DEPORT CUBANS, HAITIANS, NICARAGUANS, AND VENEZUELANS

BY SNN.BZ STAFF

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two significant rulings in May 2025 that allow the Trump administration to revoke temporary legal protections for certain immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, making them subject to deportation.

These rulings address two distinct immigration programs: Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and humanitarian parole under the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) program. Below, I’ll explain the rulings, their implications, and how they relate to public sentiment as reflected in polls.

Supreme Court Rulings and Their Scope

Ruling on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans (May 19, 2025):
- Background: TPS is a federal program established in 1990 that grants temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to individuals from countries facing war, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions. Venezuela was designated for TPS in 2021 by the Biden administration due to political and economic instability, with protections extended in 2023 to cover approximately 350,000 Venezuelans until October 2026.
- Supreme Court Decision: On May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s injunction (issued by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco) that had blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate TPS for these Venezuelans. The 8-1 ruling allows the administration to end TPS for this group while legal challenges continue in lower courts.
- Impact: The decision affects approximately 348,000 Venezuelans who were granted TPS in 2023. Without TPS, these individuals lose their legal status and work permits, making them vulnerable to deportation unless they secure alternative legal pathways, such as asylum. The ruling does not immediately revoke work permits set to expire in October 2026, and further litigation could potentially restore protections.
Ruling on Humanitarian Parole under the CHNV Program (May 30, 2025):
- Background: The CHNV program, initiated by the Biden administration in 2022 for Venezuelans and expanded in 2023 to include Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans, allowed approximately 532,000 migrants from these countries to enter the U.S. legally with financial sponsors.
  
  The program granted two-year parole periods, providing temporary protection from deportation and work authorization due to humanitarian crises in their home countries, such as political repression in Venezuela, gang violence in Haiti, and authoritarian regimes in Cuba and Nicaragua.
- Supreme Court Decision: On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a divided ruling, overturned a federal district court order (by Judge Indira Talwani in Boston) that had blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke this parole en masse. The decision allows the administration to end the CHNV program, stripping temporary legal status from approximately 110,300 Cubans, 211,000 Haitians, 93,100 Nicaraguans, and 117,330 Venezuelans.
- Impact: The ruling renders these individuals undocumented and subject to deportation, potentially through expedited removal processes. While the case continues in lower courts, the immediate loss of legal status disrupts lives, families, and communities, particularly in areas like Florida with large diasporas from these countries.

Implications of the Rulings

Scale of Impact: Combined, these rulings affect nearly 1 million immigrants (approximately 350,000 TPS holders and 532,000 CHNV parolees), described by some as “the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.” The loss of legal status means these individuals can no longer work legally and face potential deportation to countries with severe instability, such as Haiti, where gang violence controls much of the capital, or Venezuela, where political repression and economic collapse persist.
Legal and Humanitarian Concerns: Immigrant advocates argue that deporting these individuals to “despotic and unstable” countries poses serious risks of persecution, danger, or death. Legal challenges continue, with plaintiffs claiming the revocations violate federal laws governing agency actions and due process. For example, seven Venezuelan migrants and the National TPS Alliance sued the Trump administration in February 2025, citing racial discrimination and bias.
Regional Effects: States like Florida, with significant Cuban, Haitian, Venezuelan, and Nicaraguan communities, are expected to face economic and social disruptions. Businesses relying on TPS and CHNV workers, such as construction and hospitality, may struggle, and communities fear family separations.

Public Sentiment and Polls

Polls across the U.S. have consistently shown strong public support for stricter immigration policies, particularly regarding the removal of undocumented immigrants. While the immigrants affected by these rulings were legally present under TPS or CHNV parole, public discourse often conflates legal and undocumented immigration, especially in the context of mass deportation rhetoric.

Poll Data:
- A Rasmussen Reports poll from September 2024 found that 58% of likely voters supported mass deportation of illegal immigrants, with 41% strongly supporting it.
- A Gallup poll in June 2024 indicated that 56% of Americans wanted immigration levels decreased, the highest in two decades, reflecting frustration with border security and immigration processes.
- Posts on X echo this sentiment, with some users celebrating the Supreme Court rulings as aligning with public demand to “end illegal immigration” and restore “integrity” to the immigration system.
Context with Rulings: The individuals affected by these rulings were legally present under Biden-era programs, not “illegal aliens” as described in some public narratives. However, the Trump administration and its supporters, including some X users, frame these programs as loopholes that allowed “poorly vetted migrants” into the U.S., resonating with public concerns about immigration control. The rulings align with campaign promises to prioritize deportations, which appear to have broad appeal among segments of the population, particularly Republican voters.
Counterpoints: Not all public sentiment favors mass deportation. Some polls, like a Pew Research Center survey from 2024, show that 60% of Americans support pathways to legal status for immigrants who meet certain criteria, especially those fleeing violence or persecution. Additionally, figures like U.S. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) have urged against deporting these immigrants, citing their flight from “brutal regimes.”

Critical Analysis

Legal Context: The Supreme Court’s decisions are temporary, allowing the Trump administration to proceed while lower courts address the legality of revoking TPS and CHNV parole. The rulings do not definitively end these programs but shift the burden to immigrants to seek alternative legal protections, which are often complex and inaccessible.
Policy Motivations: The Trump administration’s actions reflect a broader agenda to dismantle Biden-era immigration policies, emphasizing rapid deportation to fulfill campaign promises. Critics argue this approach prioritizes political optics over humanitarian considerations, given the dire conditions in the affected countries.
Public Perception vs. Reality: While polls show support for deporting “illegal aliens,” the affected immigrants were legally admitted under humanitarian programs. The conflation of legal and undocumented status in public discourse, amplified by posts on X, oversimplifies a complex issue and fuels polarized reactions.

The Supreme Court’s rulings on May 19 and May 30, 2025, allow the Trump administration to revoke TPS (temporary protected status) for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans and humanitarian parole for 532,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, exposing them to potential deportation.

These decisions align with public sentiment, as reflected in polls showing majority support for reducing immigration and deporting undocumented individuals, though the affected migrants were legally present.

The rulings have sparked fear and uncertainty in immigrant communities, particularly in states like Florida, and legal challenges continue. While public support for strict immigration policies drives these actions, the humanitarian implications and economic contributions of these immigrants highlight the complexity of the issue.