The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Biden Grants Temporary Protected Status to Ukrainians in the US
It's a step in the right direction. But more can be done to protect Ukrainians fleeing Putin's brutal war.
Yesterday, the Biden administration granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Ukrainians in the United States. This measure allows Ukrainians who have been in the US since at least March 1 to avoid deportation, and allows them to apply for legal employment. The rationale for the extension of TPS status is, of course, Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine and the resulting threat to civilians caused by Russia's indiscriminate bombing, shelling, and disruption of supply lines.
This measure is a good start, but more needs to be done to protect Ukrainians fleeing Vladimir Putin's indefensible aggression. The TPS status granted by Biden lasts for only 18 months (though it could potentially be renewed at that time).
Moreover, courts have ruled that the president has near-absolute discretion to revoke it at any time. TPS status could potentially be revoked whenever Biden (or a successor) finds it politically convenient to do so - as Donald Trump did with respect to TPS holders from several countries, despite continuing violence and danger there. Such uncertainty makes it difficult for Ukrainians and others covered by the status to start new lives, or to make contributions to our economy at a time when we have serious labor shortages.
In addition, the TPS grant only applies to Ukrainians who arrived on or before March 1. It therefore does not help those who came more recently or will arrive in the future, as the war continues.
If the war in Ukraine continues for a long time, Russia ends up occupying large additional swathes of the country, or some combination of both, Ukrainian TPS holders may not be able to safely return home for a long time, if ever. Thus, Congress would do well to make Ukrainian TPS status indefinite, and abolish - or at least curtail - the president's power to revoke it. It should also extend TPS to Ukrainians entering the US after March 1. By taking these steps, the federal government can simultaneously help Ukrainian refugees and make it easier for them to contribute to US economic growth - a win-win scenario all around.
It's fair to ask why Ukrainian TPS holders should be treated any better than people fleeing similar violence and oppression elsewhere - including those Russians who have no more desire to live under Putin's repressive rule than Ukrainians do. The answer, I think, is that all victims of oppression should be treated equally. I have long argued for eliminating migration restrictions based on morally arbitrary factors like race, ethnicity, parentage and place of birth. In a future post, I will have more to say about the specific issue of Russian migrants.
But the way to achieve fairness here is by treating other migrants better, not by barring Ukrainians. Fix the problem by "leveling up," not "leveling down." In the meantime, we should not allow the best to become the enemy of the good. Even if it isn't politically feasible to have a fully equitable TPS policy, Congress and the White House should do what they can to help Ukrainians.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Wonder how much fun they had in the White House asking if you got the memo about the TPS report....
When Russians come stores in their areas in the US go out of business from the shoplifting. In Russia, you attend a party, you take your wiper blades upstairs. If not, they will be gone when you leave the party. Heck, no. All Russians to Somin's street.
"If not, they will be gone when you leave the party. Heck, no. All Russians to Somin's street."
Thanks for the morning chuckle.
I think you missed the movie reference here....
Supreme Court rules the order null and void because the cover sheet wasn't attached.
The announcement came from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), but they haven't updated their website yet.
Additionally, I'm guessing any Ukrainians arriving after 3/1 would be designated as refugees so the TPS wouldn't apply anyway.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status
...haven't updated their website to show when/where/how Ukrainians can apply for the TPS.
Ugg... TPS. What a horrible program.
Let's be clear. I don't have any problem with Ukraine's citizens being here in the short term. But TPS has been horribly abused by past administrations and continues to be abused. It should not be the program used to help Ukrainians, because of this abuse.
To use one major example, TPS status was granted to El Salvadorians following the 2001 earthquake. And that status was renewed. And renewed again. And again. For the last 20+ years. 20 years AFTER the earthquake. And it continues to be renewed.
Trump wisely tried to end it. The earthquake was over. And had been for more than a decade. The "temporary" emergency was over. But then litigation stopped it from being revoked. So it continues to provide a large population of cheap workers who can't get citizenship via the normal channels, and rely on their "advocates" to keep them here.
TPS status should be exactly that. Temporary. Not indefinite. In practice, it's indefinite. The program needs to be abolished.
That is fair, TPS is clearly not intended to be a permanent immigration program. That said, I'd let in any number of Ukrainians who wanted to come...
As apedad points out above, Ukrainians have a strong argument for admission as refugees / asylees under our normal immigration law (which implements a pair of international treaties on the topic).
I'd be 'discerning' about what Ukrainians get in under TPS.
I’m open to letting the ones who are already here legally remain (unless they do something where they should be deported) but not in bringing in thousands more. Refugees are supposed to be granted sanctuary in the first safe country they come to which in many cases is Poland or some place considerably closer than the United States. This was the same problem we saw with the Syrians a few years ago where the arrived at a safe place . . . and then kept traveling for greener pastures. The goal is to get them out of immediate danger with an eye towards their eventual return home in their country of origin. I think our focus (in terms of refugees) should be in providing aid to those countries where Ukranian refugees have already fled so that they can be properly cared for until they can return home. Not in bringing more here.
"Such uncertainty makes it difficult for Ukrainians and others covered by the status to start new lives, or to make contributions to our economy at a time when we have serious labor shortages."
Isn't that a feature, not a bug? TPS is meant to be temporary, to deal with a short-term problem. It's not meant for people to start new lives here, it's meant for people to be allowed to legally stay for a little longer while it's too dangerous to return to their home country.
It's never temporary. The Haitians and Salvadorians are still here, as any attempt to remove them at the end is decried as "cruel."
The problem with Somin's case here is that Somin has never met a refugee who didn't meet his criteria to establish need for protection.
If every single citizen of El Salvador showed up at the border, Somin would tell us that we needed to accept them indefinitely. Or every Mexican. Or each and every African human being.
How else would he keep the cost of having his grass cut or his shingles replaced? Somin is of the class that benefits most from continual slave wages for the underclass.
You (and anybody within the US - not just citizens), currently can freely move between intrastate borders, e.g. Montana to/from Idaho.
All's Prof. Somin is saying is why can't we make it the same principle for international borders.
Except for some classes of criminal or former criminal.
Welfare. In a word.
If the whole world accepts our Constitution and the government we elect, we could consider that. Other people would still have to become US citizens before they could vote in federal elections, of course.
Jesus Christ had a similar problem.
Are you opposed to letting in more Christians or something?
There's nothing wrong with a nation favoring its own. America is or was successful because it's a white nation, based on Judeo-Christian values. Favoring white Christian refugees over Syrian Arabs or Somali Muslims is not wrong; it's profoundly moral.
I mean, Nisiiko is an open Nazi, but you've got to love the people who talk about "Christian values" as an argument for discrimination.