The Obama administration did the right thing by offering temporary protected status (TPS) to nationals of Syria who are currently present in the United States. Temporary protected status provides a safe haven for citizens of a foreign state where there is an ongoing conflict within the country that poses a serious threat to the personal safety of the country's nationals if they returned home. It is usually granted for up to 18 months during which time citizens of the protected country -- in this case Syria -- may remain and work in the United States, as long as they appropriately register for TPS and pass security checks.
Since January 2011, when Syrian citizens began what eventually became a nationwide uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Ba'ath Party rule, more than 9,000 Syrians --including women and children -- have reportedly been killed in clashes with the Syrian military. The conflict is ongoing and al-Assad has thus far shown no signs of yielding to international pressure to stop the murder of his own people.
In a statement issued Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano explained that TPS was necessary because of the extreme threats posed to Syrian nationals should they return to their country under current conditions.
In light of the deteriorating conditions in Syria, I am announcing that DHS will be designating Syria for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrians currently present in the United States. Conditions in Syria have worsened to the point where Syrian nationals already in the United States would face serious threats to their personal safety if they were to return to their home country. Early next week, the Department will publish a notice in the Federal Register that will provide further guidance about TPS eligibility requirements and registration procedures. All applicants must undergo full background checks and while Syrians in the United States are encouraged to apply, they should not submit their applications before the notice is published.
It is a common refrain that the immigration law is broken and doesn't work. And while that's largely true, there are parts of the statute that do function reasonably well. TPS is one such provision. In the case of Syria it will undoubtedly save many lives.
President Obama should be applauded for doing the right thing.
Follow David Leopold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidLeopold
But between extensions, DED, EVD, etc. the "temporary" can turn into two decades (and counting), resulting in a de facto green card for illegally present aliens. Has a single person ever granted TPS later been deported?
"a common refrain that the immigration law is broken"
Maybe your view is not as reductive, but only one thing will stop the harping: unlimited immigration. So long as a single person is denied legal entry/presence, we'll hear how this proves something is wrong with the system. Whenever the enforcement system performs as it was designed to do, they are indignant. Thus, obviously it is the limit itself, not some issue of functionality.
TPS beneficiaries are routinely deported for everything from criminal convictions to failing to timely renew their applications. I think "de facto green card" is also overstating it more than a little, as TPS really amounts to nothing more than work authorization with a promise not to deport the alien unless and until his country's conditions improve. (TPS has been terminated within the last decade or so for a number of countries, including Angola, Bosnia-Herzogovina, and Burundi.) Unlike permanent residency, TPS does not allow the alien to freely leave and re-enter the country... even TPS beneficiaries with advance parole allowing them to travel on specified dates are not immune from the 3/10-year bars to readmission if they have overstayed in the past.
That said:
This was a good decision, but I also feel it was the ONLY decision that could be made... TPS laws were written for this very circumstance! Designed almost exclusively to not send folks back to countries that are smack dab in the middle of significant civil unrest, a military coup or state violence against citizens.
However, to me this was like the decision to take out OBL: How impressed should one be when our leader takes the ONLY real choice available to them?