By Felicia J. Persaud

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Thurs. April 16, 2026: The U.S. Supreme Court is now hearing a case that could redefine one of the most fundamental truths about America: who gets to belong in what is being dubbed the birthright citizenship case. At stake is birthright citizenship – the constitutional guarantee that if you are born in the United States, you are American. But this is not just a legal debate. It is a test of whether history is repeating itself.

Last week, the Court heard arguments in a case challenging an executive order signed in 2025 that seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas. The order, already blocked by multiple lower courts, attempts to reinterpret the 14th Amendment – a move legal experts widely argue cannot be done by executive action alone.

Because birthright citizenship is not a policy. It is a constitutional guarantee.

Enshrined in the 14th Amendment in 1868, birthright citizenship was designed to settle a question the nation had once answered disastrously wrong: whether Black people born in the United States were citizens at all.

The amendment overturned the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which declared that Black people “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” It was a direct response to exclusion – a deliberate effort to ensure that citizenship could not be denied based on race, origin, or parentage.

But Black Americans were not the only people denied belonging. Native Americans – the first people of this land – were also excluded from citizenship for decades. It was not until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 that Indigenous people were formally recognized as U.S. citizens – long after the country had been built on their land.

In other words, birthright citizenship was never just about immigration. It was about equality – and who gets to decide who belongs. And yet, here we are again.

At the center of this case is not just a constitutional argument, but a human story. The lead plaintiff, identified only as “Barbara,” is a Honduran asylum seeker living in New Hampshire. She fled gang violence with her family and is now fighting to ensure that her unborn child – a baby who would be born on U.S. soil — is recognized as American.

Her case raises a profound question: if a child is born here but denied citizenship, what are they? The implications are far-reaching.

If the executive order were allowed to take effect, babies born in the United States to non-citizen parents – including those here legally on work visas or under temporary protections – could be denied citizenship at birth. These children would exist in legal limbo, creating what many legal experts warn would become a permanent, multi-generational subclass of people born in America but not recognized as belonging to it.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the plaintiffs, has made it clear: the Constitution does not allow the government to pick and choose which children born on U.S. soil are citizens.

That is not just a legal shift. That is a structural one.

For more than a century, the Supreme Court has affirmed birthright citizenship, including in the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that children born on U.S. soil are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

That precedent has held – through wars, waves of immigration, and political change. Until now.

Supporters of the executive order argue that the Constitution’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be interpreted more narrowly – excluding children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders.

But critics warn that such an interpretation is not only historically unsupported, but dangerous. Because once a government begins deciding which children qualify for citizenship and which do not, it opens the door to redefining belonging itself.

And that has never ended well.

From slavery to Reconstruction to the civil rights era – and even in the delayed recognition of Native Americans – the United States has repeatedly struggled with the question of who counts as fully American.

Each time, the answer has shaped the nation’s moral and legal foundation. This moment is no different.

Because once a nation starts deciding which children are worthy of citizenship, it is no longer debating immigration – it is redefining equality itself.

Felicia J. Persaud is the founder and publisher of  NewsAmericasNow.com, the only daily syndicated newswire and digital platform dedicated exclusively to Caribbean Diaspora and Black immigrant news across the Americas.

RELATED: 11 Immigrants Now Dead In ICE Custody In 2026 As Questions Mount Over Care and Release Practices

News Americas, FORT MYERS, FL, Tues. April 14, 2026: A violent killing in Fort Myers, Florida, involving a Haitian immigrant has intensified scrutiny of the Temporary Protected Status, (TPS) program as the issue heads toward a critical legal battle in the United States.

Authorities say Rolbert Joachin, 40, who entered the US via a smuggling operation, is accused of killing a Bangladeshi immigrant woman on april 3rd at a Chevron gas station on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The victim, identified as Nilufa Easmin, also known as Yasmin, was reportedly a mother of two teenage daughters.

Law enforcement officials confirmed that Joachin’s Temporary Protected Status has been revoked, clearing the way for his deportation to Haiti following the case. According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Joachin entered the United States in August 2022 via boat, and was later issued a final order of removal that same year. However, he was subsequently granted Temporary Protected Status in 2023, which expired in 2024.

