Connect with us

Politics

MAGA: Trump Ending Immigration Protection For 200K El Salvadoran Migrants

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

Almost two months after President Donald Trump revealed that the US would end immigration protections for 45,000 Haitian refugees who’ve been living in the states since the devastating 2010 earthquake that rocked the Haitian side of the island of Hispaniola.

The decision was reportedly made to appease immigration hard-liners who insist the program was never intended to grant permanent residency to Haitians who were displaced by the quake.

And in a stunning follow-up to that decision, the New York Times reported Monday that the administration plans to end protections for 200,000 people from El Salvador who’ve lived in the US for more than a decade.

The Times described the decision as “one of the most consequential to date” concerning Trump’s approach to tightening restrictions on legal immigration while simultaneously cracking down on illegal immigration. Since he’s taken office, there’s been a notable drop in the number of illegal border crossings.

Salvadorans are the largest group of foreigners benefiting from the temporary protected status. Back in September, Trump ended protections for 800,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children – the so-called DREAMers.

The officials, who declined to be identified because they were speaking before an official announcement on the decision later Monday morning, said that the administration was ending a humanitarian program, known as Temporary Protected Status, for Salvadorans who have been allowed to live and work legally in the United States since a pair of devastating earthquakes struck their country in 2001.

Salvadorans were by far the largest group of foreigners benefiting from temporary protected status, which shielded them from deportation if they had arrived in the United States illegally. The decision came just weeks after more than 45,000 Haitians, the second largest group, lost protections granted after Haiti’s 2010 earthquake, and it suggested that others in the program, namely Hondurans, may soon lose them as well. Nicaraguans lost their protections last year.

The administration is arguing that the Temporary Protected Status program had turned into a quasi-permanent benefit for hundreds of thousands of foreign residents who relied on it. Trump’s decision to end the protections has alarmed the El Salvadoran community, and companies in California and Texas that employ large populations of the El Salvadoran migrants affected by the decision.

TPS was signed into law in 1990 by President George Bush. It granted protected status to individuals from a given country regardless of whether they entered the US legally or illegally. The protections typically extend to countries experiencing a natural disaster, armed conflict or other strife.

In the days leading up to the decision, immigrant advocates and the El Salvadoran government pleaded for the United States to extend the program, as it has several times since 2001, saying that conditions in El Salvador were still dire. A sense of dread gripped Salvadorans and their employers in California, Texas, Virginia and elsewhere.

“We had hoped that if we worked hard, paid our taxes and didn’t get in trouble we would be allowed to stay,” said Veronica Lagunas, 39, a Salvadoran who works overnight cleaning offices in Los Angeles, has two children born in the United States and owns a mobile home.

There is no limit to the number of extensions a country can receive. Countries that have received, and then lost, the designation in the past include Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was famously the setting for a bloody civil war in the 1990s. Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia were granted protected status during the latest Ebola outbreaks.

El Salvador was one of the first countries affected by the program because of a vicious civil war that raged from 1979 until 1992.

Many people affected by the order will likely remain in the US illegally, since their entire lives and livelihoods are based here. Though some will likely lose jobs for lack of work permits.

Ms. Lagunas said that she would remain in the United States illegally, risking arrest and deportation. But she would lose her job of 12 years without the work permit that comes wit the protection. Her family would lose medical insurance and other benefits.

“There is nothing to go back to in El Salvador,” she said, speaking in Spanish. “The infrastructure may be better now, but the country is in no condition to receive us.”

With his protected status, Carlos Jiron, another Salvadoran, started a small contracting business and won bids for big jobs, including to paint federal buildings in the Washington area.

“We have built a life here, said Mr. Jiron, 41, who lives with his wife and two American-born children in a four-bedroom house they bought in Springfield, Va.

He will have to decide whether to take his children to El Salvador, where he says they would not maximize their potential and would face safety threats; leave them with guardians in the United States;; or remain in the country at the risk of arrest and deportation as one of the millions of undocumented immigrants.

His 14-year-old daughter, Tania, a fan of Disney movies and hip-hop music, said she could not fathom starting over in El Salvador. “This is where I was born and am supposed to be raised,” she said.

