Connect with us

News

Haitian immigrants flee Springfield, Ohio, in droves after Trump election win

Published

2 weeks ago

on

From a tiny office behind a Haitian grocery store on Springfield’s South Limestone Street, Margery Koveleski has spent years helping local Haitians overcome bureaucratic red tape to make their lives in the Ohio city a little bit easier.

But Koveleski – whose family is Haitian – has noticed a major change recently.

Haitians are now coming to her to figure out how to leave.

“Some folks don’t have credit cards or access to the internet, and they want to buy a bus ticket or a plane ticket, so we help them book a flight,” she told the Guardian recently. “People are leaving.”

Koveleski, leaders in Springfield’s Haitian community, and others have relayed reports of Haitians fleeing the city of 60,000 people in recent days for fear of being rounded up and deported after Donald Trump ’s victory in the 5 November presidential election .

“The owner of one store is wondering if he should move back to New York or to Chicago – he says his business is way down,” Koveleski remarked.

Trump has repeatedly said he would end immigrants’ temporary protected status (TPS) – the provision through which many Haitians are legally allowed to live and work in the US – and deport Haitians from Springfield once in office.

For many, the threats are real.

A sheriff in Sidney, a town 40 miles (64km) north-west of Springfield that is home to several dozen Haitian immigrants, allegedly told local police in September to “get a hold of these people and arrest them”.

“Bring them – I’ll figure out if they’re legal,” he said, referencing Haitian immigrants in the area.

As Jacob Payen, a co-founder of the Haitian Community Alliance who runs a business that includes helping Haitians in Springfield to file tax returns, said: “People are fully aware of the election result, and that is why they are leaving; they are afraid of a mass deportation .

“Several of my customers have left. One guy with his family went to New Jersey; others have gone to Boston. I know three families that have gone to Canada.”

Some are thought to have moved to nearby cities such as Dayton, where they believe they would be less visible to law enforcement. Others who had temporary asylum in Brazil are pondering going back to the South American country, community leaders say.

Springfield’s Haitian community has been in the spotlight since Trump falsely accused immigrants here of eating pets during a presidential debate in September. Since then, the city has seen false bomb threats and marches by neo-Nazi groups after having experienced a revival in recent years in large part because of Haitians who took jobs in local produce packaging and machining factories that many previously there found undesirable.

Unofficial results from the presidential election found that Trump beat Harris by fewer than 150 votes in Springfield despite his making false claims about immigrants in the Ohio city a cornerstone of his anti-immigration election campaign.

A policy that has been around since 1990, the TPS program currently sees more than 800,000 immigrants who have fled conflict or humanitarian emergencies in 16 countries to live and work legally in the US for a limited time. About 300,000 Haitians fleeing widespread violence in the Caribbean country have been authorized to remain in the US through TPS until at least 3 February 2026.

But while it once enjoyed support from both sides of the political aisle, Trump’s first term saw a California court rule in 2020 that his administration could end TPS for citizens of Haiti and three other countries.

TPS is granted – and often renewed – by the secretary of homeland security. On Tuesday, reports emerged that Trump had chosen to give the post to the South Dakota governor, Kristi Noem, who has deployed state national guard troops to the US-Mexico border several times in recent years.

Trump’s deportation threats are happening at a time when Haiti is experiencing renewed violence from politically connected gangs. The country’s main airport in Port-au-Prince has been closed periodically and was shuttered again on Tuesday after gunfire hit a commercial passenger airplane flying in from the US. That was the second time since October that gunfire had hit an aircraft over Haiti.

Though Trump may ultimately succeed in ending TPS for some immigrants, some legal experts believe that is unlikely to happen during the early days of his administration after his second presidency begins on 20 January.

“There’s a fear among the Haitian community that TPS is going to end on 20 January, and I don’t think that is very likely for a number of reasons,” said Katie Kersh, a senior attorney at the non-profit law firm Advocates for Basic Legal Equality.

“The strain any deportation effort would place on an already stretched immigration court system would be significant.”

Even if the program was ended, Kersh says, current law allows for a court hearing that could take months or years to take place. Similarly, immigrants who have asylum applications filed also have an opportunity to have that application heard.

By ending TPS, Trump could in fact make the issue of undocumented immigration even worse.

“TPS provides employment authorization and a right to reside in the US, so when a TPS grant ends, the people who have it immediately lose employment authorization unless another status which provides it is available to them,” said Ahilan Arulanantham of UCLA’s School of Law, who was among several lawyers to successfully challenge an earlier attempt by Trump to end TPS for Haitians as well as others in 2018.