Authorities say U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement assisted local police in locating Joachin earlier this month after a request from the Fort Myers Police Department. Investigators allege that Joachin targeted the victim and carried out the attack using a hammer. Surveillance footage reportedly captured the incident, which has drawn national attention.

Police say Joachin admitted to deliberately damaging the victim’s vehicle to lure her outside before attacking her. He was taken into custody after being read his rights in Creole and English, authorities said.

The case has quickly taken on national significance, as it intersects with the broader debate over immigration policy and protections for migrants. President Donald Trump has pointed to the incident as part of his call for stricter immigration enforcement, including ending TPS protections. The program is currently under review, with implications for an estimated 350,000 Haitians living in the United States.

Temporary Protected Status allows nationals from designated countries experiencing conflict or disaster to live and work in the U.S. temporarily. Critics argue it has evolved into a long-term protection mechanism, while supporters say it remains a critical humanitarian safeguard.

Immigration advocates warn that high-profile cases such as this risk shaping public perception and policy outcomes, particularly as legal challenges surrounding TPS move toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Executive Director Guerline Jozef of the Haitian Bridge Alliance stated: “Our hearts are with the family of the victim during this unimaginably painful time. We condemn this act of violence in the strongest possible terms. But we must also be clear: one individual’s actions do not define an entire people. The exploitation of this tragedy to demonize Haitian immigrants and dismantle humanitarian protections is both unjust and deeply harmful. Haitian TPS holders and immigrant families in the United States are workers, caregivers, students, and neighbors. They deserve dignity, protection, and policies grounded in truth – not fear.”

HBA called on elected officials and public leaders to exercise restraint, accuracy, and compassion in addressing matters of public safety and immigration. Amplifying graphic violence and linking it to entire populations fuels division, perpetuates racial bias, violence and distracts from meaningful solutions.

While Murad Awawdeh, President and CEO, New York Immigration Coalition added: “The tragic situation that happened in Florida should not be used to demonize entire communities or dismantle protections that thousands of families rely on to live safely and work legally under programs like Temporary Protected Status. The escalating rhetoric from the Trump administration fuels this harm by distorting individual incidents into justification for broad, punitive policy changes that scapegoats all immigrants and puts a target on their backs. Trump has repeatedly shown that he will seize on any case to dismantle legal pathways, strip protections, and expand a deportation machine that operates with little accountability or regard for due process. We must uphold and strengthen TPS as a critical lifeline grounded in humanitarian protection, ensure everyone has access to due process, and reject any effort to weaponize isolated cases to justify policies that put entire communities at risk.”

The outcome of the case – both legally and politically – could have far-reaching consequences for Haitian migrants and the broader Caribbean diaspora in the United States.

RELATED: Haiti TPS Update 2026: What Haitians In The U.S. Should Know

By Keith Bernard 

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Thurs. April 9, 2026: The fault lines between Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) have never been more starkly exposed than in the past several months. There is a major shift underway regarding Trinidad and Tobago’s relations with the United States, and it is dealing a blow to the regional grouping’s unity.  At the heart of this rupture lies a fundamental question: has the CARICOM Secretariat’s institutional posture – its policies, its diplomatic reflexes, and its strategic orientation – become a source of friction for a member state charting its own sovereign course? The evidence strongly suggests it has.

FLASHBACK – US President Donald Trump poses with Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar (L) at the beginning of the “Shield of the Americas” Summit at Trump National Doral in Miami, Florida, March 7, 2026. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP via Getty Images)

To understand the conflict, one must begin with the Secretariat’s foundational ideological commitments. The Secretariat, as the principal administrative organ of the Community with its mandate guided by the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, is responsible for the strategic management and direction of the organization.  Over decades, that direction has been shaped by principles of non-intervention, non-alignment, multilateralism, and what the bloc calls the “rule of law” in international affairs. These are not inherently bad principles. But they were crafted in a geopolitical era that looks increasingly different from the one we now inhabit. Under the Trump administration’s second term, with its transactional foreign policy and its aggressive posture on Venezuela and the Caribbean basin, the Secretariat’s traditional stances are colliding directly with the realpolitik that Trinidad and Tobago’s government has decided to embrace.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has made no effort to disguise her frustration. She has stated publicly that CARICOM “is not a reliable partner at this time,” and that any organization that chooses to disparage the United States – which she called Trinidad and Tobago’s “greatest ally” – while lending support to what she characterized as the Maduro narco-government, has “clearly lost its way.”  These are extraordinary words from the leader of CARICOM’s largest economy, and they did not emerge in a vacuum. They are a direct response to institutional conduct that Port of Spain perceives as out of step with Caribbean realities and geopolitical necessity.

