{"id":16174,"date":"2018-01-10T08:51:00","date_gmt":"2018-01-10T13:51:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=16174"},"modified":"2018-12-28T11:36:04","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T16:36:04","slug":"temporary-actually-mean-not-permanent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2018\/01\/10\/temporary-actually-mean-not-permanent\/","title":{"rendered":"Temporary Actually Does Mean \u201cNot Permanent\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Los Angeles Times<\/em><\/a> recently published two op-ed pieces that advance the same tired arguments that Temporary Protected Status<\/a> (TPS) was never really <\/em>temporary.<\/p>\n

One writer asserts that \u201ctemporary\u201d is an imprecise term and the plight of Salvadoran TPS-holders provides, \u201can excellent opportunity to revise the laws that have created our current chaotic [immigration]mess.\u201d The other claims that, \u201cit is unfair to retroactively impose “temporariness” on people who have been permitted to remain in the U.S. with documentation for 17 years.\u201d<\/p>\n

First off, temporary is one of the least vague terms in the English language. Black\u2019s Law Dictionary<\/em> defines it succinctly as, \u201cThat which is to last for a limited time only, as distinguished from that which is perpetual, or indefinite, in its duration. The opposite of permanent.\u201d<\/p>\n

The problem with TPS arises not from any ambiguity in the authorizing statue. Any confusion is the direct result of successive presidents refusing to tell those who received temporary refuge<\/a> from the United States that it is time to go home. The fact is, most administrations believed that it would \u201clook bad\u201d to send TPS recipients back to their countries of origin.<\/p>\n

They were mistaken. What looks bad to the American public is putting the interests of foreigners before those of U.S. citizens. Middle America sees TPS<\/a> as another immigration bait-and-switch and it wants to see our government sprout some backbone when it comes to maintaining the integrity of our borders. Voters elected Donald Trump largely because he promised to enforce our immigration laws, as written<\/p>\n

Our \u201ccurrent chaotic immigration mess\u201d stems from the tendency to use immigration enforcement as tool for garnering political favor<\/a> \u2013 instead of recognizing it as an expression of the political will of the American people. The solution isn\u2019t a revision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Rather, the answer lies in using existing authorities to clean up the mess. While that may be obvious to most Americans, it apparently hadn\u2019t occurred to any politician prior to Donald Trump.<\/p>\n

Finally, claims that it is unfair to cancel TPS after so long are as silly as they are inaccurate. These assertions rest on the argument that as time passes, foreigners \u201cdevelop ties\u201d to the United States and those ties give them a legally protected claim to remain in the United States. That\u2019s bunk. If your neighbor borrows your new car and refuses to give it back because he has grown very attached to it, you don\u2019t simply let him keep it. You report him to the police and call him what he is, a thief. The American public understands this<\/a> intuitively, even though politicians don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

If elected leaders won\u2019t start listening to their voting constituents on immigration issues, they\u2019re going to get a lesson on just how temporary political careers can be. And the electorate will send them back to their home states without any regard for the ties they may have developed to Washington, D.C.