Haitians fear overcrowding, limited resources as DHS announces end of TPS
South Floridians react to U.S. plans to revoke immigration status of Haitian migrants in September
South Floridians react to U.S. plans to revoke immigration status of Haitian migrants in September
South Floridians react to U.S. plans to revoke immigration status of Haitian migrants in September
Hours after the Department of Homeland Security announced it will officially end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians living in the United States, residents in northern Haiti expressed deep concern about the impact of returning migrants.
In Cap-Haitien, the news spread quickly, dominating conversations across the city.
The streets of downtown were crowded Friday afternoon as people continued their daily routines amid a tense and uncertain atmosphere.
Concerns over infrastructure, healthcare, and housing
The city, already straining from a growing population of people fleeing gang violence in the capital city of Port-au-Prince, may now face a fresh influx.
One Haitian man voiced alarm at the possibility.
"We gotta deal with the gang situation and the humanitarian [situation]," said Virme Wilmond. "All those people need food. We don't have health care. How are we going to receive all those people? That's going to be a real problem, I can tell you."
Visitors also note lack of progress
Robin Nash, a visitor from Los Angeles, noted worsening conditions in the city.
"There's already a housing problem here right now and if you saw downtown Cap, there's nothing but trash," she said. "I'm thinking of the deepest darkest ghetto."
According to CBS News Miami, Nash said this was her second trip to Haiti and that she had not seen improvement since her last visit.
TPS termination set for September 2
DHS Secretary Kristy Noem said in a statement that the decision to terminate TPS aligns with the original intent of the program, noting that conditions in Haiti had improved. She added that allowing Haitians to remain in the U.S. would be "contrary to the national interest."
Two flights departing from Miami were reported full, with some passengers permanently relocating to Haiti.
The TPS designation ends August 3, with termination effective September 2.
Without legal intervention, hundreds of thousands of Haitians currently living in the United States could lose their protected status that day.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
3 hours ago
- Associated Press
Democrats wrestle with how to conduct oversight as Trump officials crack down
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just hours after she pleaded not guilty to federal charges brought by the Trump administration, New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver was surrounded by dozens of supportive Democratic colleagues in the halls of the Capitol. The case, they argued, strikes at the heart of congressional power. 'If they can break LaMonica, they can break the House of Representatives,' said New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Federal prosecutors allege that McIver interfered with law enforcement during a visit with two other House Democrats to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark, New Jersey. She calls the charges 'baseless.' It's far from the only clash between congressional Democrats and the Republican administration as officials ramp up deportations of immigrants around the country. Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed by federal agents while attempting to speak at a news conference for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. At least six groups of House Democrats have recently been denied entry to ICE detention centers. In early June, federal agents entered the district office of Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and briefly detained a staffer. Congressional Republicans have largely dismissed Democrats' behavior as inflammatory and inappropriate, and some have publicly supported the prosecution of McIver. Often in the dark about the Trump administration's moves, congressional Democrats are wrestling with how to perform their oversight duties at a time of roiling tensions with the White House and new restrictions on lawmakers visiting federal facilities. 'We have the authority to conduct oversight business, and clearly, House Republicans are not doing that oversight here,' said New Jersey Rep. Rob Menendez, one of the House Democrats who went with McIver to the Newark ICE facility. 'It's our obligation to continue to do it on site at these detention facilities. And even if they don't want us to, we are going to continue to exert our right.' Democrats confront a stark new reality The prospect of facing charges for once routine oversight activity has alarmed many congressional Democrats who never expected to face criminal prosecution as elected officials. Lawmakers in both parties were also unnerved by the recent targeted shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers and the nation's tense political atmosphere. 'It's a moment that calls for personal courage of members of Congress,' said Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania. 'I wish that we had more physical protection. I think that's one of those harsh realities that members of Congress who are not in leadership recognize: that oftentimes, we do this job at our own peril, and we do it anyway.' The arrests and detentions of lawmakers have led some Democrats to take precautionary measures. Several have consulted with the House general counsel about their right to conduct oversight. Multiple lawmakers also sought personal legal counsel, while others have called for a review of congressional rules to provide greater protections. 