179
US supreme court allows Trump administration to strip Haitians and Syrians of protected status
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
179 points (100.0% liked)
News
38105 readers
1654 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Trump is shit. The SCOTUS is shit. But this policy of arbitrary protected status for very select groups of immigrations is also shit.
Going back to the Nixon Era, we've had this policy of promising to reform immigration to make it more logical and more practical. At every turn, we invent new special categories and exceptions and weird litmus tests that make the process more and more cumbersome and byzantine. Ronald Reagan wanted to admit a bunch of anti-communist refugees as a fuck-you to the USSR. Bill Clinton wanted a Wet-Foot Dry-Foot policy to cage off certain Cuban migrants and limit their impact on the Florida voter pool. Bush Jr wanted "Guest Worker" visas to flood the labor market with the cheap laborers we'd kept at arms length under NAFTA. Obama wanted DACA exclusively for kids under a certain age, mostly because they were more photogenic than their parents.
We admit people because of some wars and some natural disasters, but deport people because of sudden shifts in foreign policy or a smear campaign by reactionary media. We grant temporary status and then yank it away, because it gives us leverage over foreign espionage agents and business interests. We demand people strictly follow a complex and contradictory set of laws, then arrest them at their Green Card hearings because it's easier than chasing down folks on expired student visas. We deny people citizenship because we don't like their social media history. We admit people because we're enthusiastic about their terminally online shitposts.
It's all garbage and easy for a court to exploit precisely because it's so confused. Rather than establishing a universal standard of basic rights for all residents, we continue to adhere to a tiered system precisely because it offers us an excuse to lock people up en mass, rob them as they try to legally cross the border, and abuse them in custody both at home and in our black sites abroad.
It all fucking sucks. And - in a better world - we'd have a party enthusiastic about wiping the whole board and laying a new universal foundation for human rights both at home and abroad. We won't. But moments like this illustrate why we should.
This is the rub and a "be careful what you wish for" moment. There is a party now enthusiastic about wiping the slate clean and in power right now. Most of us are really against the draconian version that party wants to write on that slate to replace the current piecemeal approach.
There's a party enthusiastic about doubling down on an already deeply immigrant-hostile domestic policy. The vast majority of what Trump does today is just extensions of policy we had all the way back to the Eisenhower Era of immigration. What he's done is juice up the funding, swell the manpower, and galvenize the border states so that Republican governors/legislatures are willing to play along.
Twenty years ago, you had a handful of these nightmare torture prisons capable of holding thousands of people we didn't like. Now we're building hundreds of prisons to hold millions of people. But the fundamental legislative levers used to identify, arrest, and indefinitely detain people? That's all there under The Patriot Act of '01 and The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of '96 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of '38 (amended under Carter in '77 to criminalize illegal migrant employment).
To "wipe the board", we're talking about tearing up the last century of immigration criminalization. What Trump has done is to tear out all the little legislatively outlined exemptions and dispensations, such that criminalization rules are more explicitly in the hands of the executive branch.
I understand that is your end goal (and my desire as well). The power to do what we want is also the power to make it the horrible trump's version.
We today, can see the results of all of those and what didn't work and know that a better solution should not include those failed efforts.
I agree. And he's taken that approach because the slow machinery of government doesn't let him simply wipe the slate clean and put his own wholly horrible fascist version of what he wants with full criminalization of any immigrant (even even those born here of immigrant lineage).
The exceptions and workarounds you're citing as the problem are evidence that no one from either side has the ability for fully implement their own version of immigration policy in the USA. Even if we want the power of a a unilateral overhaul decriminalization immigration right now, trump would use that power right now to do the exact opposite.
Is just the existing immigration system expanded to more people.
Trump doesn't want to eliminate our carceral state. He's quite happy with the function of the government and simply wants to expand it.
If you don't think trump's real desired version isn't worse, I'd question your imagination.
trump hates getting stopped or at least slowed by our courts and what few legislative efforts exist to combat him. He would love for all of those to be gone.
It's Steven Miller's vision. But, again, it's just an extension of the existing carceral state. Trump/Miller aren't dreaming up anything that didn't already exist under Ronald Wilson Reagan's California governorship. The only thing they're changing is volume.
Him and every other politico to the right of John McCain and the left of AOC. Only liberals have a fetish for being told "No".
To paraphrase the great political theorist November Kelly, "I hate when the government defends itself against my team. I love when the government defends itself against the other team."
Trump doesn't need these organs gone. He has them fully co-opted by his MAGA co-conspirators and billionaire friends. Once he's out of office, he 100% wants a muscular SCOTUS to hold up the stop sign in front of every Barack Obama who enters office in his wake. He wants a Senate that gets nothing done under Democrats for the same reason he wants a rubber stamp from his fellow republicans.
The modern democratic system exists as a ratchet to the benefit of fascists. And Trump loves that the ratchet turns his way.
Reagan was horrible in his own ways, but I don't rememeber Reagan trying to outright break the Constitution or deny birthright citizenship.
I'm not sure what your point is. Just as one example, the ACA still exists in some form and we know trump hates it. If trump could just end the ACA with the stroke of a pen, he would.
Right, that supports my argument.
Not fully, but he's working on it. He still needs Republicans to hold the legislature and with all the damage he's doing using the Republican name, that is looking increasingly less and less likely.
trump doesn't like how slow it turns, even if it turns his way.