Temporary protections for El Salvadorans were also granted in March 2001 after two earthquakes in January and February of that year killed more than 1,000 people and destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes. Over the next 15 years, the George W. Bush and Obama administrations extended the protections several times. In 2016 – the last time the protections were extended – the El Salvadoran government cited factors ranging from drought to poverty to violence.

San Salvador, the country’s capital, is considered one of the most dangerous cities on Earth. Its reputation for violence has hampered foreign investment. But the Trump administration says the only factor that should be considered when deciding on an extension should be the initial reason for granting the protections: In this case, whether the damage from the two earthquakes has been repaired.

The Department of Homeland Security has decided that, 17 years later, enough of the damage has been fixed, and that the El Salvadorans should rightfully return home.

To be sure, some members of Congress are pushing to enshrine these protections in law – much like Democrats are now trying to do for dreamers. Others are asking the federal government to grant these protections to Venezuelans fleeing an economic collapse in their country. The US Chamber of Commerce has also urged the administration not to abandon the protections.

According to the NYT, removing the protections would result in a labor shortage in the Houston area as it struggles to rebuild following Hurricane Harvey.

But the administration appears unwilling to budge, with Trump viewing his crackdown on immigration as an issue that’s important to his base – making it a nonnegotiable component of his political platform.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

President Trump Returns to Butler to FIGHT for America First

Published

on

Trump’s Return to Butler, PA: A Symbol of Tenacity and Defiance

Today, former President Donald Trump makes a symbolically charged return to Butler, Pennsylvania, the site where his resilience was tested in an unprecedented manner. This visit, on October 5, 2024, is not just another campaign stop but a poignant reminder of his enduring “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra, which has become emblematic of his political persona.

A Historical Backdrop

On July 13, 2024, Butler was thrust into the national spotlight when an assassination attempt was made on Trump during a rally. Surviving with a mere graze to his ear, Trump’s immediate response was to raise his fist, a moment captured in what has now become an iconic image, symbolizing his defiance against adversity. This incident didn’t just scar him physically but also galvanized his supporters, turning Butler into a shrine of sorts for Trump’s resilience.

The Symbolism of the Return

Trump’s decision to return to Butler is laden with symbolism. Here’s why this visit resonates deeply with his campaign ethos:

  1. Defiance in the Face of Danger: Returning to the site where his life was threatened underscores Trump’s narrative of not backing down. It’s a physical manifestation of his “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” ethos, showcasing his refusal to be intimidated by violence or political opposition.
  2. Political Theatre and Momentum: This rally serves as a masterstroke in political theatre, aiming to convert the attempt on his life into a rallying cry for his supporters. It’s an attempt to reignite the fervor seen in the immediate aftermath of the incident, where his campaign saw a surge in support, portraying him as a fighter against all odds.
  3. Uniting the Base: By revisiting Butler, Trump not only honors the victims of the incident but also uses the location to unify his base. The rally is expected to be a blend of remembrance and a call to action, emphasizing themes of perseverance, security, and defiance against the establishment’s perceived failures.
  4. A Message of Strength: For Trump, every appearance since the assassination attempt has been an opportunity to project strength. Returning to Butler amplifies this message, suggesting that neither personal attacks nor political challenges will deter his campaign or his message.

The Broader Impact

The “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra has transcended its initial context, becoming a broader call against what Trump describes as systemic failures, from immigration policies to disaster response, as seen in his critiques of the current administration’s handling of events in North Carolina, echoed in his and his allies’ posts on X.

This return to Butler isn’t just about revisiting the site of a traumatic event; it’s a strategic move to encapsulate his campaign’s spirit in one location, making it a pilgrimage of sorts for his supporters. It represents Trump not just as a politician but as a symbol of resistance and persistence, key themes in his narrative of reclaiming America.

