Latest news with #Venezuelans
AsiaOne
30 minutes ago
- Politics
- AsiaOne
US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke humanitarian legal status for migrants, World News
The US Supreme Court on Friday (May 30) let President Donald Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president's drive to step up deportations. The court put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while the case plays out in lower courts. Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach to deter illegal immigration at the US-Mexican border. Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programs in an executive order signed on January 20, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called "expedited removal." As with many of the court's orders issued in an emergency fashion, Friday's decision was unsigned and gave no reasoning. Two of the nine-member court's three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly dissented. The court botched its decision by failing to account for its impact, Jackson wrote in an accompanying opinion. The outcome, Jackson wrote, "undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The case is one of many that Trump's administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding his sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants. The Supreme Court on May 19 also let Trump end a deportation protection called temporary protected status that had been granted under Biden to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, while that legal dispute plays out. Biden starting in 2022 let Venezuelans who entered the United States by air request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a US financial sponsor. Biden expanded that to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023. A group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors sued, claiming the administration violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the programme's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the judge's decision on hold. 'Traumatic impact' Guerline Jozef, executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance, one of the plaintiffs, expressed dismay at Friday's decision. "Once again, the Trump administration blatantly proves their disregard for the lives of those truly in need of protection by taking away their status and rendering them undocumented. We have already seen the traumatic impact on children and families afraid to even go to school, church or work," Jozef said. The administration called Friday's decision a victory, asserting that the migrants granted parole had been poorly vetted. Ending the parole programs "will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety and a return to America First," Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. [[nid:718316]] While many of those with parole status are at risk of deportation, at least 250,000 had pending applications for another legal status, according to Karen Tumlin, director of the Justice Action Center, one of the groups suing over the parole termination. Those applications had been frozen by Trump's administration but the freeze was lifted this week, said Tumlin, adding: "Those should be processed right now." Migrants with parole status reacted to Friday's decision with sadness and disappointment. Fermin Padilla, 32, waited two years in Chile to receive parole status and paid for his work permit. "We complied with all the requirements the United States government asked for," said Padilla, who lives in Austin, Texas, and delivers Amazon packages. "Now I'm left without security because we don't know what will happen. We're without anything after so much sacrifice. It's not fair." Retired university professor Wilfredo Sanchez, 73, has had parole status for a year and a half, living in Denver with his US citizen daughter, a doctor. "I was alone in Venezuela, with diabetes and hypertension," Sanchez said. "I have been relaxed here, happy with (my daughter), her husband and my grandkids. I have all my medical treatment up to date." "To return to Venezuela is to die, not just because of my medical conditions, but from loneliness," Sanchez added. Carlos Daniel Urdaneta, 30, has lived in Atlanta for three years with parole status, working in a restaurant, since coming to the United States to earn money to send to his ill mother in Venezuela. "If I have to work triple in my country, I will," said Urdaneta, whose wife and son are still in Venezuela. "I won't risk staying here undocumented with this government."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Business
- Time of India
Assessing Donald Trump's send-off for Elon Musk
President Donald Trump celebrated Elon Musk on Friday as the billionaire's tenure as the White House's chief cost-cutter was ending. The gathering, styled as a news conference in the Oval Office, signalled an end to a remarkable period of upheaval across the federal bureaucracy, supervised by Musk and the initiative he led, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). "Elon has worked tirelessly, helping lead the most sweeping and consequential government reform program in generations," Trump said, omitting that Musk fell far short of an oft-stated goal of achieving $1 trillion in savings. Here's a fact-check of some of their claims. What was said Live Events "We'll remember you as we announce billions of dollars of extra waste, fraud and abuse." -- Trump Discover the stories of your interest Blockchain 5 Stories Cyber-safety 7 Stories Fintech 9 Stories E-comm 9 Stories ML 8 Stories Edtech 6 Stories This is exaggerated. In listing a litany of contracts and grants cancelled by the cost-cutting initiative, Trump misrepresented several of them and omitted context about others. He repeated the misleading claim that DOGE eliminated a payment of "$59 million to a hotel in New York City" to house migrants in the country illegally. The figure is the amount for a federal grant awarded to the city in the 2024 fiscal year, not the amount paid to one hotel. He cited $45 million for diversity, equity and inclusion scholarships in Burma, using the former name for Myanmar. That was a 2024 initiative the US Agency for International Development started after the 2021 military coup in the Southeast Asian country. The scholarships funded Burmese students studying at universities in the Philippines and online at the University of Arizona. Although the