register with and submit fingerprints to the government. Since April, law enforcement in Louisiana, Arizona, Montana, Alabama, Texas and Washington, D.C., have charged people with willful 'failure to register' under the Alien Registration Act, an offense most career federal public defenders have never encountered before. Many of those charged were already in jail and in ongoing deportation proceedings when prosecutors presented judges with the new charges against them. The registration provision in the law, which was passed in 1940 amid widespread public fear about immigrants' loyalty to the U.S., had been dormant for 75 years, but it is still on the books. Failure to register is considered a 'petty offense' — a misdemeanor with maximum penalties of six months imprisonment or a $1,000 fine. In reviving the law, the Trump administration may put undocumented immigrants in a catch-22. If they register, they must hand over detailed, incriminating information to the federal government — including how and when they entered the country. But knowingly refusing to register is also a crime, punishable by arrest or prosecution, on top of the ever-present threat of deportation. 'The sort of obvious reason to bring back registration in the first place is the hope that people will register, and therefore give themselves up effectively to the government because they already confessed illegal entry,' said Jonathan Weinberg, a Wayne State University law professor who has studied the registration law. But the Trump administration also has another goal. It says one purpose of the registration regime is to provoke undocumented immigrants to choose a third option: leave the country voluntarily, or, in the words of the Department of Homeland Security, compulsory 'mass self-deportation.' Those efforts, alongside the administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and a more aggressive approach to immigration raids, are meant to achieve a broader, overarching campaign promise: the largest deportation program in the history of America. 'For decades, this law has been ignored — not anymore,' the department said in a February announcement that it would enforce the law. The department called 'mass self-deportation' a 'safer path for aliens and law enforcement,' and said it saves U.S. taxpayer dollars. The Department of Homeland Security did not answer questions about its enforcement policies. The Alien Registration Act was passed in 1940, amid fears about immigrants' loyalties. A separate provision of the statute criminalizes advocacy for overthrowing the government. For about two decades, that provision was used to prosecute people who were accused of being either pro-fascist or pro-Communist. The registration provision, though, remained largely dormant, and had not been enforced in 75 years. It applies to non-citizens, regardless of legal status, who are in the U.S. for 30 days or longer. Certain categories of legal immigrants have already met the requirement. Immigrants who have filed applications to become permanent residents are considered registered by DHS, for example. And even some undocumented U.S. residents are already registered: U.S. residents who have received 'parole' — a form of humanitarian protection from deportation — are also considered registered. Still, DHS estimates that up to 3.2 million immigrants are currently unregistered and are affected by the new enforcement regime. The administration has created a new seven-page form that non-citizens must use. The form requires people, under penalty of perjury, to provide biographical details, contact information, details about any criminal history and the circumstances of how they entered the U.S. After DHS issued regulations to enforce the registration requirement in April, the administration announced that 47,000 undocumented immigrants had registered using the new form. The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and other advocacy groups filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's move to revive the registration requirement in March. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, initially expressed skepticism toward the administration, saying in a recent hearing that officials had pulled a 'big switcheroo' on undocumented immigrants. But McFadden in April refused the plaintiffs' request to temporarily block the policy, saying the Coalition likely lacks the legal standing to sue because it has not shown that it would be harmed by the policy. The group has appealed McFadden's decision. In the meantime, the administration has begun to prosecute people for failure to register for the first time in seven decades. The prosecutions so far have stumbled. On May 19, a federal magistrate judge in Louisiana consolidated and dismissed five of the criminal cases, saying prosecutors had no probable cause to believe the defendants had intentionally refused to register. Judge Michael North wrote that the Alien Registration Act requires 'some level of subjective knowledge or bad intent' behind the choice not to register. The prosecutions, the judge wrote, are impermissible because most people are simply unaware of the law, and the government 'did not provide these Defendants — as well as millions of similarly situated individuals here without government permission — with a way to register' since 1950. But North also pointed out that the government may have an easier path to proving probable cause in the future, given that DHS created a new registration form in April. And government attorneys have appealed the five dismissed cases. The Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana declined to comment on recent charges filed under the law. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia said the office 'is aggressively pursuing criminals in the district and will use all criminal justice resources available to make D.C. safe and to carry out President Trump's and Attorney General Bondi's direction to support immigration enforcement.' The other federal district attorneys whose offices filed charges did not respond to a request for comment. Michelle LaPointe, legal director at the American Immigration Council, an immigrants' rights advocacy group, said these initial cases are the 'tip of the iceberg.' LaPointe is among the attorneys representing the Coalition in its lawsuit against the administration. 'I don't expect them to abate just because there were some dismissals,' LaPointe said, pointing to North's statements about future charges. 'They have already stated that they intend to make prosecution of the few immigration-related criminal statutes a priority for DOJ, and it's very easy for them to at least charge, even if they're not always gonna be able to sustain their burden to secure a conviction.' Weinberg, the Wayne State law professor, agreed that the administration will likely continue attempting broad enforcement. 'If they bring a whole lot of prosecutions and end up losing all, they may step back,' Weinberg said. 'If they bring a whole lot and win a few, they'll say, 'Well, that's the basis on which we can move further'' and appeal — potentially all the way to the Supreme Court, he noted.
