US sets deadline to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitian immigrants
The United States government has announced it will terminate special protections for Haitian immigrants.
In a statement issued Friday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that, starting on September 2, Haitians would no longer be able to remain in the country under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation.
TPS allows nationals from countries facing conflict, natural disaster or other extraordinary circumstances to temporarily remain in the US. It also gives them the right to work and travel.
The designation is typically made for periods of six, 12 or 18 months, but that can be extended by the DHS secretary.
But under the administration of President Donald Trump, temporary protections like TPS have been pared back, as part of a broader push to limit immigration to the US.
'This decision restores integrity in our immigration system and ensures that Temporary Protective Status is actually temporary,' a DHS spokesperson said in Friday's statement.
Haiti first received the TPS designation in 2010, when a devastating earthquake killed more than 200,000 people and left 1.5 million homeless – more than a 10th of the population. The designation has been routinely extended and expanded, particularly as gang violence and political instability worsened in recent years.
Since his first term in office, from 2017 to 2021, President Trump has sought to strip TPS for Haitians, even as conditions have deteriorated in the Caribbean island nation.
Today, Haiti faces a protracted humanitarian crisis, with more than 5,600 people killed by gangs last year and 1.3 million displaced. Armed groups now control up to 90 percent of the capital, and food, water and medical services are extremely difficult to come by.
The US Department of State has placed a travel advisory on Haiti, listing it as a Level 4 country, the highest warning level.
Level 4 signifies 'do not travel', as there are life-threatening conditions in the designated area. The State Department advises Americans to avoid Haiti 'due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, and limited health care'.
The DHS statement, however, notes that Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem 'determined that, overall, country conditions have improved to the point where Haitians can return home in safety'.
'She further determined that permitting Haitian nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the United States,' the statement adds.
An estimated 260,000 Haitians have TPS. The statement advises that those affected can either pursue another immigration status or return home.
But Haitians are not the only group to face the revocation of their temporary immigration status.
In early May, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to revoke TPS for 350,000 Venezuelans living in the US.
Later in the month, the high court also ruled that Trump can revoke the two-year 'humanitarian parole' that allowed 530,000 people to legally remain and work in the US. The affected humanitarian parole recipients included Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans, all of whom face instability and political repression in their home countries.
Trump officials have also moved to end TPS for 7,600 Cameroonians and 14,600 Afghans. But critics note that fighting continues to rage in Cameroon, and in Afghanistan, the Taliban government is accused of perpetrating widespread human rights abuses.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
18 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
What cases did the US Supreme Court decide at the end of its 2024 term?
The United States Supreme Court has ended its latest term with a host of blockbuster decisions, touching on everything from healthcare coverage to school reading lists. On Friday, the court issued the final decisions of the 2024 term before it takes several months of recess. The nine justices on its bench will reconvene in October. But before their departure, the justices made headlines. In a major victory for the administration of President Donald Trump, the six-person conservative majority decided to limit the ability of courts to issue universal injunctions that would block executive actions nationwide. Trump has long denounced court injunctions as an attack on his executive authority. In two other rulings, the Supreme Court's conservative majority again banded together. One decision allowed parents to opt out of school materials that include LGBTQ themes, while the other gave the go-ahead to Texas to place barriers to prevent youth from viewing online pornography. But a decision on healthcare access saw some conservative justices align with their three left-wing colleagues. Here is an overview of their final rulings of the 2024 term. Court upholds preventive care requirements In the case of Kennedy v Braidwood Management, the Supreme Court saw its usual ideological divides fracture. Three conservative justices – Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts – joined with the court's liberal branch, represented by Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, for a six-to-three ruling. At stake was the ability of a government task force to determine what kinds of preventive healthcare the country's insurance providers had to cover. It was the latest case to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation passed under former President Barack Obama to expand healthcare access. This case focused on a section of the act that allowed a panel of health experts – under the Department of Health and Human