total award was $45 million over five years, about $17 million had been obligated when DOGE cancelled the program. Trump also mentioned "$42 million for social and behavioural change in Uganda," likely referring to a $38 million contract awarded to Johns Hopkins University in 2020 to improve health outcomes in the country. Behaviors listed in the award included the correct use of mosquito nets and medicines to treat HIV infections. When DOGE canceLled the contract in March, most of the money, about $36 million, had already been spent. The "$40 million for social and economic inclusion of sedentary migrants" Trump noted referred to a contract to help Venezuelans who migrated to Colombia. He again overstated the link between a $1.9 billion environmental grant and Stacey Abrams, the former Democratic candidate for governor in Georgia. A coalition of five groups received the grant, funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, to decarbonize houses in low-income neighbourhoods. Abrams served for one year as a senior adviser to one of the groups and did not lead the organization. Trump also again cited "$20 million for Arab Sesame Street in the Middle East," adding wrongly that "nobody knows what that's all about." The award to Sesame Workshop was not to create a program, but to tailor an existing children's show called "Ahlan Simsim" for local audiences, as well as to establish educational material for training and use in child care centres. Thousands of Iraqi children viewed the programming and participated in the training. And he again described a body of research grants as "$8 million for making mice transgender." In March, the White House published a list of about $8.3 million in research grants that aimed to study the efficacy of different medications on transgender people through experiments with mice receiving different hormones. None of the studies specifically sought to "make mice transgender." What was said "So, I think the judge just ruled against New York Times for their lies about the Russiagate hoax, and that they might have to give back that Pulitzer Prize." -- Musk False. Musk dismissed new reporting by the Times on his drug use and tumultuous personal life by incorrectly describing a legal proceeding and the circumstances of a lawsuit. The court in question did not, as Musk suggested, rule that the Times "lied" in its reporting about Russia. The Times is not a litigant in the lawsuit. In 2021, Trump demanded that the board that awards the Pulitzer Prizes revoke its awards to the Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. When the board refused, Trump sued it for defamation. In 2024, a state judge in Florida rejected the board's move to dismiss the lawsuit. The board later tried to pause proceedings, arguing that because Trump was the president, the lawsuit could prompt a constitutional conflict. But a state court ruled this week that the lawsuit could proceed. What was said "It's an unbelievable bill. It cuts your deficits." -- Trump False. The Congressional Budget Office and a number of independent analysts have estimated that the Republican domestic policy bill, passed by the House this month, would balloon federal deficits by more than $1 trillion, even when economic growth is factored in. The CBO estimated an increase in the deficit of $3.8 trillion; the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated $3.1 trillion, including interest; the Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated $2.8 trillion; and the Tax Foundation estimated $1.7 trillion when factoring in economic growth. "Quite the opposite, this would be an incredibly large deficit increaser, adding $3 trillion to our nation's borrowing and $5 trillion if the expiring policies are extended," said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
India Today
4 hours ago
- Politics
- India Today
US court allows Trump administration to end humanitarian protections for migrants
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday let President Donald Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president's drive to step up court put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while the case plays out in lower parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach to deter illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexican border. Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programs in an executive order signed on January 20, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called "expedited removal."As with many of the court's orders issued in an emergency fashion, Friday's decision was unsigned and gave no reasoning. Two of the nine-member court's three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly court botched its decision by failing to account for its impact, Jackson wrote in an accompanying opinion. The outcome, Jackson wrote, "undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending."The case is one of many that Trump's administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding his sweeping policies, including several targeting Supreme Court on May 19 also let Trump end a deportation protection called temporary protected status that had been granted under Biden to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, while that legal dispute plays starting in 2022 let Venezuelans who entered the United States by air request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. Biden expanded that to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023.A group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors sued, claiming the administration violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the program's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the judge's decision on hold.'TRAUMATIC IMPACT'Guerline Jozef, executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance, one of the plaintiffs, expressed dismay at Friday's decision."Once again, the Trump administration blatantly proves their disregard for the lives of those truly in need of protection by taking away their status and rendering them undocumented. We have already seen the traumatic impact on children and families afraid to even go to school, church or work," Jozef administration called Friday's decision a victory, asserting that the migrants granted parole had been poorly vetted. Ending the parole programs "will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety