Haiti: Safe For Thee...
...But Not For Me.
The racism and mendacity of Trump 2.0 is exemplified by these two opposing positions taken at the same time -
- On the one hand, ICE Barbie (dba DHS Sec. Kristi Noem) has ended, after 15 years of protection, Temporary Protected Status for over 300,000 Haitians living in the USA. The official media release says, “The Secretary determined that, overall, country conditions have improved to the point where Haitians can return home in safety.”
Actually, that’s NOT what the Federal Register notice says. The notice says, “[T]he Secretary reviewed country conditions in Haiti and considered … whether extraordinary and temporary conditions in Haiti that prevent aliens who are Haitian nationals from returning to Haiti in safety continue to exist… .” (Emphasis mine.) But NOWHERE in the notice does Noem say it is safe for Haitians to return to Haiti. A DHS “spokesperson” said so, in the media release quoted and linked above, but the Secretary did NOT say so in the Federal Register. This disconnect has already been noted by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Austin Kocher and many others, so stay tuned: litigation will ensue!
- And on the other hand, Li’l Marco Rubio, over at the State Department, says, “Do not travel to Haiti due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, and limited health care.” And, “The U.S. Department of State has included a Crime “C” Indicator on the Travel Advisory for Haiti, indicating that there may be widespread violent crime and/or organized crime present in the country, and/or that local law enforcement may have limited ability to respond to serious crimes. Violent crime is rampant in Haiti, especially in Port-au-Prince, where the expansion of gang activity has led to widespread violence, kidnappings, and gender-based violence. Gangs often move into new neighborhoods, displacing local residents or fighting rival gangs with high levels of incidental violence. Gangs also control significant roads throughout the city, charging "tolls" for drivers, especially targeting delivery vehicles and fuel transportation. The United Nations estimates gangs control roughly 90% of Port-au-Prince.”
It’s true! If you want or need punishment, read the official links here and here.
- And on the third hand, Trump is welcoming more and more white Afrikaners from South Africa as “refugees” because…they’re white. (By the way, if you use the “search” function on the official State Department website and plug in the search term “Afrikaners,” you get this: “We can't connect to the server for this app or website at this time. There might be too much traffic or a configuration error. Try again later, or contact the app or website owner." Huh. Gosh. Guess I’ll try again later…)
IN BETTER NEWS:
“Immigrants rights’ advocates today filed a new nationwide class-action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The lawsuit is in response to today’s Supreme Court ruling that potentially opens the door for partial enforcement of the executive order. … This new case seeks protection for all families in the country, filling the gaps that may be left by the existing litigation. … Today’s lawsuit charges the Trump administration with flouting the Constitution, congressional intent, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent, and it is national in scope.” - ACLU, June 27, 2025.
That’s all for today. Comments always welcome. THANK YOU! to all subscribers, free and paid.
QUIZ: How Many Are There?
***
I will miss the Constitution.
I am worried that the Supreme Court will side with Trump, in part, on whether his executive order re birthright citizenship will be held to be constitutional.
The long-standing precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), found it important that Wong Kim Park, born to Chinese residents then residing in the U.S., had maintained his residence in the United States after his birth, even though he made a couple of temporary trips to China, after which he had returned to the U.S.
The Supreme Court will now need to decide if the wording of the 14th Amendment applies to the modern phenomenon of pregnant mothers coming into the U.S. for short-term visits for the purpose of having their babies be born here and become American citizens. If the mothers whisked their newborn infants back to the mothers' home country shortly after they were born, then the babies may never have been "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), dealt with the situation where the baby was born in the U.S. and then maintained his residence in the U.S. until he was 17 years old. The Court found it important that, through his alien parents, he had a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. That was recognized as subjecting him to the jurisdiction of the U.S., thus meeting the requirements of the 14th Amendment.
In Wong Kim Ark: "Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."
"The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States."So-called "anchor babies" may not qualify for citizenship if they were never domiciled or never resided in the U.S., because they may never have been "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."