I just did some quick research. The prelim injunction against TPS termination was on March 31st. Both parents were deported before March 31st. If that is correct, that means that Trump did have the legal authority. Is this not correct?
This is very misleading and perhaps misinformation. From the article: Yorely Bernal Inciarte and Maiker Espinoza Escalona arrived with their child Maikelys Antonella Espinoza Bernal in Texas on May 14 last year. Neither held valid entry documents so they immediately surrendered to immigration authorities, according to ABC News. After being held in separate detention facilities in the Lone Star State for several months, able to communicate with one another only by phone, Inciarte was abruptly returned to Venezuela earlier this month – but without her daughter.
A common situation -- you arrive at the entry point with no valid entry documents and ask for protection via TPS. As the judges ruled -- they are on U.S. soil with a pending TPS application or TPS protection then they are allowed to stay in the U.S. and will not be deported.
That is correct. However, DHS can lawfully terminate the TPS program by following specific steps and complying with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which Secretary Noem did. Thus, TPS was legally terminated as of February 5, 2025, and remains so unless and until a judge issues a ruling to the contrary. Therefore, the Trump admin had the full legal authority to deport the couple from Feb. 5, 2025 to March 31, 2025 or whenever the preliminary injunction went into effect. The couple was not legally protected by TPS at the time of deportation. The judge ruled that he thinks Secretary Noem did not comply with AHA on March 31, 2025. There is a lot of room for subjectively within AHA compliance. Please correct me if I am wrong. But, please save the strawman/deflection for another conversation. Let's just stay with the facts. To be clear, you made the claim that the Trump admin did not have the legal authority to deport the couple because they were protected under the TPS. I could be wrong. If I am wrong, prove that I am wrong. There is a misnomer around here that I am unwilling to admit when I am wrong. I am more than happy to admit that I was wrong.
If the above is accurate, this is direct evidence of the left spreading malinformation and its propaganda machine.
The courts disagree with your interpretation of this. Earlier rulings stated that TPS deportations should be stopped as soon as the order was issued in early February and that further court guidance must be waited for regarding compliance with APA procedure. The Trump administration chose to ignore the court orders regarding halting deportations -- just like they did to many other court orders. Basically the Trump government is a rogue regime. Let's provide a partial list of the court orders that stopped the deportations: 1. NTPSA v. Noem (Northern District of California) Date: March 31, 2025 Judge: Edward Chen Summary: Judge Chen blocked the Trump administration's attempt to terminate TPS for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans. He criticized the decision by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as potentially unconstitutional and influenced by discriminatory motives, citing derogatory remarks about Venezuelans. The ruling allowed TPS holders to retain their protections while the case proceeds. Sources: POLITICOUCLA School of LawWikipedia+7San Francisco Chronicle+7Reuters+7ACLU of Southern California+4AP News+4San Francisco Chronicle+4 2. W.M.M. v. Trump (District of Columbia) Date: March 15, 2025 Judge: James Boasberg Summary: In response to the administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans alleged to be gang members, Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order halting such deportations. Despite this, the administration proceeded with deportations, leading to further legal challenges. Sources: WikipediaWikipediaThe GuardianThe Guardian+21Wikipedia+21Wikipedia+21YouTube+8Wikipedia+8Wikipedia+8 3. J.G.G. v. Trump (District of Columbia) Date: March 21, 2025 Judge: James Boasberg Summary: Judge Boasberg extended his previous order, emphasizing that the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act lacked historical precedent and raised due process concerns. He mandated that individuals targeted for deportation must be given an opportunity to challenge their removal. Sources: WikipediaWikipediaWikipedia 4. Supreme Court Ruling on Alien Enemies Act Deportations Date: April 7, 2025 Summary: The Supreme Court allowed the administration to proceed with deportations under the Alien Enemies Act but stipulated that detainees must receive reasonable notice and an opportunity to seek habeas relief. This decision underscored the necessity of due process even under wartime statutes. Sources: NPRWikipediaWikipedia+5NPR+5Wikipedia+5Migration