'The Capitol Police are the security force for members of Congress. We need them to travel with us, to go to facilities and events that the president may have us arrested for,' said Rep. Jonathan Jackson of Illinois. 'There's not a lot of transparency' As the minority party in the House, Democrats lack the subpoena power to force the White House to provide information. That's a problem, they say, because the Trump administration is unusually secretive about its actions. 'There's not a lot of transparency. From day to day, oftentimes, we're learning about what's happening at the same time as the rest of the nation,' said Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., who led a prayer for McIver at the Capitol rally. Democrats, to amplify their concerns, have turned to public letters, confronted officials at congressional hearings and digital and media outreach to try to create public pressure. 'We've been very successful when they come in before committees,' said Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, who added that she believed the public inquiries have 'one hundred percent' resonated with voters. Tapping into the information pipeline Congressional Democrats say they often rely on local lawmakers, business leaders and advocates to be their eyes and ears on the ground. A handful of Democrats say their best sources of information are across the political aisle, since Republicans typically have clearer lines of communication with the White House. 'I know who to call in Houston with the chamber. I think all of us do that,' said Texas Rep. Sylvia Garcia of how business leaders are keeping her updated. Garcia said Democrats 'need to put more pressure' on leading figures in the agriculture, restaurant and hospitality sectors to take their concerns about the immigrant crackdown to Trump's White House. 'They're the ones he'll listen to. They're the ones who can add the pressure. He's not going to listen to me, a Democrat who was an impeachment manager, who is on the bottom of his list, if I'm on it at all,' Garcia said. Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, for instance, had a working relationship with a for-profit ICE facility in his district until DHS in February ended reports as part of an agency-wide policy change. A member of Crow's staff now regularly goes to the facility and waits, at times for hours, until staff at the Aurora facility respond to detailed questions posed by the office. Democrats say 'real oversight' requires winning elections Still, many House Democrats concede that they can conduct little of their desired oversight until they are back in the majority. Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, said that 'real oversight power and muscle' only comes 'when you have a gavel.' 'Nothing else matters. No rousing oratory, no tours, no speeches, no social media or entertainment, none of that stuff,' Veasey said. 'Because the thing that keeps Trump up at night more than anything else is the idea he's going to lose this House and there'll be real oversight pressure applied to him.' ___
Politico
4 hours ago
- Politico
DHS terminates temporary protected status for Haitians in the US
The Department of Homeland Security on Friday announced that it would terminate temporary protected status for Haiti, setting the groundwork for hundreds of thousands of Haitians to potentially be deported from the United States once the designation expires later this summer. The termination of temporary protected status — a designation that shields from deportation people who have traveled to the U.S. from countries that are deemed unsafe because of natural disasters, armed conflict or other extraordinary conditions — would put up to 500,000 Haitians at risk of deportation, as gang violence continues to roil the country. According to a DHS release, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem 'determined that conditions in Haiti no longer meet the TPS statutory requirements,' after concluding that conditions in the country have improved sufficiently for Haitians in the U.S. to return. The DHS plans to terminate the designation effective on Sept. 2. 'This decision restores integrity in our immigration system and ensures that Temporary Protective Status is actually temporary,' an unnamed DHS spokesperson said in the release. 'Haitian nationals may pursue lawful status through other immigration benefit requests, if eligible.' But while DHS said Haiti is 'safe for Haitian citizens to return home,' the country still remains at a 'level four' designation by the State Department, which has advised Americans not to travel there due to risk of 'kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, and limited health care.' Haiti was also included in President Donald Trump's new travel ban. Trump has threatened mass deportation for Haitians since his presidential campaign, when he began attacking Haitian immigrants, zeroing in on migrants in Springfield, Ohio, that he said were 'destroying' the town's 'way of life.' Both Trump and Vice President JD Vance at the time boosted conspiracy theories about Haitians in Springfield eating a slew of local wildlife, including cats, dogs and geese, sparking outcry from Democrats. 'It's simply wrong,' then-President Joe Biden said of Trump and Vance's comments, adding that the Haitian American community was 'under attack.' The decision is the latest in the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration and follows a February move by the DHS rescinding temporary legal protections for Haitians in the U.S. that had been granted under the Biden administration, which cited at the time the dangerous conditions in Haiti that made their return unsafe. The Trump administration has also made similar moves terminating protections for Afghans, Venezuelans and Cameroonians in the country, and won a legal battle in the Supreme Court in May after justices cleared the way for the administration to immediately end deportation protections for roughly 350,000 Venezuelans in the U.S.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