Services – to determine what preventive services should be covered at no cost. A group of individuals and Christian-owned businesses had challenged the legality of that task force, though. They argued that the expert panel was a violation of the Appointments Clause, a section of the Constitution that requires certain political appointees to be chosen by the president and approved by the Senate. The group had previously secured an injunction against the task force's decision that HIV prevention medications be covered as preventive care. That specific injunction was not weighed in the Supreme Court's decision. But writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh affirmed that the task force was constitutional, because it was made up of 'inferior officers' who did not need Senate approval. Court gives nod to Texas's age restrictions on porn Several states, including Texas, require users to verify their age before accessing pornographic websites, with the aim of shielding minors from inappropriate material. But Texas's law came under the Supreme Court's microscope on Friday, in a case called Free Speech Coalition v Ken Paxton. The Free Speech Coalition is a nonprofit that represents workers in the adult entertainment industry. They sued Texas's attorney general, Paxton, arguing that the age-verification law would dampen First Amendment rights, which protect the right to free expression, free association and privacy. The plaintiffs noted the risks posed by sharing personally identifying information online, including the possibility that identifying information like birthdates and sensitive data could be leaked. The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, warned that Texas's law 'robs people of anonymity'. Writing for the Supreme Court's conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged that 'submitting to age verification is a burden on the exercise' of First Amendment rights. But, he added, 'adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification' altogether. The majority upheld Texas's law. Court affirms children can withdraw from LGBTQ school material The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority also continued its streak of religious freedom victories, with a decision in Mahmoud v Taylor. That case centred on the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland, where books portraying LGBTQ themes had been approved for use in primary school curricula. One text, for example, was a picture book called Love, Violet, which told the story of a young girl mustering the courage to give a Valentine to a female classmate. Another book, titled Pride Puppy, follows a child searching for her lost dog during an annual parade to celebrate LGBTQ pride. Parents of children in the school district objected to the material on religious grounds, and some books, like Pride Puppy, were eventually withdrawn. But the board eventually announced it would refuse to allow parents to opt out of the approved material, on the basis that it would create disruptions in the learning environment. Some education officials also argued that allowing kids to opt out of LGBTQ material would confer a stigma on the people who identify as part of that community – and that LGBTQ people were simply a fact of life. In the majority's decision, Justice Samuel Alito asserted that the education board's policy 'conveys that parents' religious views are not welcome in the 'fully inclusive environment' that the Board purports to foster'. 'The curriculum itself also betrays an attempt to impose ideological conformity with specific views on sexuality and gender,' Alito wrote. Court limits the use of nationwide injunctions Arguably, the biggest decision of the day was another ruling decided by the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority. In the case Trump v CASA, the Trump administration had appealed the use of nationwide injunctions all the way up to the highest court in the land. At stake was an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office for his second term. That order sought to whittle down the concept of birthright citizenship, a right conferred under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Previously, birthright citizenship had applied to nearly everyone born on US soil: Regardless of their parents' nationality, the child would receive US citizenship. But Trump has denounced that application of birthright citizenship as too broad. In his executive order, he put restrictions on birthright citizenship depending on whether the parents were undocumented immigrants. Legal challenges erupted as soon as the executive order was published, citing Supreme Court precedent that upheld birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of the parent. Federal courts in states like Maryland and Washington quickly issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the executive order from taking effect. The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh the merits of Trump's order on birthright citizenship. But it did evaluate a Trump administration petition arguing that the nationwide injunctions were instances of judicial overreach. The conservative supermajority sided with Trump, saying that injunctions should generally not be universal but instead should focus on relief for the specific plaintiffs at hand. One possible exception, however, would be for class action lawsuits. Amy Coney Barrett, the court's latest addition and a Trump appointee, penned the majority's decision. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,' she wrote. 'But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.'