“That effect occurs regardless of whether they later face deportation.”

For companies in Springfield and in nearby communities that depend on Haitian labor, Trump’s comments could prove damaging. The Haitians who filled thousands of jobs at area packaging and auto plants have helped rejuvenate once-blighted neighborhoods and contributed to the local economy in myriad ways.

While many food products lining the shelves of Springfield’s Caribbean stores are imported, many items – bread from Florida and pinto beans from Nebraska – are American. Chicken, beef and eggs served at Haitian restaurants are regularly sourced from local farms.

Recently, a Haitian community organization bought a former fire station it hopes to turn into a facility for English language classes, drivers’ education and a meeting spot.

“I pay thousands of dollars in income and property taxes every year,” said Payen, “and – because I work with Haitians to file their taxes – I see their W-2s and so on. If these people leave, that money is gone from the city and the local economy.”

Curiously, some Haitians, who do not have the right to vote unless they are citizens, have blamed prominent Democrats such as Bill and Hillary Clinton for destroying their country after a devastating 2010 earthquake killed about a quarter of a million people – and displaced in excess of a million more.

Their Clinton Foundation, which ran dozens of projects in the country, had helped raise billions of dollars to assist with reconstruction efforts. But many Haitians believe the funds were siphoned off, which the Clintons deny.

Huge numbers of US guns have been trafficked to Haiti in recent years – a fact that is not lost on some in the Springfield community, according to Koveleski.

“They don’t have any faith in the Democratic party,” she said. “Some believe that if Donald Trump says, ‘leave Haiti alone,’ he’s going to leave us alone.”

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

News

Trump demands Republicans ‘kill’ bill that would protect journalists from government spying

Published

2 weeks ago

on

November 22, 2024

By

New York CNN — In between his posts on Truth Social announcing nominees for his incoming administration, President-elect Donald Trump urged Republicans Wednesday to nix a bipartisan bill that would give journalists greater protections under federal law.

Trump wrote on his favorite social network that “REPUBLICANS MUST KILL THIS BILL!”

He linked to a PBS “NewsHour” interview with Jodie Ginsberg, the CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists, who urged the Senate to pass the legislation.

Known as the PRESS Act, the Protect Reporters From Exploitative State Spying Act would prevent the government from forcing journalists to reveal their sources and limit the seizure of their data without their knowledge.

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, one of the many groups advocating for the bill, “The PRESS Act would bar the federal government from using subpoenas, search warrants, or other compulsory actions against journalists to force the disclosure of information identifying confidential sources as well as other newsgathering records, except in very limited circumstances. It would also broadly limit the government’s ability to use the same actions against third parties, including email providers and search engines, to seize journalists’ data, with narrow exceptions.”

The bill has been passed by the House of Representatives twice with bipartisan support, and it has Republican sponsors in the Senate, but it has been stalled for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, with Sen. Tom Cotton is said to be holding up the measure.

Cotton’s office did not respond to a request for comment about his position on the bill.

After Trump’s reelection earlier this month, press advocacy groups redoubled their efforts to get the legislation signed into law before the end of President Joe Biden’s term.

After Trump’s reelection earlier this month, press advocacy groups redoubled their efforts to get the legislation signed into law before the end of President Joe Biden’s term.

“It’s really important that we have that federal shield law to protect journalists at the federal level,” Ginsberg said on PBS. “We know that Trump is interested in going after whistleblowers, people who leak. And it’s absolutely essential that they are protected… and that journalists are allowed to do their job.”

Several media outlets and newspaper editorial boards have urged readers to contact their senators and lobby for the passage of the bill.

“Hostility toward the news media in the polarized politics of the day makes it more urgent than ever to ensure that reporters can continue to pursue their essential role as watchdogs,” The New York Times editorial board opined last month.

But “Senate Democrats are running out of time” to pass the law, WIRED reporter Dell Cameron wrote last week. Democratic lawmakers have focused on confirming Biden’s judicial nominees during the lame-duck session.

Trump’s edict on Wednesday may have sealed the bill’s fate while also raising public awareness of the issue.

Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, told CNN that Trump should reconsider his position because “the PRESS Act protects conservative and independent journalists just as much as it does anyone in the mainstream press.”

“Democratic administrations abused their powers to spy on journalists many times, too,” he said. “The bipartisan PRESS Act will stop government overreach and protect the First Amendment once and for all.”

