Redefining White Supremacy Over Two Decades
In the last twenty years, the definition of “white supremacy” has broadened significantly, often encompassing issues that may seem increasingly irrelevant. Recently, the Supreme Court indicated it could work with President Trump to eliminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for immigrants. Illinois Democratic Representative Delia Ramirez articulated concerns that such actions “advance authoritarian and white supremacist policies.”
Supreme Court Decision Valid Under Law
On the surface, the Court’s ruling aligns with legal precedents, as the law stipulates that the executive branch’s designation or revocation of TPS is not subject to judicial review. This conclusion underscores the resolution of the matter from a legal standpoint.
Criticisms Are Policy-Driven
Critics, including Trump’s opposition and advocates for open borders, argue against the president’s authority to terminate TPS, which provides temporary deportation relief for nationals from countries like Haiti and El Salvador. Yet, this dissent reflects a disagreement with policy rather than a critique of judicial processes, which are mandated to operate according to established law.
Discretionary Power of the Executive Branch
This ruling does not compel President Trump to revoke TPS; it simply grants him that authority. If the executive branch can choose to extend TPS based on discretionary grounds, it stands to reason that it can also terminate the status under similar discretion. This logic illustrates the Court’s decision as fundamentally sound.
Temporary Status Raises Concerns
Though it might seem straightforward, the TPS designation has historically functioned more like a permanent solution, having been extended consistently over the years. For instance, the TPS for Somalis has been active for 35 years since its initiation in 1991. With around 130 million Americans under the age of 35, this “temporary” status has effectively persisted throughout the lifetime of almost 40% of the population.
Reasons for Continued Extensions
The designation has been renewed numerous times across seven U.S. presidential administrations, with its longevity now spanning one-seventh of the history of the Republic. While Somalia continues to grapple with governance issues, the civil war that initially justified TPS has become less violent over time. Similar analyses can be applied to Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador, each of which has maintained TPS status for over 25 years.
Critique of the Extending Criteria
El Salvador’s TPS designation, first granted in 2001 due to significant earthquakes, has persisted for over two decades. The Biden administration recently cited ongoing environmental challenges as justification for further extensions. Instances such as “significant storms and heavy rainfall” or “prolonged drought” have been presented as rationales, suggesting that the TPS program can persist indefinitely. Notably, while the administration admitted to progress in earthquake recovery, it attributed continued TPS necessity to broader socioeconomic and infrastructural challenges instead of specific catastrophes.
Loophole in Immigration Law
TPS appears to have become a loophole within U.S. immigration law. The original intent of Congress was not to establish a de facto amnesty renewable without end. Current law allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to extend TPS at their discretion but mandates termination when the designated conditions no longer exist. This interpretation underscores the expectation that while extension may be optional, revocation is not.
The Supreme Court has performed its role by accurately interpreting the law, and now it is incumbent upon Congress to act and address the persistent misuse of this program.
Rich Lowry is at X@RichLowry.