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
California Governor Newsom sues Fox News for $787m over alleged defamation
California Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a $787m defamation lawsuit against Fox News, accusing the network of misrepresenting a phone call between him and US President Donald Trump earlier this month amid immigration arrests and the subsequent protests in Los Angeles. The complaint was filed on Friday in Delaware Superior Court, the state in which Fox Corp is incorporated. Newsom spoke by phone with Trump late on June 6 – early June 7 on the East Coast, soon after protests broke out in Los Angeles following federal immigration raids. Less than 24 hours later, the president sent National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the state, bypassing the governor's office. In an interview with NBC News on June 8, Newsom said that he had a civil conversation with the president, but he never brought up sending the National Guard. 'I tried to talk about LA, he wanted to talk about all these other issues,' Newsom said. 'He never once brought up the National Guard,' he added. Newsom said he did not speak with Trump again, and confirmed this after Trump falsely told reporters on June 10 that he had spoken with the governor 'a day ago'. The suit alleged that the network had a 'willingness to protect President Trump from his own false statements by smearing his political opponent Governor Newsom in a dispute over when the two last spoke during a period of national strife'. The complaint said Fox nonetheless made a misleading video clip and multiple false statements about the timing of the last call, acting with actual malice in an effort to brand Newsom a liar and curry favour with Trump. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?' Watters said on June 10 on his show, Jesse Watters Primetime, according to the complaint. Watters's report was accompanied by a chyron, a banner caption along the bottom of a TV screen, that said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call,' the complaint added. According to the complaint, Fox's claim that Newsom lied was 'calculated to provoke outrage and cause Governor Newsom significant harm' by making people less likely to support his causes, donate to his campaigns, or vote for him in elections. 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,' a spokesperson for Fox News told Al Jazeera in an email. In a follow-up, Al Jazeera asked Fox if Watters and his production team fact-checked claims about the phone call before speaking about it – which is industry standard – but the network did not provide clarification. Newsom's punitive damages request is nearly identical to the $787.5m that Fox paid in 2023 to settle Dominion Voting Systems' lawsuit over alleged vote-rigging in the 2020 US presidential election. To prevail in his lawsuit, Newsom would have to show Fox acted with actual malice, meaning it knew its statements were false or had reckless disregard for their truth. According to the New York Times, Newsom would drop the lawsuit if Fox issued a retraction and host Jesse Watters apologised on-air for saying the governor lied about his call with Trump. The governor's office told Al Jazeera that it would not comment because Newsom is pursuing the lawsuit in a personal capacity and not through the office. In an emailed statement, Newsom said, 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences – just like it did in the Dominion case. I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.' Out of Trump's playbook Newsom's lawsuit comes as Trump has gone after news organisations that have been critical of him. He reached a $15m settlement with ABC News after the network made in an inaccurate claim that a jury found Trump liable for rape in the civil case involving E Jean Carroll, rather than sexual assault. The White House also recently went after the network when former White House correspondent Terry Moran called White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller a 'world-class hater'. Moran was later suspended and subsequently dismissed from the network. Trump also sued CBS News for $20bn for the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his Democratic rival Kamala Harris, which was reportedly mediated into a settlement agreement of $20m with parent company Paramount Global, causing concern in the news division. Paramount has a pending merger with Skydance. Trump has also slashed funding for public media, which the White House alleged was 'radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news''.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Explosive': US Supreme Court deals blow to those challenging Trump's power
Washington, DC – The United States Supreme Court has dealt a major blow to those challenging Donald Trump's use of presidential power, in what the president and his allies have hailed as a major victory. In its decision on Friday, the nine-member panel weighed whether courts could block an executive order on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule directly on the president's order, which would limit citizenship for US-born children based on their parents' immigration status. But in a six-to-three ruling, the court's conservative supermajority did severely curtail the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions: blanket bans on presidential actions stemming from legal challenges. The court's move, according to Allen Orr, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), is nothing short of 'explosive'. 'For lawyers and people who practice law, this is a drastic change from the way we've had courts run in the past,' he told Al Jazeera. 