US supreme court clears way for Trump to deport migrants to countries not their own
The US supreme court on Monday paved the way for the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to countries they are not from, including to conflict-ridden places such as South Sudan. In a brief, unsigned order, the court's conservative supermajority paused the ruling by a Boston-based federal judge who said immigrants deserved a 'meaningful opportunity' to bring claims that they would face the risk of torture, persecution or even death if removed to certain countries that have agreed to take people deported from the US. As a result of Monday's ruling, the administration will now be allowed to swiftly deport immigrants to so-called 'third countries', including a group of men held at a US military base in Djibouti who the administration tried to send to South Sudan. The court offered no explanation for its decision and ordered the judge's ruling paused while the appeals process plays out. The three liberal justices issued a scathing dissent. The Department of Homeland Security hailed the decision as a 'victory for the safety and security of the American people'. 'DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them,' spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. 'Fire up the deportation planes.' In response to Monday's ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said: 'The supreme court's stay of a leftwing district judge's injunction reaffirms the president's authority to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again.' In the dissenting opinion, justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the court of 'rewarding lawlessness' by allowing the government to violate the due process rights of the immigrants facing removal. She also charged that the conservative majority appeared more concerned by the 'remote possibility' that the federal judge exceeded his authority than by 'the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales'. 'In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution,' she wrote. 'In this case, the government took the opposite approach.' Boston-based US district judge Brian Murphy has faced sharp criticism from Trump and his allies over the decision – part of a pattern of targeting judges who impede the administration's agenda. In a statement, the White House called him a 'a far-left activist judge'. The case was brought by immigrant rights groups who filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their rapid removal to third-party countries – places where they did not hold citizenship and had no connection. In May, Murphy found that the Department of Homeland Security had 'unquestionably' violated an earlier court order when it attempted to send eight men, all convicted of violent crimes in the US, to South Sudan, a country that the US state department has deemed dangerous for travelers 'due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict'. Murphy ruled that the Trump administration could not let a group of migrants being transported to countries that were not their own leave the custody of US immigration authorities. As a result, the plane landed instead in the east African nation of Djibouti, where they have been held at a US military base ever since. The detainees came from countries around the world – Cuba, Mexico, Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar. Only one was from South Sudan. Immigration officials have said that they were unable to return the men to their home countries quickly. Reuters also reported by that US officials had considered sending migrants to Libya – another politically unstable country previously condemned by Washington for its harsh treatment of detainees. Removing individuals without an opportunity to object would violate his order, Murphy clarified. In an emergency filing to the supreme court, the administration said the South Sudan-bound migrants had committed 'heinous crimes', including murder, arson and armed robbery. The case is one of several legal challenges to Trump-era immigration policies to reach the supreme court since Trump returned to office in January vowing to carry out the largest deportation campaign in US history. In May, the supreme court let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the US temporarily. The justices, however, in April faulted the administration's treatment of some targeted migrants as inadequate under US constitution's due process protections. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there 'without the need for further procedures'. Without such assurance, if the migrant expresses fear of removal to that country, US authorities would assess the likelihood of persecution or torture, possibly referring the person to an immigration court, according to the guidance. Murphy found that the administration's policy of 'executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims' likely violates due process requirements under the constitution. Murphy said that the supreme court, Congress, 'common sense' and 'basic decency' all require migrants to be given adequate due process. The Boston-based 1st US circuit court of appeals on 16 May declined to put Murphy's decision on hold. In his order concerning the flight to South Sudan, Murphy also clarified that non-citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. The administration told the supreme court that its third-country policy already complied with due process and is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back.