“Much of the reporting Trump likes, from the Twitter files to stories poking holes in the Russiagate conspiracy, came from confidential sources,” Timm observed. “Many Trump supporters from Rep. Jim Jordan to Sen. Mike Lee are champions of the PRESS Act because it would protect all journalists, including many who reach primarily conservative audiences. That’s good for the public, whether they voted Republican or Democrat.”

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

News

USCIS Simplifies the Path to U.S. Citizenship for Long-Term Permanent Residents

Published

2 weeks ago

on

November 22, 2024

By

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced a significant update to its policy regarding the lawful admission requirement for naturalization applicants.

Effective November 14, 2024, this change clarifies the burden of proof for lawful permanent residents (LPRs) seeking to become U.S. citizens.

The new guidance specifies that naturalization applicants need only demonstrate lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of their initial entry or adjustment of status. This marks a departure from the previous interpretation, which considered subsequent reentries into the United States.

This policy update aligns with a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Azumah v. USCIS. The court determined that USCIS’s earlier interpretation imposed an additional requirement not found in the statute. The court ruled that applicants should only need to prove their lawful admission at the time of their initial admission or adjustment to LPR status, rather than at any subsequent reentry.

This change is expected to simplify the naturalization process for many applicants, as it removes a layer of complexity related to their travel history. Under the new policy, USCIS will focus on an applicant’s initial admission or adjustment to LPR status, meaning that subsequent reentries will not be considered in determining lawful admission. This shift could significantly benefit long-term LPRs who have maintained their status but may have faced complications during later travels.

By narrowing the scope of what is required for naturalization, USCIS aims to provide a clearer and more consistent process for applicants.

The updated guidance is effective immediately and applies to pending requests as well as new applications filed on or after November 14, 2024. It has been incorporated into Volume 12 of the USCIS Policy Manual.

This change is part of USCIS’s ongoing efforts to streamline immigration processes and align them with recent legal interpretations, ultimately reducing barriers for eligible LPRs seeking to become U.S. citizens.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

African American

‘Malcolm X Daughters’ sue CIA, FBI, NYPD over their Dad’s Assassination

Published

2 weeks ago

on

November 22, 2024

By

(AP) — Three daughters of Malcolm X have accused the CIA, FBI, the New York Police Department and others in a $100 million lawsuit Friday of playing roles in the 1965 assassination of the civil rights leader.

In the lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court, the daughters — along with the Malcolm X estate — claimed that the agencies were aware of and were involved in the assassination plot and failed to stop the killing.

At a morning news conference, attorney Ben Crump stood with family members as he described the lawsuit, saying he hoped federal and city officials would read it “and learn all the dastardly deeds that were done by their predecessors and try to right these historic wrongs.”

The NYPD and CIA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Nicholas Biase, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, which was also sued, declined comment. The FBI said in an email that it was its “standard practice” not to comment on litigation.

For decades, more questions than answers have arisen over who was to blame for the death of Malcolm X, who was 39 years old when he was slain on Feb. 21, 1965, at the Audubon Ballroom on West 165th Street in Manhattan as he spoke to several hundred people. Born Malcolm Little in Omaha, Nebraska, Malcolm X later changed his name to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz.

Three men were convicted of crimes in the death but two of them were exonerated in 2021 after investigators took a fresh look at the case and concluded some evidence was shaky and authorities had held back some information.

In the lawsuit, the family said the prosecution team suppressed the government’s role in the assassination.

The lawsuit alleges that there was a “corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional” relationship between law enforcement and “ruthless killers that went unchecked for many years and was actively concealed, condoned, protected, and facilitated by government agents,” leading up to the murder of Malcolm X.

According to the lawsuit, the NYPD, coordinating with federal law enforcement agencies, arrested the activist’s security detail days before the assassination and intentionally removed their officers from inside the ballroom where Malcolm X was killed. Meanwhile, it adds, federal agencies had personnel, including undercover agents, in the ballroom but failed to protect him.

The lawsuit was not brought sooner because the defendants withheld information from the family, including the identities of undercover “informants, agents and provocateurs” and what they knew about the planning that preceded the attack.

Malcolm X’s wife, Betty Shabazz, the plaintiffs, “and their entire family have suffered the pain of the unknown” for decades, the lawsuit states.

“They did not know who murdered Malcolm X, why he was murdered, the level of NYPD, FBI and CIA orchestration, the identity of the governmental agents who conspired to ensure his demise, or who fraudulently covered-up their role,” it states. “The damage caused to the Shabazz family is unimaginable, immense, and irreparable.”

The family announced its intention to sue the law enforcement agencies early last year.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending