&w=3840&q=100)
NYC judge blocks Trump admin from ending legal status for many Haitians
District Court Judge Brian M Cogan in New York ruled that moving up the expiration of the temporary protected status, or TPS, by at least five months for Haitians, some of whom have lived in the US for more than a decade, is unlawful.
The Biden administration had extended Haiti's TPS status through at least Feb 3, 2026, due to gang violence, political unrest, a major earthquake in 2021 and several other factors, according to court documents.
But last week, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was terminating those legal protections as soon as Sep 2, setting Haitians up for potential deportation. The department said the conditions in the country had improved and Haitians no longer met the conditions for the temporary legal protections.
The ruling comes as President Donald Trump works to end protections and programmes for immigrants as part of his mass deportations promises.
The judge's 23-page opinion states that the Department of Homeland Security's move to terminate the legal protections early violates the TPS statute that requires a certain amount of notice before reconsidering a designation.
When the Government confers a benefit over a fixed period of time, a beneficiary can reasonably expect to receive that benefit at least until the end of that fixed period, according to the ruling.
The judge also referenced the fact that the plaintiffs have started jobs, enrolled in schools and begun receiving medical treatment with the expectations that the country's TPS designation would run through the end of the year.
Manny Pastreich, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, which filed the lawsuit, described the ruling as an important step but said the fight is not over.
We will keep fighting to make sure this decision is upheld," Pastreich said in a statement. "We will keep fighting for the rights of our members and all immigrants against the Trump Administration in the streets, in the workplace, and in the courts as well. And when we fight, we win."
DHS did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press requesting comment. But the government had argued that TPS is a temporary program and thus the termination of a country's TPS designation is a possibility beneficiaries must always expect." Haiti's TPS status was initially activated in 2010 after the catastrophic earthquake and has been extended multiple times, according to the lawsuit.
Gang violence has displaced 1.3 million people across Haiti as the local government and international community struggle with the spiralling crisis, according to a report from the International Organisation for Migration. There has been a 24 per cent increase in displaced people since December, with gunmen having chased 11 per cent of Haiti's nearly 12 million inhabitants from their home, the report said.
In May, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to strip Temporary Protected Status from 350,000 Venezuelans, potentially exposing them to deportation. The order put on hold a ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that kept the legal protections in place.
The judge's decision in New York also comes on the heels of the Trump administration revoking legal protections for thousands of Haitians who arrived legally in the US through a humanitarian parole programme.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
US-Iran deal on cards? Donald Trump meets Saudi defence minister; Tehran sets terms for dialogue
Saudi defence minister Prince Khalid bin Salman (left) (Image: X) and US President Donald Trump (right) (Image: AP) US President Donald Trump met Saudi defence minister Prince Khalid bin Salman at the White House on Thursday to discuss de-escalation efforts with Iran, according to Fox News. Prince Khalid, who is the younger brother of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman , also held talks with White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth . The meeting took place ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 's Monday meeting with Trump at the White House. Focus on de-escalation and peace: The meeting is crucial for Saudi Arabia as it wants to ease tensions in the region after the recent 12-day war between Israel and Iran. Talks also reportedly covered broader issues of ending the war in Gaza, negotiating the release of remaining hostages and working toward Middle East peace. The Trump administration wants to push for a historic peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel in the coming months. Fox news quoting their sources suggested that the meeting was not only about normalizing ties of Saudi Arabia with Israel but also about necessary steps required to reach it. The meeting comes just days after Trump said other countries have expressed interest in joining the Abraham Accords. The recent Middle East conflict dubbed the '12-Day War' saw Israel and the US target Iran's nuclear sites. Strengthening the Abraham Accords: The Abraham Accords, signed at the White House in September 2020 during Trump's first term are a set of agreements that aimed to normalize relations between United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo US special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff said on June 25 that expanding the accords is one of the president's 'key objectives' and predicted 'big announcements' about new countries joining soon. Last week, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt named Syria as one of the nations Trump is eager to bring into the accords, noting their historic meeting in Saudi Arabia earlier this year during the US President's visit to the Middle East. Saudi-Iran dialogue: The Saudi defence minister spoke on the phone with Iran's Chief of the General Staff, Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi on June 29. 