Judge halts Trump plan to end humanitarian parole for people from 4 countries

BOSTON — A federal judge said Thursday she will halt the Trump administration from ending a program that allowed hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans to temporarily live in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani said she will issue a stay on the program, which was set to end later this month. The push to help more than half-a-million Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans is part of a broader legal effort to protect nationals from Ukraine, Afghanistan and other countries who are here legally.

During the hearing, Talwani repeatedly questioned the government's assertion for ending the program — namely that it has the power to do and that it was no longer serving their purpose. She argued that immigrants in the program now face an option of “fleeing the country” or staying and “risk losing everything.”

“The nub of the problem here is that the secretary, in cutting short the parole period afforded to these individuals, has to have a reasoned decision,” Talwani said, adding that the explanation for ending the program was “based on an incorrect reading of the law.”

Last month, the administration revoked legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, setting them up for potential deportation in 30 days. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said they will lose their legal status on April 24.

They arrived with financial sponsors and were given two-year permits to live and work in the U.S. During that time, the beneficiaries needed to find other legal pathways if they wanted to stay in the U.S. Parole has been a temporary status.

President Donald Trump has been ending legal pathways for immigrants to come to the U.S., implementing campaign promises to deport millions of people who are in the U.S. illegally.

Outside court, immigration advocates, including Guerline Jozef, founder and executive director of the Haitian Bridge Foundation, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said attacks on this program contradict the Trump administration’s strategy on immigration.

“We hear the narrative of people coming her illegally and the administration wanting to erase illegal immigration,” Jozef said. “But, we clearly see today that is not the case. Even those people who have legal status, are paying their taxes and working are under attack.”

In motion ahead of the hearing, plaintiffs called the administration’s action “unprecedented” and said it would result in people losing their legal status and ability to work. The also called the move “contrary to law within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act,” which sets out the procedures that agencies have to follow when making rules.

Lawyers for the Trump administration argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the move by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security impacting immigrants in the program, known as CHNV, did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act. They also said plaintiffs would not be able to show the termination of the program was unlawful.

“DHS’s decision to terminate the CHNV program and existing grants of parole under that program is within this statutory authority and comports with the notice requirements of the statute and regulations,” they wrote. “Additionally, given the temporary nature of CHNV parole and CHNV parolees’ pre-existing inability to seek re-parole under the program, their harms are outweighed by the harms to the public if the Secretary is not permitted to discontinue a program she has determined does not serve the public interest.”

The end of temporary protections for these immigrants generated little political blowback among Republicans other than three Cuban-American representatives from Florida who called for preventing the deportation of the Venezuelans affected. One of them, Rep. Maria Salazar of Miami, also joined about 200 congressional Democrats this week in co-sponsoring a bill that would enable them to become lawful permanent residents.

Judge allows administration to require those in US illegally to register

Meanwhile, a federal judge is allowing the Trump administration to move forward with a requirement that everyone in the U.S. illegally must register with the federal government, in a move that could have far-reaching repercussions for immigrants across the country.

In a ruling Thursday, Judge Trevor Neil McFadden sided with the administration, which argued it was simply enforcing an already existing requirement for everyone in the country who wasn’t an American citizen to register with the government.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

The requirement goes in effect Friday.

The Department of Homeland Security announced Feb. 25 that it would mandate that all people in the United States illegally register with the federal government, and said those who didn’t self-report could face fines or prosecution. Failure to register is considered a crime, and people will be required to carry registration documents with them or risk prison time and fines.

Registration will be mandatory for everyone 14 and older without legal status. People registering have to provide their fingerprints and address, and parents and guardians of anyone under age 14 must ensure they registered.

The registration process also applies to Canadians who are in the U.S. for more than 30 days, such as so-called snowbirds who spend winter months in places like Florida.

Registration laws trace back to 1940 act

Federal immigration law long required that people who aren’t American citizens and live in the U.S., including those here illegally, register with the government. Those laws can be traced back to the Alien Registration Act of 1940, which came amid growing fears of immigrants and political subversives in the early days of World War II. The current requirements stem from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Still, the requirement that people illegally in the U.S. register has been enforced only in rare circumstances. In fact, advocates opposing the government say it hasn’t been universally used since it was first introduced in the mid-1940s.

It was used in a limited way after Sept. 11, 2001, when the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System required that all noncitizen males 16 and older from 25 countries — all but one of them majority Arab or Muslim — register with the U.S. government. The program led to no terrorism convictions but pulled more than 13,000 people into deportation proceedings. It was suspended in 2011 and dissolved in 2016.

The Trump administration argued that the registration requirement always existed and officials are simply enforcing it for everyone.

The groups that sued say this registration process is expressly to facilitate Trump’s aim of carrying out mass deportations of people in the country illegally.

The plaintiffs also say the government should have gone through the more lengthy public notification process before making the change.

They argue that the registry puts people who work, contribute to the economy and have deep family ties in America into a deep bind: Do they come forward, register and essentially give up their location to a government intent on carrying out mass deportations, or do they stay in the shadows and risk being charged with the crime of not registering?

The government already asked people subject to the registration requirement to create an account on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.

Business

US stocks dive as US-China trade tensions keep escalating

• STAN CHOE Associated Press

Six people died in a helicopter crash in the Hudson River in New York City, an AP source says

PHOTOS: A look at immigration and the US border with Mexico