Here is a recording of the call.
San Francisco, CA – On a press call earlier today, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, plaintiffs, and attorneys in the ongoing Ramos v. Nielsen lawsuit discussed the implications of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s plan to abide by the October 3rd court order that blocked the termination of TPS for more than 300,000 people from Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, and El Salvador.
The proposed implementation ensures that TPS holders from those countries will continue to have lawful status so long as the court’s order remains in effect, as well as for at least six months if the order is reversed on appeal. It also prevents the administration from issuing a new termination notice that attempts to comply with the Court’s order during the appellate process.
While the plan gives a sliver of hope for TPS holders in the here and now, it is not a permanent fix and it does not take Congress off the hook for finding a permanent solution to legal residency for TPS holders and their families.
Orlando Zepeda, TPS Holder from El Salvador and plaintiff in the lawsuit said, “I’ve lived here for over two decades, longer than I’ve lived in El Salvador. I have two U.S. born children; a girl who is 13, and a boy who is 15. My son and I are plaintiffs in this case. I speak on behalf of my family and all the families affected. We are people trying to provide a better life for our families. The court decision has not provided the permanent protections we need, and we know that our work is far from over.”
In response to the proposed DHS plan, Emi Maclean, Co-Legal Director at NDLON said, “There are hundreds of thousands of TPS holders who have lived and worked in the U.S. for decades. On October 3rd, a federal court recognized that the administration’s termination of TPS for Sudan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Haiti were likely illegal. Last night, DHS submitted their plan to deal with the court ordered block on the terminations. The plan ensures that TPS holders from these four countries will continue to have lawful status so long as the order remains in affect. This does not mean the administration has come to terms with their reckless decision: it continues to be shameless. They immediately appealed the federal court order, but we will keep fighting the unconstitutionality and illegality of this administration’s actions towards TPS holders and their families in the courts and in the streets. TPS holders are united, strong, and fighting back… but Congress must also act.”
“I’ve been able to contribute to this country for 17 years through TPS. After the Trump administration announced an end to TPS – I joined the Journey for Justice bus tour,” said Sandra Granados of the National TPS Alliance and TPS holder from El Salvador. “The tour created a way to communicate with communities and explain what TPS is, the benefits of the program, and the impact its cancellation has on our families. Since the Trump administration announced TPS would end, my children have become depressed and their grades have suffered. Even my 15 year old daughter has put aside enjoying her teenage years to help us fight to keep TPS. Our children are the future of this country and their parents are being deported. This is a humanitarian crisis. We are not giving up and we are not walking back. We are here to stay.”
Daniel Sharp, Legal Director of CARECEN-LA, explained that, “the government’s implementation plan gives TPS holders additional protection in increments of 6 or 9 months and automatically extends work permits. These are important victories, but it is incumbent on the government to make their plan clear for TPS holders, employers, and state agencies. These protections are also being appealed by the government, which leaves TPS holders in limbo. This Administration continues to invest considerable resources to expel hundreds of thousand of law abiding workers and long-term residents of our country. This would be sad at any time, but it is bewildering during this time of historically low unemployment.”
The filing is available here: Defendants’ Proposal to Implement Preliminary Injunction Order