US says Haitians can be deported – days after ruling Haiti unsafe for Americans
More than half a million Haitians are facing the prospect of deportation from the US after the Trump administration announced that the Caribbean country's citizens would no longer be afforded shelter under a government program created to protect the victims of major natural disasters or conflicts.
Haiti has been engulfed by a wave of deadly violence since the 2021 murder of its president, Jovenel Moïse. Heavily armed gangs have brought chaos to its capital, Port-au-Prince, since launching an insurrection that toppled the prime minister last year. On Tuesday, the US embassy in Haiti urged US citizens to abandon the violence-stricken Caribbean country. 'Depart Haiti as soon as possible,' it wrote on X.
But less than 72 hours later, on Friday afternoon, the Department for Homeland Security – which is at the heart of Donald Trump's hardline migration crackdown - said it believed it was 'safe for Haitian citizens to return home' and announced their protections were being withdrawn.
'The environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home,' a DHS spokesperson claimed as it was announced that an estimated 521,000 Haitians would be stripped of their 'temporary protected status' (TPS) on 2 September this year.
'This decision restores integrity in our immigration system and ensures that temporary protective status is actually temporary,' the spokesperson said.
The decision sparked an immediate outcry. Tessa Petit, the executive director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition and a Haitian immigrant, told Newsweek: 'I'm still in shock, but I'm totally disgusted. This is a complete lie stating that the situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home. This is a lie.'
The TPS program was created by US lawmakers in 1990 and was initially used to offer protection to those fleeing El Salvador's 12-year civil war during which more than 75,000 people were killed. Since then it has been used to offer shelter to citizens of countries such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Ukraine and Venezuela. Haitians were first offered TPS status after the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that devastated Port-au-Prince in 2010, claiming tens of thousands of lives.
It is unclear how the DHS reached its conclusion that Haiti was now 'safe'. Experts say more than 80% of the capital has been commandeered by violent, politically connected gangs in recent years, with the gang-controlled roads in and out of Port-au-Prince now considered too dangerous to travel. International carriers including American Airlines stopped flying into the city's airport after several flights came under fire in late 2024.
The US state department describes Haiti as a 'level four' destination which citizens are advised not to visit 'due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, and limited health care'.
Its website warns: 'Crimes involving firearms are common in Haiti. They include robbery, carjackings, sexual assault, and kidnappings for ransom. Kidnapping is widespread, and US citizens have been victims and have been hurt or killed … Mob killings and assaults by the public have increased, including targeting those suspected of committing crimes.'
The UK Foreign Office also warns against all travel to Haiti because of the 'unpredictable' security situation and the threat of kidnapping and gang violence.
'Road travel is highly dangerous. Armed carjacking is common and criminal groups often use improvised road blocks to extort or kidnap motorists,' it says.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
44 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Pam Bondi knifes January 6 prosecutors in late-night bloodbath
The Trump administration took revenge against at least three federal prosecutors who worked on cases against January 6 rioters by firing them. Attorney General Pam Bondi sacked the prosecutors on Friday, telling them they were 'removed from federal service effective immediately.' In a copy of one of the dismissal letters first reported by NBC News, Bondi did not specify why the prosecutors were out of the job. The firings are the first time that career prosecutors who investigated the riot at the Capitol four years ago had been laid off, but it is far from Trump's first act of retribution over the violent protests since he retook the White House. Soon after his inauguration, Trump fired several probationary federal prosecutors - those who were either recently hired or in new positions - who had worked the January 6 cases. The president also pardoned all his supporters who were arrested during the January 6 riots, sparking backlash from critics as even some convicted of violently assaulting police officers were freed. Trump also fired probationary prosecutors who aided special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into whether the president attempted to unlawfully overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election. The president's use of the Justice Department has come under scrutiny in recent months as he has been accused of using it to carry out personal vendettas and to aid his political supporters. Friday's firings reportedly came at a tense time at the Justice Department as Trump's handling of the January 6 case causes ire among career federal workers. Insiders in the DOJ told NBC News that the apparent targeting of prosecutors who had investigated the president has upended the department. One federal law enforcement official told the outlet that they found the firings 'horrifying', as others said it would make them hesitant to engage in possible investigations into the White House. 'To fire them, without explanation, is a slap in the face not only to them, but to all career DOJ prosecutors,' the official said. 'No one is safe from this administration's whims and impulses. 