In sum, Trump’s rally in Butler today is more than a campaign event; it’s a testament to his campaign’s core message: a relentless fight against adversaries, be they political opponents, critics, or even those who threaten his life. This event is poised to be a significant moment in the 2024 presidential race, leveraging trauma, resilience, and defiance into political capital.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Clash of Titans: X’s Shutdown in Brazil

Published

on

In an unprecedented move, Brazil’s Supreme Court has ordered the nationwide suspension of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing feud between the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, and Brazilian authorities. This decision stems from Musk’s refusal to comply with court orders to appoint a legal representative in Brazil and to suspend certain accounts accused of spreading misinformation and hate speech.

The tension reached a boiling point when Justice Alexandre de Moraes gave X a 24-hour ultimatum to name a representative or face a complete operational shutdown in Brazil. Musk’s response was to close X’s office in Brazil, citing threats of arrest against his staff for non-compliance with what he described as “secret censoring orders.” This move has left millions of Brazilian users in the dark, with the platform going offline across the nation.

The implications of this standoff are manifold. Firstly, it pits the concept of free speech, as championed by Musk, against Brazil’s judicial efforts to curb what it sees as the spread of dangerous misinformation. Critics argue that this is a test case for how far nations can go in regulating global digital platforms. Secondly, the economic impact on X cannot be understated, with Brazil being one of its significant markets.

The situation has also sparked a debate on digital sovereignty versus global internet freedom. While some see Justice de Moraes’s actions as necessary to protect Brazilian democracy, others view it as an overreach, potentially stifling free expression. As X users in Brazil scramble to find alternatives or use VPNs to bypass the ban, the world watches closely to see if this could set a precedent for other nations grappling with similar issues.

Continue Reading

Crime

President Trump: Military Tribunals For Traitors

Published

on

In an era where national security is paramount, the discussion around military tribunals has resurfaced, not as a relic of past conflicts, but as a necessary tool for contemporary justice. The advocacy for military tribunals, especially in the context of recent political and security challenges, underscores a fundamental truth: sometimes, conventional judicial systems are not equipped to handle threats that undermine the very fabric of national security.

The case for military tribunals hinges on several key arguments. Traditional courts, bound by extensive legal procedures, can often delay justice, particularly in cases involving national security. Military tribunals, by design, expedite the process, ensuring that threats are neutralized swiftly, which is crucial in preventing further harm or espionage. Military law, with its focus on discipline, order, and security, provides a framework uniquely suited for cases where the accused are involved in acts against the state or military. This specialization ensures that the complexities of military strategy, intelligence, and security are not lost in translation to civilian courts.

From the Civil War to World War II, military tribunals have been utilized when the nation’s security was at stake. These precedents show that in times of war or national emergency, such tribunals are not only justified but necessary for maintaining order and security. Contrary to common misconceptions, military tribunals can be transparent and accountable, especially when conducted under the scrutiny of both military and civilian oversight. The structure ensures that while justice is swift, it is also fair, adhering to the principles of law that respect due process.

Addressing criticisms, the argument for military tribunals isn’t about subverting justice but ensuring it. Critics argue that military tribunals bypass constitutional rights, particularly the right to a jury trial. However, in scenarios where individuals are accused of acts that directly threaten national security, the argument for exceptional measures holds. The Constitution itself allows for exceptions during times of war or public danger, as seen in cases like Ex parte Quirin, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of military tribunals for unlawful combatants. Moreover, the fear of authoritarianism is mitigated by the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system. The President, Congress, and the judiciary each play roles in ensuring that military tribunals do not overstep their bounds. The judiciary, in particular, has the power to review and intervene if rights are egregiously violated.

From a broader perspective, the call for military tribunals isn’t just about addressing immediate threats but also about sending a message. It reaffirms the nation’s commitment to protecting its sovereignty and the rule of law. By using military tribunals, the U.S. demonstrates its resolve to handle threats in a manner that conventional courts might not be designed for, thereby potentially deterring future acts against the state.

In conclusion, the advocacy for military tribunals in the current climate is not about subverting justice but about ensuring it. These tribunals represent a robust response to unique challenges that threaten national security, offering a blend of efficiency, expertise, and justice that civilian courts might not always provide. While the debate will continue, the necessity of military tribunals in certain scenarios is clear, reflecting a pragmatic approach to safeguarding the nation while upholding the principles of justice.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.