By Susan F. Martin, Co-chair, Study on Protection of Immigrant Rights, LWV of Washington 

Overnight, more than 400,000 Haitians and Syrians became undocumented and subject to deportation in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 25 decision allowing the administration to end Temporary Protected Status without judicial review. 

The court’s decision, although primarily directed at Haitians and Syrians, will affect more than 1.3 million immigrants who have held temporary protected status.  

The next test for TPS comes on Sept. 9, when TPS protection for more than 170,000 Salvadorans is set to expire. Many of these individuals have lived and worked in the United States for decades and are married to U.S. citizens and parenting U.S. citizen children.  

It is broadly a poor move for the United States, once a beacon for the poor, the tired and the huddled masses seeking to be free.   

As Justice Elena Kagan intimated in her dissent, the move by the current administration to end TPS reflects undeniable and unconstitutional bias against Haitians. She also highlighted major procedural deficiencies, particularly noting that the administration failed to consult on the conditions in Haiti and Syria prior to ending TPS. 

The consequences are not trivial. Kagan concluded that “hundreds of thousands of lives will be uprooted, most permanently” while likely illegal termination orders will proceed. 

TPS can be triggered for one or more reasons: Ongoing armed conflict; environmental disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and epidemics; and other extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent nationals from returning to their country in safety.  

Unfortunately, the administration is revoking TPS on the specious argument that allowing Haitians, Syrians and other TPS recipients to stay here is not in the nation’s best interest. This will lead to significant family separations. At present, TPS holders live with an estimated 390,000 U.S. citizen children and more than 410,000 U.S. citizen adults.  

The decision will also be economically detrimental to our country, clearly not in national interest. According to FWD.US, individuals with TPS “contribute about $29 billion annually to the U.S. economy, in addition to the payment of $7.8 billion in combined federal, state, and local taxes.”  
 
Members of Congress have urged Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to extend the TPS designation for residents of their districts and beyond. Democratic Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, for one, gathered the signatures of 80 representatives on a letter he sent to Mullin asking for extension of TPS for Salvadorans. 

Several bills before Congress would allow TPS recipients from designated countries to remain in the country. The American Dream Act and Promise Act of 2025↗️ and the SECURE Act↗️ would provide TPS recipients a pathway to legal permanent residency after multi-year, continuous presence in the U.S. 

In addition, the Afghanistan TPS Act↗️ would specifically designate and extend protection for Afghan nationals with TPS, many of whom worked for the U.S. military. 

Meanwhile, the TPS Relief Act↗️, would overturn the Supreme Court's limitation on judicial review.  

Each of these bills have merits and together would address clear weaknesses in the current provisions of the act. 

Needing particular attention is the assumption that TPS would be temporary, regardless of the situation in the home country.  

While it is true that some immigrants need only temporary status, the assumption that all can eventually return home safely couldn’t be further from the truth. The American Dream and Promise Act and the SECURE Act address the assumption by providing pathways for legal permanent residency for those who cannot return home.  

What the bills do not address, however, are situations in which return-to-home is the best and, in many cases, the most desired option for TPS holders themselves.  
 
Helping those who are willing and able to return in safety and dignity to their countries and providing a pathway to permanent residence and citizenship to those who are unable to return would go a long way toward restoring the United States’ reputation as a nation of immigrants. 

It is the humane and wise move to take, and the League of Women Voters of Washington encourages such action.  

Susan F. Martin is Donald G. Herzberg Professor Emerita of International Migration in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Dr. Martin was the founder and first director of Georgetown’s Institute for the Study of International Migration. Previously, she was the executive director of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, which was mandated by statute to advise the President and Congress on U.S. immigration and refugee policy.