'And the public certainly is not served by the continued brain drain of DOJ — we are losing the best among us every day.' Bondi's move came the same day that she celebrated a Supreme Court ruling that decided that individual judges lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions - a historic ruling in a case about the right to birthright citizenship. The ruling was seen as a big victory for Trump as it allows his executive order halting birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants to take effect in states and jurisdictions that did not directly challenge his action in court. It could mean citizenship rules vary from state to state, pending ongoing litigation. The court ruled 6-3 in favor of Trump, with all six conservative justices - including the three he appointed - siding with the president. Speaking at the White House, Trump said: 'This was a big one. Amazing decision, one we're very happy about. This really brings back the Constitution. This is what it's all about.' Bondi joined Trump on stage to mark the victory, saying that the ruling meant 'not one district court judge can think they're an emperor over this administration and his executive powers, and why the people of the United States elected him.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for defamation and demands $787m
The governor of California, Gavin Newsom, has sued Fox News for defamation and demanded $787m, almost exactly the same amount Fox paid in a previous defamation case over election misinformation. In the new lawsuit, filed on Friday, Newsom accuses the Fox host Jesse Watters of falsely claiming Newsom lied about a phone call with Donald Trump, who recently ordered national guard troops into Los Angeles. Newsom's attorneys say Watters aired a deceptively edited clip of Trump suggesting he spoke with the governor just before the military deployment, when in fact records show the call occurred days earlier, on 7 June. The lawsuit alleges that Fox manipulated the footage to push a false narrative that Newsom had misled the public. Trump had told reporters on 10 June he had spoken with Newsom 'a day ago', appearing to imply a conversation occurred on the same day that 700 US marines were deployed to LA. Newsom denied Trump's claim, writing on X minutes later: 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to.' The lawsuit says that Fox's own reporting confirmed Newsom's version. While Watters aired Trump's edited quote and asked viewers 'Why would Newsom lie?', the host simultaneously showed a screenshot of Trump's call history, which confirmed the most recent call was 7 June. Newsom's complaint also accuses the network of violating California's Unfair Competition Law by engaging in deceptive business practices. The damages sought mirror the $787.5m Fox paid Dominion Voting Systems in 2023 to settle a separate defamation case over election misinformation. '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,' Newsom told Politico in a statement. 'Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.' The governor's team told Politico that they would drop the case if Fox retracts the claims and Watters issues an on-air apology. Newsom said legal costs would come from his campaign funds, and that if the case is successful the proceeds will go to support anti-Trump causes. A Fox News spokesperson said: 'Governor 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.' Trump has had his own legal battles with media outlets. He recently secured a $15m settlement from ABC over comments made by George Stephanopoulos, and he has sued CBS over alleged interview manipulation by its 60 Minutes program during the 2024 campaign, a case which remains unresolved.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The global south needs more than tinkering at a conference: debt forgiveness is the only fair way
It is 2025, and the architecture of economic power remains grossly tilted against the nations of the global south. Nowhere is this imbalance more acute – and more enduring – than in the debilitating impact of sovereign debt. From the vast countries of Africa to the scattered but strategically vital small island developing states (Sids) of the Caribbean and the Pacific, debt has become a modern form of bondage – the chains that restrict growth, sovereignty and the basic human dignity of nations struggling to define their own path to development. The statistics tell an alarming story. By the start of 2024 developing countries' public debt reached approximately $29tn (£21.2tn), rising from 16% of global debt in 2010 to nearly 30%. This escalation was fuelled by a convergence of a global pandemic and rising costs internationally. Today, average borrowing costs in Africa are almost 10 times higher than for the US. Why? International credit rating agencies will point at risk in Africa but this is perception, and a myth, not reality. Africa has consistently been the least risky continent for returns on the dollar when compared worldwide. But nevertheless, the impact is profoundly immoral as global south countries face prioritising debt servicing over essentials. One-third of these fragile countries have to allocate more to servicing interest – as much as 14% of domestic revenue – than to healthcare, education or climate resilience. For decades, these countries have been trapped in a cycle of borrowing to survive and repaying to remain 'credible' in the eyes of the international financial order. But the terms of this credibility have always been set elsewhere – primarily in western capitals, behind the closed doors of international financial institutions. These institutions, under the guise of technical neutrality, have in fact driven economic ideologies that have crippled the same countries they claim to help. As a young economics student in the 1980s, it was made clear to me that the true path was Thatcherism and Reaganomics, elevated to near-religious orthodoxy, both rooted in neoliberalism. Developing countries were told to liberalise, privatise and deregulate. Structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), driven by IMF and World Bank conditionalities, imposed austerity measures that gutted public services and sacrificed the welfare of millions on the altar of fiscal discipline. Healthcare systems collapsed. Schools were closed. Public sector wages were frozen and trade unions deemed to be evil. And yet, we