‘Temporary’ deportation shield for immigrants has always been a total farce
'Temporary' deportation for immigrants is a total farce
- US News
- World News
- Page Six
- Sports
- Post Sports+
- Sports Betting
- Business
- Opinion
- Entertainment
- Shopping
- Lifestyle
- Health
- Real Estate
- Alexa
- Media
- Tech
- Science
- Astrology
- Video
- Photos
- Pod Force One
- NY POSTcast
Switch between CA and NY editions here.
EditionRecommended
Skip to main content
Rich Lowry
Opinion‘Temporary’ deportation shield for immigrants has always been a total farce
By Rich Lowry Published June 28, 2026, 1:28 p.m. ET
See more of our coverage in your search results.
Add The New York Post on GoogleThe last 20 years of so has been a continuous adventure in re-defining the phrase “white supremacy” to include less and less pertinent things.
The latest is that the Supreme Court has allegedly joined forces with Trump to “advance an authoritarian, white-supremacist agenda” — in the words of the Illinois Democrat, Rep. Delia Ramirez — by saying he can end so-called Temporary Protected Status for immigrants.
A headline in the left-wing Nation magazine read, “The Supreme Court Once Again Endorses Trump’s Racism.”
The court’s decision is facially correct in that the law says that TPS designations or revocations by the executive branch are not reviewable by the courts.
Case closed.
The objections to the justices’ decision are purely policy-based.
More From Rich Lowry
Trump’s three big retreats lay bare the limits of his power
The one growing gap between Dems and Republicans that shouldn’t ever exist — patriotism
The one thing that played no role in Karmelo Anthony’s murder of Austin Metcalf
Trump critics and open-borders advocates don’t like that Trump is now going to be allowed to end TPS — a program for temporary relief from repatriation — for Haitians, Syrians, El Salvadorans and others.
But this isn’t a criticism of the court, which is obliged to make rulings on the basis of the law, not based on policy preferences.
There’s nothing about the decision that forces Trump to end various TPS designations; rather, it simply allows him to do so.
That’s another way in which the court’s ruling is obviously correct: If the executive branch can extend TPS as a matter of discretion, surely it can end it as a matter of discretion, too.
See Also
Supreme Court rules Trump can remove deportation protection from Haitians, Syrians
This would seem common sense.
Yet, TPS has long been a one-way ratchet — always extended but never revoked.
This has made a mockery of the word “temporary.”
The TPS designation for Somalis has been in effect since 1991, or for 35 years.
Roughly 130 million Americans are younger that — so what is supposedly a temporary status has existed for the entire lives of nearly 40% of the country.
The temporary status has been extended a couple of dozen times.
It’s reached across seven US presidencies, if you count Trump twice, and has been in place during one-seventh of the existence of the American republic.
Granted, Somalia is still misgoverned, but the civil war that was the original justification for the TPS designation is now less intense than it was at the outset.
Then there’s Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador, each of which has been designated for the last quarter-century or so.
Get opinions and commentary from our columnists
Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter!
Thanks for signing up!
El Salvador originally got the designation in 2001 after two earthquakes.
More than two decades later, the Biden administration fashioned reasons for extensions that had nothing to do with those disasters.
They included “significant storms and heavy rainfall in 2023 and 2024,” as well as “dangerously long periods of drought.”
In other words, sometimes it rained and sometimes it didn’t, and that justified TPS never going away.
See Also
Supremes’ memo to lower courts: presidential power trumps leftist lawfare
Yes, the Biden administration admitted, progress had been made repairing the 2001 earthquake damage — yet “subsequent environmental disasters, infrastructure challenges, continued climate risks, a weak macroeconomic environment, and food insecurity” meant that Salvadorans couldn’t return to their native country.
In other words, the overall condition of El Salvador was the problem, not a specific event.
Part of the justification of TPS is that a country in crisis is temporarily incapable of absorbing its returning citizens.
But as George Fishman of the Center for Immigration Studies notes, more than 3 million tourists visited El Salvador in 2024.
If the country can accommodate millions of foreign visitors, why is it incapable of accepting its own returning citizens?
Obviously, TPS has become an enormous loophole in immigration law.
The intent of Congress was never to create an endlessly renewable de facto amnesty.
The statute says the secretary of homeland security “may” extend a designation in response to a specific event, but “shall” end the designation once that condition no longer applies.
This suggests that a designation is discretionary under the law, but the revocation is mandatory.
That’s not how it’s turned out.
The Supreme Court has done its part by correctly interpreting the law — and now Congress should its job by ending this much-abused program for good.
X:
Filed under Read Next The left has tried its best to tarnish our national story....Columnists
-
Miranda Devine
Dems in desperate need of a new leader as commies overrun their party — but all they got is Obama
-
Cindy Adams
Remembering my friend Clive Davis — a music genius who changed history
-
Rich Lowry
‘Temporary’ deportation shield for immigrants has always been a total farce
See All Columnists
Covers
Today's Cover
Front Cover Back Cover
Flip for back cover
Browse Covers
Trending Now on NYPost.com
-
This story has been shared 99,325 times.
99,325
Vile footage shows Texas sisters Cookie and Kitty grin as they’re busted for allegedly hacking mom of 5 to death
-
This story has been shared 54,886 times.
54,886
Dem leader, experts admit what fueled NYS socialist surge — and it wasn’t ‘affordability’ pledge
-
This story has been shared 37,468 times.
37,468
Horrific video shows huge crocodile that killed tourist in front of California couple — as new details emerge
More Stories
Page Six
Collin Gosselin sends pointed message to mom Kate with savage post ahead of memoir release
Decider
Stream It Or Skip It: ‘Agent Kim Reactivated’ On Netflix, Where A Mild-Mannered Office Worker Dregs Up His Black Ops Past When His Daughter Goes Missing
NYPost
Vile footage shows Texas sisters Cookie and Kitty grin as they’re busted for allegedly hacking mom of 5 to death
© 2026 NYP Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use Subscription Terms Privacy Notice SitemapYour California Privacy Rights
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