'We discussed developments in the region and the efforts being made to maintain security and stability,' Bin Salman wrote on X. . Witkoff is also planning to meet Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi in Oslo next week to restart nuclear talks, according to Axios. The Iranian foreign ministry said Araghchi spoke on the phone Thursday with Norwegian foreign minister Espen Eide to discuss efforts to ease regional tensions. Trump on Iran talks: Speaking to local media on Thursday, Trump said Iran wants to initiate talks with the US and 'it is time that they do.' He added that the US does not want to hurt Iran. 'I know they want to meet and if it is necessary I will do it,' Trump said. Iran's conditions for talks: In an email interview with ANI, Iran's Ambassador to India, Iraj Elahi, said any negotiations with the US are meaningless unless Washington offers a 'credible guarantee' to prevent future acts of aggression by Israel and the US. 'As for negotiations with the United States, considering their betrayal of diplomacy and complicity with the Zionist regime in launching illegal attacks on Iran, while a diplomatic process was still ongoing, there will be no meaning or value in any talks unless a credible guarantee is provided to prevent the recurrence of such acts of aggression,' he said. Elahi was referring to two major military operations last month. On June 13, Israel launched 'Operation Rising Lion,' carrying out widespread airstrikes on Iranian soil that targeted nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordow and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) command bases. Several senior IRGC commanders and nuclear scientists were reportedly killed. This was followed by US strikes on June 21–22 under 'Operation Midnight Hammer,' which also targeted Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Iran has strongly condemned both operations as blatant violations of international law and the UN Charter.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
33 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump, disappointed by call with Putin, to speak with Zelenskyy on Friday
US President Donald Trump said early on Friday he came away disappointed from a telephone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin because it does not appear the latter is looking to stop Russia's war against Ukraine. US attempts to end Russia's war in Ukraine through diplomacy have largely stalled, and Trump has faced growing calls - including from some Republicans - to increase pressure on Putin to negotiate in earnest. After speaking to Putin on Thursday, Trump plans to speak to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday, he said in remarks to reporters on his return to Washington from a trip to Iowa. "I'm just saying I don't think he's looking to stop, and that's too bad." The two leaders did not discuss a recent pause in some US weapons shipments to Kyiv during the nearly hour-long conversation, a summary provided by Putin aide Yuri Ushakov showed. Within hours of their concluding the call, an apparent Russian drone attack sparked a fire in an apartment building in a northern suburb of Kyiv, Ukrainian officials said, indicating little change in the trajectory of the conflict. In Kyiv itself, Reuters witnesses reported explosions and sustained heavy machine-gun fire as air defense units battled drones over the capital, while Russian shelling killed five people in the east. "I didn't make any progress with him at all," Trump told reporters on Thursday. Zelenskyy told reporters in Denmark earlier in the day that he hopes to speak to Trump as soon as Friday about the pause in some weapons shipments first disclosed this week. Speaking to reporters as he left Washington for Iowa, Trump said "we haven't" completely paused the flow of weapons but blamed his predecessor, Joe Biden, for sending so many weapons that it risked weakening US defenses. "We're giving weapons, but we've given so many weapons. But we are giving weapons," he said. "And we're working with them and trying to help them, but we haven't (completely stopped). You know, Biden emptied out our whole country giving them weapons, and we have to make sure that we have enough for ourselves." The diplomatic back-and-forth comes as low stockpiles have prompted the US to paused shipments of certain critical weapons to Ukraine, sources told Reuters earlier, just as it faces a Russian summer offensive and growing attacks on civilian targets. Putin, for his part, has continued to assert he will stop his invasion only if the conflict's "root causes" have been tackled, making use of Russian shorthand for the issue of NATO enlargement and Western support for Ukraine, including the rejection of any notion of Ukraine joining the NATO alliance. Russian leaders are also angling to establish greater control over political decisions made in Kyiv and other Eastern European capitals, NATO leaders have said. The pause in US weapons shipments caught Ukraine off-guard and has generated widespread confusion about Trump's current views on the conflict, after saying just last week he would try to free up a Patriot missile defense system for use by Kyiv. Ukrainian leaders called in the acting US envoy to Kyiv on Wednesday to underline the importance of military aid from Washington, and caution that the pause in its weapons shipments would weaken Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia. The Pentagon's move has meant a cut in deliveries of the Patriot defense missiles that Ukraine relies on to destroy fast-moving ballistic missiles, Reuters reported on Wednesday. Ushakov, the Kremlin aide, said that while Russia was open to continuing to speak with the US, any peace negotiations needed to happen between Moscow and Kyiv. That comment comes amid some signs that Moscow is trying to avoid a three-way format for possible peace talks. The Russians asked American diplomats to leave the room during such a meeting in Istanbul in early June, Ukrainian officials have said.