were told to believe this was 'development'. In truth, this was not development but dependency. During the 1980s and 1990s, in Jamaica, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, these policies led not to prosperity but to deepening poverty, growing inequality and social unrest. In the Caribbean alone, SAPs contributed to lost decades of growth, political upheaval, and widespread disillusionment with the promise of independence. More than a few governments were ousted as a result of electoral backlash against IMF-imposed hardship. Foreign aid – so often touted as a benevolent solution – has played a double-edged role. Far from empowering states, it has often eroded their autonomy. Much of the aid has come with heavy strings attached: contracts that must go to western contractors; conditions that require the opening of markets before local industries are ready; and monitoring mechanisms that diminish sovereign decision-making. No wonder so many African leaders prefer the Chinese offers of lending. The result has been a facade of support, what the great activists Frantz Fanon or Kwame Ture, might have called a 'pitiful mimicry' of development – where countries are forced to pursue western-centric models of skyscrapers, luxury seafront resorts denying locals access to their beaches, and white elephant vanity projects destroying the environment, while their people continue to lack access to clean water, reliable electricity, or functioning hospitals. Development, at its core, should be about expanding the freedoms and capabilities of people. It should mean children can attend school without hunger. That mothers can give birth in safe conditions. That farmers can bring their goods to market on decent roads. That communities can trade, access clean water, and benefit from the natural resources of their lands without being poisoned by extraction. But the dominant model of development, dictated by external creditors and investors, has misconstrued these priorities. In its place, we see the proliferation of unsustainable debt-financed projects, many of which serve elite interests or foreign investors rather than local communities. Loans from the IMF and World Bank have frequently funded projects that do little to enhance long-term national resilience or productivity. And these loans, compounded by high interest rates and currency volatility, are serviced partially – through austerity and further borrowing – but rarely repaid. This is by design. Debt, in this system, is not a tool for development but a mechanism of control. Across the global south, the story is much the same. Multinational corporations, often operating with generous tax concessions and little oversight, engage in resource extraction that depletes environments and communities. They argue that their share of profits is justified by their investment in infrastructure and innovation. Yet these same companies contribute disproportionately to environmental degradation – through oil spills, deforestation, over-mining and pollution – without being fairly taxed or held accountable. One-sided trade agreements perpetuate this imbalance. The rules of global commerce, whether in mining, agriculture or tourism, are rigged in favour of the north. Risk assessments by international credit rating agencies, often influenced by outdated or racist perceptions, and opaque and biased criteria, further discourage equitable investment in the south. These assessments have more to do with where a country is located than with its actual economic potential or fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, the brain drain continues. The brightest young minds of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific are drawn to wealthier countries in search of opportunity denied at home, leaving behind hollowed-out institutions and leadership vacuums. Local education systems produce excellence, only for it to be exported. The voices of our nations are also muted on the global stage. Despite holding the majority of the world's population, the global south holds a minority of voting power in institutions such as the UN. Decisions that affect our future are made without our meaningful participation but with token theatre. The UN holds its future of development financing conference in Seville, Spain, next week, it should be a moment for honest discussion on how the world can come together to support sustainable development, but already the US and the UK have blocked action on tackling the unfair burden of debt. When disasters strike – whether hurricanes, earthquakes, or the slow violence of the climate crisis – the burden of recovery falls overwhelmingly on us. The loss and damage fund, formally established at Cop27 in 2022 and only put into operation in 2024, has been long championed by vulnerable nations but still remains underfunded and under-prioritised. Yet for many Sids, the climate emergency is not a future threat – it is a catastrophe now. Shorelines are disappearing. Coral reefs are dying. Agriculture is failing. Lives are being lost. It is long past time for a reckoning. The economic architecture that dominates global development discourse has failed. It has failed the poor. It has failed the planet. And it has failed the very ideals of justice and solidarity upon which the post-second world war international system was supposedly built. We need more than tinkering at the margins. We need more than an extravagant conference in Seville can deliver. We need debt forgiveness – not as a charity, but as a historical rectification. We need concessional financing with reduced interest rates and transparent, fair assessments of investment risk. We need climate reparations through robust, predictable and progressive loss and damage funds. In times of force majeure, we need aid that empowers, not aid that entraps. Most of all, we need the freedom to define development on our own terms – rooted in equity, sustainability and sovereignty. Until these structural injustices are addressed, the global south may remain poor not because of a lack of potential or ambition, but because the rules of the game were never written for our success.