'It's weakening the judiciary yet again, as a balancing act [against the executive branch].' No immediate change to birthright citizenship Friday's ruling lifts the nationwide block on Trump's executive order that seeks to redefine birthright citizenship, which generally allows those born on US soil to be recognised as American citizens. However, Trump's order, signed just hours after he took office for a second term on January 20, would restrict citizenship for individuals born to undocumented parents in the US. That 'opens the door to partial enforcement' of Trump's order, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of several groups that have challenged the attempted policy. That is, at least until the Supreme Court makes a determination on whether birthright citizenship is indeed protected by the US Constitution, as proponents – and the court's own precedents – have long maintained. If no further action is taken, in theory, the order could be blocked in the handful of states where judges have already issued injunctions related to at least 10 individual lawsuits. But it could go into effect in dozens of other states where judges have issued no such injunction. The Supreme Court's ruling says Trump's order will not be enforceable for at least 30 days. But Leon Fresco – a former deputy assistant attorney general who oversaw immigration at the Justice Department under President Barack Obama – warned that, after that 30-day period, there could be grave consequences for the newborn children of immigrants. 'If there isn't an injunction in your jurisdiction that prevents the executive order from being implemented and you're born to a parent without a status that confers you citizenship, then the government could deny you either a passport, if you apply for a passport, or a Social Security number,' he told Al Jazeera. Class action challenge The decision on Friday does not completely remove the possibility of a judge issuing a nationwide injunction to an executive order. Legal experts say it just severely restricts the avenues. Prior to the decision, groups and individuals could launch a panoply of legal challenges in federal courts across the country, any of which could result in nationwide injunctions. Now, a judge can only issue a blanket pause in response to a class action lawsuit, which is a complaint brought on behalf of an entire 'class' of people. The process is typically more complex, time-consuming and costly. The Supreme Court's majority opinion, Fresco explained, also clarified that only one nationwide class action lawsuit can represent a specific challenge. 'There wouldn't be this ability, which happens now, where plaintiffs can file cases in five or six different courts, in hopes of getting one judge in any of those courts to issue a nationwide injunction,' he said. 'With the class action, you'll only have the one time to win,' he added. 'If you lost, you'd have to hope that the appellate court changed it, or that the Supreme Court changed it.' Class action lawsuits also have stringent requirements for who can participate. A judge must agree that all plaintiffs are pursuing the same case and that there are no substantial differences in their claims. Shortly after Friday's ruling, the plaintiff, CASA Inc, an immigration advocacy group, swiftly refiled its legal challenge against Trump's birthright citizenship order. Now, it is pursuing the case as a class action lawsuit. Critics, meanwhile, took aim at the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal judge on the nine-member panel, criticised her colleagues for ruling on national injunctions but not on Trump's executive order, which she called blatantly unconstitutional. 'The majority ignores entirely whether the President's Executive Order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Yet the Order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error.' Absent a class action lawsuit, individuals and groups will be forced to launch their own lawsuits to get individual reprieves from potentially illegal presidential orders. That's because the conservative supermajority ruled that court injunctions in most cases should only apply to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit at hand. In a post on the social media platform X, Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz wrote that the Supreme Court's decision allows Trump to 'rip away birthright citizenship, forcing individuals to file burdensome lawsuits to get it back'. Wider implications But Friday's decision not only restricts who is protected by a given court injunction, it also has sway over how much the judicial branch of government can continue to serve as a bulwark against the executive branch. Critics of universal injunctions have long accused federal judges of overstepping their authority by blocking presidential action. Among those celebrating Friday's decision was Senator Chuck Grassley, who has spearheaded legislation on the issue. In a statement, he called such injunctions an 'unconstitutional affront to our nation's system of checks and balances' that 'ought to be stopped for good'. Proponents, however, say the ability for judges to issue swift, wide-reaching pauses on controversial policies is needed to safeguard against presidential overreach. Many see Trump as taking the expansion of presidential powers to a new level during his second term. Since returning to office for a second term, Trump has issued 164 executive orders, surpassing the 162 issued by former President Joe Biden during his entire presidency. That number – for a span of about five months – is rapidly approaching the total for Trump's entire first term: 220. Meanwhile, federal judges issued at least 25 national injunctions to Trump's orders during his first 100 days in office, some of which paused cuts to federal funding, attacks on diversity initiatives and overhauls to the US immigration systems. Some of those court cases will likely be re-challenged in light of the latest ruling, experts said. In a post on X, Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat, warned the courts ruling 'will only embolden Trump and his dismantling of our federal government'. 'It will create an unworkable patchwork of laws that shift depending on who you are or what state you're in.' Orr, the former law association president, agreed with that assessment. 'This decision does not build consistency across the United States at a time when people need these standards,' he said. 'People do not have time or money to wait to have these issues resolved.'
