Another wrong Supreme Court decision to harm immigrants who have Temporary Protected Status

The cruel reality of our American immigration system. In other words, immigrants who are contibuting to American economy will now be subject to deportation.  How evil is that❓

Temporary Protected Status for immigrants.

The Supreme Court decision allowing the end of protected status for Haitians and Syrians underscores a huge political failure.

Echo editorial published in the Boston Globe. 

The Supreme Court’s decision has allowed the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian migrants has been described as a major expansion of the president’s power to dictate the rules of immigration.

But it was something else as well: a cruel demonstration of the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system and the utter failure of its federal government to make it either more humane or rational.

Congress enacted the law, known as TPS, in 1990 to protect migrants who had fled El Salvador, which was then riven by civil war. Over the decades, the designation has been given to at least 16 more countries facing violent turmoil or catastrophic natural disasters, including not just Haiti and Syria but also Venezuela, Ukraine, and Sudan.

Though intended to provide short-term sanctuary, the status has often been extended when conditions in those countries did not materially improve. So, that is what happened with Haiti, which received the designation in 2010, after a devastating earthquake, and has had it extended more than half a dozen times. Today, the State Department continues to warn American citizens against traveling there because of the threat of “kidnapping, crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest, and limited health care.”

During those many years in the United States, millions of immigrants under TPS legally found work, paid taxes, bore children, and became essential members of hundreds of communities around the country — all while Congress failed time and again to craft a comprehensive immigration policy that might have allowed many of them to find a pathway to citizenship.

More than half a million Haitians live in the United States (including more than 60,000 in Massachusetts), and of those more than 300,000 have Temporary Protected Status. 

By some estimates, one-third of the Haitian TPS holders work in the health care industry. They are medical technicians and hospital orderlies, provide essential home care for the elderly, and work with children with autism or elderly people with dementia. They fill crucial jobs that often go begging for workers.

Here is what Representative Mike Lawler, a Republican congressman from the suburbs north of New York City, had to say after the Supreme Court decision: “Immediately shutting off TPS will create a crisis in our hospitals, nursing homes, and in the I/DD [intellectual and developmental disability] community.” And he is not the only Republican saying such things.

The Republican mayor of Springfield, Ohio — the city that Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, claimed in 2024 and 2025 had been invaded by “illegal” Haitians who spread disease, committed violent crimes, and even ate residents’ pets — called those same Haitians “our neighbors, coworkers, business owners, taxpayers and parents.

“They contribute to our local economy, support our schools, strengthen our neighborhoods and have become part of the fabric of Springfield,” the mayor, Rob Rue, said in a statement following last week’s Supreme Court decision.

The Republican governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, agreed, saying on Sunday that Haitian TPS holders have helped revitalize communities like Springfield. “It’s Haitians who, many times, are taking care of your mom or your dad who has Alzheimer’s, taking care of family members who might be in a nursing home,” Dewine said on CNN’s State of the Union. “And to say we’re going to pull all those [people] out, it’s just not in our own self-interest.”

Contrast those statements about the Haitian community with Trump’s, some of the choicest of which were recounted by Justice Elena Kagan in her blistering dissent to the Supreme Court majority’s TPS ruling: “Filthy, dirty, disgusting,” “like a death wish for our country,” and “poisoning the blood” of the nation.

Kagan called such statements “so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print.” Yet somehow Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, could conclude, risibly, that “None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary [of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, at the time] was overtly racial.”

The impending deportation of thousands of Haitian TPS holders has so outraged some residents of Springfield that they are, according to The New York Times, “preparing to protect Haitians, with some making plans to care for their Haitian neighbors’ native-born children and even to hide and shelter immigrants who remain.” (Those children are US citizens, a status reaffirmed by a separate Supreme Court decision Tuesday that upheld birthright citizenship.)

Representative Ayanna Pressley, Democrat from Hyde Park and cosponsor of a bipartisan bill that passed in the House to extend protections for Haitians, counseled Haitian TPS holders that “until you receive notification regarding your work authorization being rescinded, you are still authorized to work.” And she called on the Senate to pass her bill extending protected status.