Policy Institute+6Wikipedia+6Wikipedia+6 5. G.F.F. v. Trump (Southern District of New York) Date: April 9, 2025 Judge: Alvin Hellerstein Summary: Judge Hellerstein issued a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of individuals under the Alien Enemies Act within his jurisdiction, reinforcing the requirement for due process and judicial review. Sources: WikipediaAmerican Civil Liberties Union+3Wikipedia+3NPR+3 6. D.B.U. v. Trump (District of Colorado) Date: April 22, 2025 Judge: Charlotte Sweeney Summary: Judge Sweeney granted a temporary restraining order halting deportations under the Alien Enemies Act in Colorado, mandating that individuals receive at least three weeks' notice before removal, thereby ensuring time to seek legal recourse. Sources: WikipediaWikipedia 7. A.A.R.P. v. Trump (Northern District of Texas) Date: April 19, 2025 Summary: The Supreme Court intervened to enjoin the removal of detainees from a Texas detention center under the Alien Enemies Act, following a lower court's refusal to issue a restraining order. This action highlighted the judiciary's role in overseeing executive actions on immigration. Sources: WikipediaWikipedia Actions in February with temporarily restraining orders regarding TPS deportations. 1. Venezuelans Sue Trump Administration Over TPS Termination Date Filed: February 20, 2025 Jurisdictions: Federal courts in San Francisco and Maryland Plaintiffs: National TPS Alliance, CASA, Make the Road New York, and individual Venezuelan TPS holders Summary: These lawsuits challenged the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) decision to terminate TPS for approximately 348,000 Venezuelans. The plaintiffs argued that the move was unlawful, lacked proper justification, and was motivated by racial animus. They contended that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem lacked the authority to revoke the 18-month extension previously granted and that the termination violated federal law, which permits ending TPS only if conditions in the home country have improved. At the time of filing, DHS had not commented on the lawsuits. Reuters+1San Francisco Chronicle+1San Francisco Chronicle+1Reuters+1 2. ACLU and Democracy Forward Anticipate Alien Enemies Act Enforcement Date Filed: February 2025 Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Plaintiffs: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward Summary: In anticipation of the Trump administration invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan nationals, the ACLU and Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit seeking to block such actions. They argued that the administration's use of the Act lacked historical precedent and raised significant due process concerns. Subsequently, Chief Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order preventing deportations under the Act pending further judicial review. San Francisco Chronicle+3Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3 3. J.G.G. v. Trump Date Filed: February 2025 Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Plaintiffs: Venezuelan nationals facing deportation under the Alien Enemies Act Summary: This case challenged the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act. Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order halting such deportations, emphasizing the need for due process. Despite the order, the administration proceeded with deportations, leading to further legal disputes. The case highlighted tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary over immigration enforcement.
The bottom line is some of these Trumpers have no real respect for their fellow Americans and their rights, especially minority immigrants. It could be that the most vocal Trump supporters are sociopaths to some degree and Trump was the excuse they needed to be more vocal about their feelings. The threat that Trump brings to the US is he starts to make unpleasant stuff like bigotry, treating woman badly, and outright lying more normalized in society. It started Trump term one and hasn't stopped since. Some of these posters seem to have seen Trump get ahead and emulate him to some extent how the act and talk about others. Canada isn't perfect, but this kind of behavior tends to stand out here and isn't tolerated much. The US may do business better than Canada but you could learn a lot from our social norms. It is what it Trump may just be the end of a really bad trend and his extremes will put a stop to all this bs.
So let me ask -- is kidnapping the non-U.S. citizen child, refusing to hand her over and holding a two year old in a foster household a legitimate government action? Does it represent any type of decency? With the Trump administration the cruelty is the point.
"The court did so even though the TPS statute says that TPS decisions are not subject to judicial review."