By a 6-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld President Donald Trump’s authority to end “temporary protected status” for at least 450,000 Haitian immigrants welcomed by President Joe Biden.
The judges said that congressional law bars any judicial review of White House TPS decisions:
The TPS statute expressly prohibits respondents from considering non-constitutional claims. It allows “no judicial review of any determination … regarding the termination” of the TPS designation. 8 USC §1254a(b)(5)(A). The term “determination” can be used to describe an individual decision or the entire process leading to a final decision, and under any understanding of the term, §1254a(b)(5)(A) clearly bars all nonconstitutional claims by respondents.
This decision is good news for many Americans, including the citizens of Springfield, Ohio. The Ohio city has been fundamentally disrupted as local elites have welcomed at least 10,000 wage-cutting, rent-raising, diversity-boosting Haitian immigrants into the city’s jobs, homes, schools, welfare offices and streets.
This decision means that Haitian immigrants will lose their work permits, access to government assistance, drivers’ licenses, and legal residency. In return, employers would face fines if they continued to employ Haitians instead of Americans, and landlords would have to negotiate cheaper rents for Americans as Haitians would move out of the local housing market.
Many Haitians were actually granted visas by Biden officials to fly from Haiti to US cities – despite the enormous economic and civilian damage to the millions of Haitians left behind. Many doctors, policemen, teachers and politicians were involved in the devastating outflow.
But the decision also resulted in economic losses for many investors and management headaches for many employers, who hired Haitian immigrants rather than compete for Americans in the national labor market.
In April, Breitbart News reported that pro-TPS lobbyists had presented a legal brief by pro-immigration economists that said Biden’s 1.4 million TPS migrants to Haiti, Venezuela and El Salvador generate $20 billion in annual profits for investors.
leftist in june Guardian The newspaper reported how the elder care industry exploits TPS immigrants to avoid US market pay rates.
Rachel Blumberg, president and CEO of Sinai Residences, an assisted living and long-term care facility for seniors in Boca Raton, Florida, was disappointed to learn that the government was ending it. [Haitian inflow].
…
Esther Birnbaum, 96, who lives in Palm Beach County, north of Miami, relies on Maryse Balthazar, who is from Haiti, for her primary care. Balthazar relocated from Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince, to the United States after the 2010 earthquake. She was a journalist and president of the Union of Haitian Women Journalists, but after moving to the United States she got a nursing assistant certificate and started working as a home health aide… “I can’t imagine my daily life without her. I don’t know how she does it, really. From hooking me up to my lymphatic drainage machine to keeping me active, it’s all her,” Birnbaum said, adding that she would be “devastated” if Balthazar had to stop working. Will go.
Balthazar, who has two children, says she has nowhere else to go. “There is no Plan B. This is my life, if TPS isn’t safe I don’t know what to do,” he said.
The court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the majority opinion, claiming that “racism” played a role in Trump’s denial of TPS for Haitians:
For more than a decade, the government has provided humanitarian relief to Haitian and Syrian nationals in the United States through the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program…
Today the Court vacated that preliminary relief based on two mistakes about the plaintiffs’ chances of success – emphasizing that termination will now take effect.
First, the majority claims that the Secretary’s compliance with the TPS statute is not reviewable by the courts in every case. But in fact the statute allows for judicial review of whether the Secretary followed the procedures it sets forth—which the plaintiffs here dispute.
Second, the majority claims there is no evidence that race played any role in Haiti’s decision. But the evidence is clearly present in the President’s statements, which the majority (and for that matter, his own lawyers) cannot even bear to repeat. Once that is established, a case for interim relief is made: there is no dispute that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay of TPS decisions. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to remain in this country until this case proceeds.
This decision now enables the administration to transport Haitians back to Haiti.
