-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
As of this week, with a green light from the Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority, President Trump is free to mount his long-promised mass deportation campaign in earnest. His Homeland Security Department notified employers last week that about 350,000 Haitian immigrants no longer are protected, triggering mass layoffs. His blood-stained Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has plans, CBS News reports, to begin sweeping them up.
But contrary to Trump’s reckless rhetoric, neither the Haitians nor another 1 million targeted immigrants from a dozen other nations are here illegally — at least they weren’t until the administration revoked their legal status after the Supreme Court’s go-ahead last month. On Wednesday, a federal district judge reluctantly made it official. All have been legal residents, many for years, under the 36-year-old humanitarian program granting temporary protected status to people who’ve fled countries roiled by war, natural disasters or other extraordinary crises. The protected status beneficiaries have been vetted, paid fees and gotten revetted every 18 months to keep a work permit and ensure they’ve steered clear of crime.
As that description suggests, we are not talking about deporting “the worst of the worst,” as Trump contends ad nauseum.
We are talking about law-abiding essential workers, many with U.S.-born children. And to make matters worse, these workers are being deported from a nation with an aging population and labor shortages. These are people who take jobs that many Americans won’t do, like bathing, diapering, feeding and generally keeping company with elderly citizens who need care and companionship. People who — if moral and humanitarian considerations aren’t enough for you — are crucial to the economies of many states, notably red ones including Florida and Ohio.
We’re talking about schools’ cafeteria workers and janitors, and the people who clean toilets and wheel disabled passengers to their flights at airports. Haitian workers at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport burst into tears when they were told to turn in their badges, the Washington Post reported Friday. We’re also talking about doctors, engineers and other well-educated professionals.
Like Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, a Haitian in California who was the name plaintiff in the lawsuit against Trump’s effort to rescind protected status before its planned sunset and who was spotlighted by Justice Elena Kagan in a scathing dissent against the Supreme Court majority’s decision.
As Kagan recounted, Miot has lived in the United States for more than 15 years, since an earthquake in 2010 devastated Haiti and its economy and exacerbated political and gang violence that persists to this day. Miot works in a lab researching Alzheimer’s disease, thanks to his temporary protected status work permit. He also has Type 1 diabetes, an easily treatable disease here but potentially “a death sentence” in Haiti, Kagan wrote, “given that country’s collapsed health-care infrastructure.” Unless kidnappers in Haiti get him first, as Miot fears.
Something must be done for the hundreds of thousands like him, and can be. The House in April passed a bipartisan bill to extend protected status for Haitian migrants for three years. But two weeks ago, Republicans in the Senate blocked it. Even if the measure were revived and passed, Trump presumably would veto it.
Still, should the president maintain his xeonophobic, racist and economically foolish stance, he could at least delay deportations, allowing both the targeted employees and their employers the time to adjust, as numerous business groups for healthcare providers, small manufacturers, restaurants, hotels and other service industries have begged the administration to do. The National Restaurant Assn. warned in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin: “Many affected employees are long-serving, legally authorized workers who are central to restaurant operations. Their departure could remove a substantial share of the local hospitality workforce overnight.”
But consideration for real-life consequences is not how MAGA rolls. As the Trumpian truism goes, cruelty is the point — especially when it comes to immigration.
Trump ally Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri, one of the Senate’s most far-right Republicans, heartlessly harrumphed in what passed for Senate debate: “America is not a global refugee camp.… America is our home, and when houseguests become squatters, you don’t delay enforcement. You call the sheriff and you send them home.”
And in doing so, you’ve shot yourself in the foot, economically.
In contrast with the likes of Trump and Schmitt, Ohio’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine has been making the economic as well as moral case for holders of temporary protected status and Haitians in particular since 2024. That’s when he publicly refuted the idiotic campaign claims of Trump and running mate JD Vance, then a senator for Ohio, about Haitians in struggling Springfield, Ohio. “They’re eating the dogs,” Trump blurted in the nationally televised presidential debate against Kamala Harris that September. “The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”
Neither global mockery nor the homegrown rebukes from DeWine and other Ohio officials and local police stopped Trump’s and Vance’s hateful lies. And now that they’re president and vice president, an offensive against the Haitians as well other foreigners with protected status is apparently underway. DeWine, courageously, is still speaking out in the small hope of stopping it.
Last week the governor told CBS News that deporting Haitians from Ohio — sending them “back to hell” — would be “a blow” to the state: “They came there because there were jobs that were not being filled by other people.”
But, DeWine added, the issue is bigger than the Haitians in Ohio: “The massive deporting of people, you’re going to see it all over the country.”
Nationwide, he said, over a third of the workers tending to people in long-term care facilities or in homes are immigrants. Once they’re deported, he predicted, “You’re not going to be able to find people to replace them, frankly.”
People like Augustine, who out of fear gave the Washington Post only her first name. Until this week, she cared for nine residents at a Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., nursing home. One called Augustine “my daughter.”