and a return to America First," Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin many of those with parole status are at risk of deportation, at least 250,000 had pending applications for another legal status, according to Karen Tumlin, director of the Justice Action Center, one of the groups suing over the parole termination. Those applications had been frozen by Trump's administration but the freeze was lifted this week, said Tumlin, adding: "Those should be processed right now."advertisementMigrants with parole status reacted to Friday's decision with sadness and Padilla, 32, waited two years in Chile to receive parole status and paid for his work permit."We complied with all the requirements the United States government asked for," said Padilla, who lives in Austin, Texas, and delivers Amazon packages. "Now I'm left without security because we don't know what will happen. We're without anything after so much sacrifice. It's not fair."Retired university professor Wilfredo Sanchez, 73, has had parole status for a year and a half, living in Denver with his U.S. citizen daughter, a doctor."I was alone in Venezuela, with diabetes and hypertension," Sanchez said. "I have been relaxed here, happy with (my daughter), her husband and my grandkids. I have all my medical treatment up to date.""To return to Venezuela is to die, not just because of my medical conditions, but from loneliness," Sanchez Daniel Urdaneta, 30, has lived in Atlanta for three years with parole status, working in a restaurant, since coming to the United States to earn money to send to his ill mother in Venezuela."If I have to work triple in my country, I will," said Urdaneta, whose wife and son are still in Venezuela. "I won't risk staying here undocumented with this government."Tune InMust Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
US Supreme Court authorises Trump to revoke legal status of 500,000 immigrants
The latest case resulted from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem canceling an 18-month extension of the temporary protected status of the migrants, citing in particular the 'authoritarian' nature of Nicolas Maduro's government in Venezuela read more The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory Friday in his immigration crackdown, giving his administration the green light to revoke the legal status of half a million migrants from four Caribbean and Latin American countries. The decision puts 532,000 people who came from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to the United States under a two-year humanitarian 'parole' program launched by former president Joe Biden at risk of it marked the second time the highest US court has sided with Trump in his aggressive push to deliver on his election pledge to deport millions of non-citizens, through a series of policy moves that have prompted a flurry of lawsuits. On Calle Ocho, a historic street in Miami's Little Havana neighborhood, Johnny Cardona, 63, was saddened by the Supreme Court's decision. 'Since I'm American, it's not going to affect me, but I know it's going to affect many friendships, many families, many people I know,' Cardona told AFP. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The ruling sparked a scathing dissent from two justices in the liberal minority who said the six conservatives on the bench had 'plainly botched' the decision and undervalued the 'devastating consequences' to those potentially affected. The revoked program had allowed entry into the United States for two years for up to 30,000 migrants a month from the four countries, all of which have dismal human rights records. But as Trump takes a hard line on immigration, his administration moved to overturn those protections, winning a ruling from the Supreme Court earlier this month that allowed officials to begin deporting around 350,000 Venezuelans. The latest case resulted from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem canceling an 18-month extension of the temporary protected status of the migrants, citing in particular the 'authoritarian' nature of Nicolas Maduro's government in Venezuela. The department gave them 30 days to leave the country unless they had legal protection under another program. 'Needless human suffering' 'The court has plainly botched this assessment today,' Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in their dissent. The justices said the migrants face being wrenched from family and returning to potential danger in their native countries – or opting to stay and risking imminent removal. 'At a minimum, granting the stay would facilitate needless human suffering before the courts have reached a final judgment regarding the legal arguments at issue, while denying the government's application would not have anything close to that kind of practical impact,' Jackson said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD None of the other justices gave reasons for their decision, and the court was not required to make the vote public. 'The ultimate goal of this policy is to leave these people without legal status, to make them subjects of deportation,' said Adelys Ferro, co-founder and executive director of the Venezuelan American Caucus, an advocacy group. The district court that barred the administration from revoking the migrants' status had argued that it was unlawfully applying a fast-track deportation procedure aimed at illegal immigrants to non-citizens protected by government programs. At the Supreme Court, Justice Department lawyers said the 'district court has nullified one of the administration's most consequential immigration policy decisions' by issuing the stay. The high court's decision means the Trump administration can go ahead with its policy change, even as the litigation on the merits plays out in lower courts. Trump campaigned for the White House on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants, claiming there was an ongoing 'invasion' of the United States by hordes of foreign criminals. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But his program of mass deportations has been thwarted or restricted by numerous court rulings, including from the Supreme Court and notably on the grounds that those targeted should be able to assert their due process rights. The Trump administration systematically accuses judges who oppose his immigration decisions of plundering his presidential national security powers.
