{"id":24377,"date":"2021-04-08T13:26:19","date_gmt":"2021-04-08T17:26:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=24377"},"modified":"2021-04-08T13:26:21","modified_gmt":"2021-04-08T17:26:21","slug":"media-misunderstands-tps-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2021\/04\/08\/media-misunderstands-tps-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"The New York Times Misrepresents the Purpose of TPS"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The April 7 issue of the <ins><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/04\/07\/magazine\/immigration-el-salvador.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">New York Times<\/a><\/ins> <del>(<\/del>airs a long, slanted discussion of the current effort to provide legal status to person granted protection against deportation under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) provision of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The poster child for the article is a Salvadoran woman who came\ninto the United States illegally when she was 12 years old. She now has a\nU.S.-born teen-aged daughter and a tween son. She has been legally able to work\nhere for 20 years because of the many-times renewed TPS designation for El\nSalvador. But her status is now in doubt because the Trump administration ruled\nthat the conditions in El Salvador \u2013 three major earthquakes \u2013 that resulted in\nthe TPS designation no longer justified withholding deportation of those who no\nlonger had any legal basis for remaining here. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The left\u2019s immigration advocacy groups are now pushing for\nsweeping&nbsp;amnesty legislation that would include giving permanent legal\nstatus to former TPS beneficiaries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>What the Times piece does not make clear is that when TPS no longer\napplies, because conditions have changed in the home country and the\ndesignation is terminated, the beneficiaries revert to their pre-TPS status\ni.e., most often illegal alien status. So the argument that they were working\nlegally and paying taxes while temporarily protected against deportation or\nthat they have married or have U.S.-born children is an appeal to emotion. It\nimplies that because they were allowed to stay and put down ties that there is\nan&nbsp;obligation to accept them as if they were legal immigrants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It ignores that if legal status is given to them by an amnesty any\nfuture conferral of TPS will be seen as a back door means to benefit from\nviolating the nation\u2019s immigration law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The April 7 issue of the New York Times (airs a long, slanted discussion of the current effort to provide legal status to person granted protection against deportation under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) provision of law. The poster child for the article is a Salvadoran woman who came into the United States illegally when<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2021\/04\/08\/media-misunderstands-tps-immigrationreform-com\/\" title=\"Read More\">Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":11834,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[5079],"tags":[1497,1524,1144,762],"yst_prominent_words":[2015,4490,6486,2505,11009,3706,1963,2030,2142,8823,4420,3007,6130,2981,3000,11005,8277],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24377"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24377"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24377\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24378,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24377\/revisions\/24378"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11834"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24377"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=24377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}