That elderly woman loses a lot, thanks to Trump. She and the entire country.
Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that President Trump’s new mass deportation campaign, enabled by a Supreme Court right‑wing supermajority, is both legally perverse and morally indefensible because it targets immigrants who came lawfully and have long held temporary protected status (TPS), turning them into “illegal” residents only after their status was revoked.[2][5]
It emphasizes that TPS recipients from Haiti and a dozen other nations were admitted under a 36‑year‑old humanitarian program designed for people fleeing war, natural disasters and other extraordinary crises, and that these immigrants have been repeatedly vetted, paid fees, and renewed work permits every 18 months while avoiding criminal trouble, directly contradicting Trump’s portrayal of them as “the worst of the worst.”[2][5]
The column contends that deporting hundreds of thousands of TPS holders is economically self‑destructive for a country with an aging population and widespread labor shortages, noting that many work in long‑term care facilities, home healthcare, schools, restaurants, hotels and airports in jobs that employers struggle to fill and that many Americans are unwilling to do.[2][5]
It underscores that the impact extends beyond low‑wage work, highlighting well‑educated professionals such as Haitian plaintiff Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, who has lived in the U.S. for more than 15 years, conducts Alzheimer’s research, and faces life‑threatening risks if returned to Haiti due to gang violence and a collapsed healthcare system, illustrating how deportations can be a “death sentence” for some.[2][5]
The piece links these human stories to a broader critique of Trump and his allies, arguing that “cruelty is the point” of the MAGA movement’s immigration policy and that racist, xenophobic falsehoods—such as Trump’s widely debunked claim that Haitian migrants in Ohio were “eating the pets” of residents—are used to justify policies that most Americans oppose, as reflected in polling on his immigration crackdown.[2][5]
It contrasts this hard‑line stance with the position of Ohio’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, describing how DeWine has publicly refuted Trump’s rhetoric and warned that deporting Haitians and other TPS holders would be “a blow” to states like Ohio where immigrants fill jobs that otherwise go unfilled, and that mass deportations will leave long‑term care facilities and families unable to find replacement caregivers across the country.[2][5]
The article further argues that, even if Trump refuses to change course, he could at least delay deportations to allow workers, families and employers to adjust, noting that business groups—including restaurant and hospitality associations—have urged the administration to recognize that longtime, legally authorized TPS employees are “central” to operations and that their sudden removal would gut local workforces overnight.[2][5]
Finally, it faults both the Supreme Court and congressional Republicans for clearing the way for these deportations: it notes that the court’s conservative majority has repeatedly expanded Trump’s power and given him a “green light” on contested policies, including immigration crackdowns, and that Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan House bill to extend TPS for Haitians, leaving humanitarian and economic concerns subordinate to ideological loyalty.[1][2][3][5]
Different views on the topic
Supporters of Trump’s immigration agenda argue that TPS was always intended as a temporary humanitarian measure rather than a path to permanent residency, and that allowing hundreds of thousands of people to remain for many years undermines the program’s “temporary” design and the rule of law; in this view, presidents must retain broad authority to end such programs and enforce statutory limits on immigration.[2][5]
The article recounts how Trump ally Sen. Eric Schmitt framed the debate by declaring that “America is not a global refugee camp” and comparing long‑term TPS holders to “houseguests” who have become “squatters,” a perspective that sees swift enforcement and deportation as necessary to protect national sovereignty and prevent perceived abuse of humanitarian status.
Backers of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions emphasize strong presidential control over immigration and other executive functions, contending that officials who exercise the president’s power must be removable at will and that courts should defer to elected presidents in areas like border policy and humanitarian admissions, rather than second‑guessing their judgment; commentary on these rulings notes that the Roberts court has repeatedly strengthened Trump’s hand and limited judicial checks on his actions.[1][4][6][7][8]
Some conservative voices maintain that restricting TPS and tightening related forms of relief is essential to deterring irregular migration and signaling that the United States cannot serve as refuge for all victims of global crises, even when the resulting decisions are harsh; analyses of the court’s Trump‑era immigration decisions describe them as part of a broader pattern in which the justices prioritize executive authority and enforcement over expansive humanitarian protections.[2][3][5]
Additionally, proponents of Trump’s broader immigration crackdown often frame these policies as protecting American workers and communities, arguing that high levels of low‑wage immigration can depress wages, strain public services and alter local culture, and that aggressive enforcement—including the end of TPS for large groups—is justified to put the interests of U.S. citizens first; reporting on Trump’s strengthened position after key Supreme Court rulings notes that such arguments resonate with core supporters who favor tough, high‑visibility enforcement measures.[2][3][4][5]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The latest effort is coming from the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. They just announced a $3 million program in conjunction with some nonprofits groups to test and clean the soil at homes still standing in the areas impacted by the Eaton Fire.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