The chances of that happening are small, given the anti-immigrant fever that grips the Republican Party. But there is evidence that the nation is tiring of Trump’s cruelty toward migrants, the vast majority of whom are peaceable, law-abiding, and productive members of society.

It is not wrong for Republicans to point out that the T in TPS stands for temporary, and that under the law the status could be rescinded when migrants’ home countries regain some semblance of peace and security. But that has not happened in many of the TPS countries, Particularly not in Haiti.

The bigger issue here is the chronic failure of Congress to replace the ad hoc US immigration system with something more comprehensive, clear, predictable, rational, and humane. In a saner time, it would not be a fever dream to believe that Congress could, with some courage and will, find a way to secure the nation’s borders while also reaffirming its proud role as a beacon of hope and opportunity for tempest-tossed immigrants.

Alas, we are not in that time but here instead, in the Trump era, when it feels daunting to ask Congress to simply apply another layer of duct tape to our jerry-rigged system. For now, though, that would be enough to save, at least for a time, thousands of Haitian, Syrian, and in the fall, probably El Salvadoran TPS holders from being forced to leave the homes, families, and communities they have built in America.

Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.

Refugees- This Utah echo was published in the University of Utah newspaper

Autumn Barney reported in 2016, and the commentary is even more relevant in 2019:  "I have worked with refugees in Salt Lake City", published in The Daily Utah Chronicle*. 

It has been one of the most rewarding causes I have been a part of. 

In November 2015, the tragic bombings occurred in Paris and the conversation surrounding refugees became one of the most popular topics of debate. The last election period has continued this debate, with many different opinions coming to light. Over the past year and a half, I have seen an incredible amount of false information surface about refugees in America. Through my own research and volunteer work, I’m here to set the record straight.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that refugees are terrorists’ or ISIS’s way of getting a “Trojan Horse” into America. 

This could not be more incorrect. In the history of America, not a single refugee has ever committed a terrorist act on American soil (unless you include European refugees who slaughtered people for land). Refugees are not immigrants. Many people have confused immigrants who have committed acts of terrorism, i.e. San Bernardino (who were United Statess citizens), with refugees. 

The process for obtaining refugee status differs completely from any other type of entry into America.

Refugees who are accepted into America are the most vetted people coming into our country through the selection by the U.N. and by our government. Thorough checks are conducted by the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For Syrians, there’s an extra check. When trying to reach another country for safety, refugees stay on lists that can lead to years of waiting. One percent are chosen to come to America. Otherwise, they choose other alternatives.

At least 30 U.S. governors have said they don’t want Syrian refugees to come to their states. 

Utah not only welcomes refugees, but over the years has resettled 60,000 people seeking help and a new home. Utah has one of the top programs for refugees in the country. We don’t just bring refugees to our state and say, “good luck.” We have programs that help them get work, obtain an education, learn the area and laws etc. Because of this they become great contributors to our state economically and culturally through which they can potentially give us a new perspective on life. These programs have helped millions of peoples’ lives become better; I know this since I have worked in them. America takes in refugees from around the world, but the news and media create unnecessary fear of bringing in Middle Eastern refugees, which is just an irrational display of ignorance and intolerance.
The same ignorance can extend to other areas of the world, like Africa. I work with a Congolese family here in Salt Lake City. The mother is one of the kindest and most selfless people I have ever met. She and her children stayed in a refugee camp for many years before being able to come to Utah. Her husband had to stay behind while his family fled. 

Being a refugee isn’t about trying to sneak into America. It’s about leaving a home that’s full of war. It’s about escape and survival. I can’t imagine how Americans would handle it if they were in a situation of having to flee for their lives to another country. We are lucky, even spoiled. In return, we should not only support refugees, but graciously welcome them into our country. I love serving this wonderful Congolese family. They have taught me so much about humility and love. We should all want to learn more.