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Vietnam trade pact has multiple takeaways, a clear China red-flag, and some pointers for the impending India-US deal
As the India-United States trade deal looks set to be announced over the next few days, a new deal inked by the Donald Trump administration with Vietnam offers fresh pointers for how Washington DC is approaching these trade agreements. One, the Vietnam deal shows that Trump is serious about tariffs, and that any belief that his administration plans to put off the tariff threats might be misplaced. The US Vietnam deal is clearly lopsided against the smaller, developing country, given that the US will impose a 20% tariff on Vietnamese goods entering the country while Vietnam has been arm twisted to drop all tariffs on American goods. For other countries too, including smaller nations, there is a strong likelihood of the deals being completely lopsided in favour of the US. Also, while the 20% rate is lower than the original proposal of 46% tariff on Vietnam, this rate is certainly higher than the 10% that was levied when the reciprocal tariffs were withdrawn. But there is a really big catch in the deal fineprint. Two, the catch in this deal is that any goods that are transshipped through Vietnam to the US will face a double tariff of 40%. That is a move clearly aimed at one country only — China. A lot of Chinese components make their way to Vietnam and are integrated into goods that the South-East Asian country eventually ships to the US, and the rest of the world. For instance, Chinese fabrics are used in Vietnamese clothing, given that the latter does not really have a cotton or man-made fibre production base. Chinese components go into electronics that are assembled in Vietnam and sent abroad. A higher tariff rate on goods that are made and assembled in Vietnam, but include foreign components, is clearly a move aimed at targeting Chinese producers and potentially make them less competitive while using production bases such as Vietnam. Now, that is a template, which could be followed for other ASEAN countries that are increasingly being regarded by Washington DC as transshipment hubs for China. The broader message from this is perhaps that the Trump administration could continue to act tough on China. In both respects, this could be good news for countries such as India if they are able to wrangle better terms in their deals with the US. Vietnam is a competitor for India, and benefits greatly from the China alliance. Third, the Vietnam deal shows that the pact seems to be centered on headline tariffs, even as they do not seem to really address the sectoral tariffs, which has been a key sticking point for countries such as Japan and South Korea, who were earlier seen as frontrunners to clinch early deals. Sectoral tariffs are an issue for India too. What the Vietnam deal likely shows is that there is still going to be a lot of fog even after a deal is clinched, especially with Asian countries that generally have multiple tariff lines and an array of tariffs. Fourth, the big takeaway from this deal is that the tariff onslaught initiated by the US is likely to continue focusing on China. With the July 9 deadline looming, which is just three-working days away, there are indications the about 20-odd countries that are in active talks with the Trump administration are eventually going to land up in three main buckets — the ones like possibly India, Taiwan and the European Union, which are likely to get a deal, just like the UK and Vietnam. Others might get more time to negotiate, maybe another three months or so. Then there's going to be the third grouping of countries that are just going to get handed their tariff rate without any negotiation whatsoever. Canada and Mexico are outside of these three categories, since the reciprocal tariffs were not slapped on them in the first place. Meanwhile, the last word on the validity of the reciprocal tariffs is likely to come from the judiciary, since the matter is being heard in American courts. There are some implicit assumptions that New Delhi seems to be working with in its approach to a deal with Washington DC. Despite President Trump's vacillations on trade policy, there is confidence here that the administration in Washington DC will maintain a steady differential in tariffs between China and countries such as India. Precisely for that gap to be maintained, a deal, officials said, needs to be clinched by India. The Vietnam deal is being seen as a vindication of this view. Also, while agriculture is a concern, as is the perceived arm twisting by the Trump administration on issues that are sensitive from an Indian point of view, there is a growing sense within an influential section of policymakers here that a deal for New Delhi is vital to keep the differential with China in place, especially since Beijing is also trying to strike a deal of its own. The question really is whether the Indian negotiators would have to settle for a limited early-harvest type of mini deal, or would they have to turn away from the negotiating table for now, let the July 9 deadline pass, and then rebuild efforts to bridge the gaps. A full-scale deal looks out of the question for now. Second, there is now a realisation that cutting tariffs across segments, especially intermediate goods, might be a net positive for India. Also, while the redlines for India would include sensitive sectors such as dairy products and cereals, where agri livelihoods are at stake, there is now greater receptiveness within India's policy circles to cut tariffs on some industrial goods, including automobiles, and some agri products of interest to the Amercians. Also, India has headroom to import more from the US, especially in three sectors — crude, defence equipment and nuclear, to manage Trump's constant references to the trade gap. Third, there is a growing view that the baseline tariffs are here to stay. So, effectively, what India would be negotiating for is a rate between 10% and 26 %. Prior to Trump's taking over in January, the effective duty on India was just 4%, and there were virtually no non-tariff barriers. That number is now a thing of the past. What is more consequential is the effective duty on Chinese products on a landed basis across US ports in commodity categories where Indian producers are reasonably competitive. The net tariff differential with India, and how that curve continues to move, is of particular interest here, given the firm belief in policy circles here that Washington DC would ensure a reasonable tariff differential between China and India. This is, in turn, expected to tide over some of India's structural downsides — infrastructural bottlenecks, logistics woes, high interest cost, the cost of doing business, corruption, etc. Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