New York Post
6 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Post
J.D. Vance sabotages self with attack on Supreme Court
If the British coined the term 'too clever by half,' Vice President JD Vance might own the political update of 'too smart by 99%.' And Donald Trump might wonder at what point he asks his veep: please stop helping — at least when it comes to Trump's greatest legacy and biggest asset, the Supreme Court. Vance recently offered his own take on the 'role' of that body, in particular Chief Justice John Roberts' 'profoundly wrong sentiment' that the judiciary exists to 'check the excesses of the executive.' Advertisement The vice president finger-wagged that this was 'one-half' of the job; the 'other half' was to stop a 'small but substantial number' of courts from telling 'the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for,' namely 'immigration enforcement.' Also, to be 'extremely deferential' to the 'political judgment' made by 'the people's elected president of the United States.' Vance did at least preface his comments with a warning that they may prove 'inflammatory' — before inflaming away. Logical fallacies Students of law — or of, well, grade school — no doubt quickly picked up on the first problem. Advertisement The foundation of the U.S. system is the constitutional separation of powers, checks and balances. Congress has the purse. The executive has the sword. Advertisement The judiciary's power is to settle 'all Cases' and 'Controversies' 'arising' under the Constitution and other laws. Far from being 'profoundly wrong,' Chief Justice Roberts's sentiment was profoundly basic. To have a court that jumps to the will of a president or a changeable voting majority is to have . . . Venezuela. Vance, a Yale Law School graduate, surely would have disapproved of the court's rubber-stamping Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness or vaccine mandates — even though Biden won an election. Advertisement Students of logic will find in the veep's comments an impressive array of logical fallacies, from the straw man to the false dilemma. Chief Justice Roberts didn't, as Vance suggests, claim 'checking' was its main role, or single out the president. The chief uncontroversially noted that the role of the court was to 'obviously decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive.' Nor did he suggest lower courts were immune from checks. He probably didn't feel it necessary, given that every opinion the high court issues is a review of something a lower court did. A significant number of its recent decisions brushed back activist judges — allowing the administration to proceed, among other things, in removing independent agency heads, freezing grant money, and ending the temporary protected status program for Venezuelans. As for immigration, the court has continued to give the president the usual wide latitude — with the basic requirement of due process. Political malpractice Advertisement Which brings us to students of politics, who will recognize these comments as political malpractice. The most enduring legacy of the first Trump term was the cementing of a conservative Supreme Court majority that continues to thoughtfully transform the legal landscape. Religious freedom. The end of Roe v. Wade. Advertisement The major-questions doctrine. The end of Chevron deference. Reining in the bureaucracy. Second Amendment rights. Advertisement Presidential immunity. And the question of what legacy emerges from Trump's second term rests squarely in the hands of that same court. Trump is proving to be the most energetic executive in decades, challenging the establishment to rethink the status quo on everything from the federal workforce and government grant making to the power of independent agencies. Most of these questions are destined for the justices — the same people Vance and others in Trump's orbit have taken to badgering. Advertisement Vance fashions himself shrewd and likely thinks his comments serve the multiple purposes of proving loyalty to his boss, whipping up the base, and (not so) subtly warning the court of backlash if it fails to rule as he'd prefer. The vice president might consider that jurists are well-versed in the art of clever arguments; they know what he's doing. Or that they aren't easily intimidated — see the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. But they can get irritated and annoyed, and less motivated to do much beyond basic requirements. How helpful is that? And Vance might consider that his criticism is essentially a slap at the president's judgment in appointing these justices and other lower-court judges (who occasionally rule against him) in the first place. The temptation by Vance and other officials to let loose on the courts will grow as more issues ripen and the administration wins some and loses some (like this week's tariff case). Trump has so far refrained from going full-frontal on the judiciary, a political instinct that has served him well, given the stakes. At some point, he might suggest that the vice president leave the politics to the guy actually in charge of the executive branch. From The Wall Street Journal.