The Utah Refugee Education & Training Center gives an estimate of 20 million refugees from around the world who moved out of their country to escape persecution in their homeland. Most refugees are women and children. Half of them are under 18. Volunteering with refugees has been one of the greatest services I have ever been involved with. I understand fear has been created. But knowledge is power. Learning about and volunteering with refugees can not only help these wonderful people in need, but it can create an environment of education and love.

I understand fear. But what some don’t realize is that their fear doesn’t stem from refugees, but from not being properly educated about these people, who are in need.

letters@chronicle.utah.edu

*Daily Utah Chronicle or University of Utah Student Media

Islamophobia is not a real word - at least not yet

Many Americans and especially Republicans are over reacting to an unrealistic fear of Muslims and people who practice the Islam faith. In fact a new phobia is being created in the lexicon of unjustified fears. Although the phobia being created isn't a real word, the widespread unfounded proliferation of Islamic religious fear will probably become a "real word". "Islamophobia" will undoubtedly become a new word used to scapegoat anyone who's from the Middle East. Of course, that's the danger of inventing words. In the absence of a proper definition, the new words or "neologisms" take on meanings all their own without regard for a confirmed definition. (A definition of neologisms is at the link.)

Unfortunately, Islamophobia will likely be a new entry in the American dictionary soon.

Wikepedia describes Islamophobia, in the absence of a definition. The term entered into common English usage in 1997, with the publication of a report by the Runnymede Trust condemning negative emotions such as fear, hatred, and dread directed at Islam or Muslims. While the term is now widely used, both the term itself and the underlying concept of Islamophobia have been heavily criticized.

The causes and characteristics of Islamophobia are still debated. Some scholars say it's a type of racism. Some commentators have posited an increase in Islamophobia resulting from the September 11 attacks on the US, while others have associated it with the increased presence of Muslims in the United States, the European Union and other secular nations. 

Since the 9/11 attacks, Arab Americans have evolved from an invisible group in the United States into a highly visible community that directly or indirectly has an effect on the United States' culture wars, foreign policy, presidential elections and legislative tradition.

Speaker of the US House Paul Ryan, a "newby" Repubican Congressiional leader, announced that it's his personal responsibility to protect American security by preventing Syrians and Iraqi refugees from entering the US  without extraordinary vetting.  In so doing, and by backing up his unfounded fear mongering with heretofore unheard of rapid legislation, Speaker Ryan,, who is a Roman Catholic, has expanded the ambiguous definition of "Islamophobia' to include Syrians and Iraqi refugees. 

It's exceedingly odd that Republican leadership in the US House can't budge on legislation to tighten up gun safety regulations, but somehow leap to rescue Americans who may be threatened by Syrians and Iraqi refugees who, by and large, aren't even among us.   

Here are the facts:  In 2014, there were 12, 569 people in the US who died of gun violence.  I couldn't find even one person who died in the US as a result of Syrian violence. If someone died as a result of a Syrian attack in the US, then I'd appreciate hearing about it.  Nonetheless, Republicans would certainly have cause to worry if twelve thousand five hundred and sixty nine people had died as a result of Syrian refugees being in the US.  Obviously, Repubicans don't care to  stop gun violence. Unfortunately, they have no problem creating unnfounded fear and Islamophobia about Syrians and Iraqi refugees.

In my opinion, Republicans are afraid of Muslim refugees because they don't want to increase the Democratic voting population in the US.  Gerrymandering has worked for Republicans, because they've figured out how to win elections by making sure voting districts favor their candidates.  Islamophobia is a neologism and a euphamism both at the same time.  What the fear really  means is "fear of Democratic voters".  Now you see how quickly neologisms can change forms, like mutating influenza viruses.  

Some etymologists (people who study word origins) may be unwilling to give Islamophobia a proper definition. No problem because, for the purposes of spreading unwarranted and unjustified fear of all immigrants who might eventually vote Democratic, I believe Republicans are satisfied with the neologism, just the way it is, even though, they know the word makes no sense.