The December 2025 episode over U.S. entry restrictions on Antiguan and Barbudan and Dominican nationals crystallized the problem. The CARICOM Bureau issued a statement expressing concern that the U.S. proclamation was taken without prior consultation and flagged the lack of clarity regarding the status of existing visas after 1 January 2026.  On the surface, this seems like a reasonable diplomatic intervention. But context matters enormously. Antigua and Barbuda’s ambassador to the U.S. had already indicated that Antiguans with valid visas would continue to enjoy uninterrupted access, and that new arrangements had been reached within three days of the proclamation – well ahead of the 180-day review timeline.  The Bureau’s statement was, in effect, a piece of institutional theatre that risked antagonizing Washington without achieving anything substantive. Trinidad and Tobago refused to associate itself with it.

Persad-Bissessar distanced Port of Spain from the Bureau’s statement, recognising what she called the “sovereign right of the United States to make decisions in furtherance of its best interests.”  That formulation is significant. It signals that Trinidad and Tobago is no longer willing to subordinate bilateral diplomatic imperatives to what the Secretariat decides is the appropriate collective Caribbean posture. This is not mere pique — it reflects a calculated assessment that the CARICOM Secretariat’s instinct to publicly push back against Washington serves the ideological preferences of certain member states far more than it serves Trinidad and Tobago’s national interest.

The Venezuela issue cuts even deeper. CARICOM’s majority position has been to treat the Caribbean as a “zone of peace,” resist U.S. military actions in regional waters, and maintain a studied neutrality – or sympathy – toward Caracas. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago was quick to express support for U.S. actions and refused to denounce the blockade of Cuba at the recent CELAC meeting, positions that cannot be regarded as representative of the CARICOM membership, which has advocated non-intervention and the peaceful resolution of conflict.  But from Trinidad and Tobago’s vantage point, the Secretariat’s approach on Venezuela ignores the lived reality that Port of Spain must manage — hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants, a porous border, drug trafficking pressures, and a direct security relationship with Washington that no amount of bloc solidarity can replace.

The Secretariat’s apparent “radio silence” on the question of U.S. military operations in regional waters has also raised concerns about whether internal diplomatic differences are being settled or merely suppressed — with the vacuum filled by a lopsided public posture that does not reflect the full complexity of member states’ interests.  For Trinidad and Tobago, which has opted for deeper engagement with Washington, that silence on substantive issues and loudness on symbolic ones represents the worst of both worlds.

The controversy over the reappointment of Secretary General Dr. Carla Barnett has added a combustible new dimension to this already strained relationship — and in many ways, it has become the most damning illustration of the Secretariat’s governance failures. Persad-Bissessar has described the process used to reappoint Barnett for a second five-year term as “surreptitious and odious,” warning that the Secretariat should “expect no quarter” from her government until the matter is transparently resolved.  This is not merely a procedural complaint. It speaks to a deeper pattern of institutional exclusion that Trinidad and Tobago now sees as emblematic of how the Secretariat operates when it wants to secure a particular outcome.

The facts, as Trinidad and Tobago has laid them out, are troubling. The proposed reappointment was not included on the provisional agenda for the 50th Regular Meeting in St. Kitts and Nevis, was not considered during plenary, and was reportedly addressed only during a Heads of Government retreat.  Most significantly, Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda, and The Bahamas were not allowed to participate when the majority decision was taken by the leaders present.  The decision was then announced via a news release, with no record appearing in the official summary of confirmed decisions. As of the time of writing, no response has been received to the formal letters of inquiry sent on March 31 to both the CARICOM Chairman and the Secretary General’s office.

Trinidad and Tobago maintains that the reappointment was not conducted in accordance with Article 24 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, which requires formal consideration by the Conference of Heads of Government.  Previous reappointments, such as in 2016, followed this protocol, with decisions properly recorded and reflecting the views of all member states. The departure from that precedent – particularly in a climate where Trinidad and Tobago has been vocal in its divergence from CARICOM’s political line – raises an uncomfortable question: was the Secretariat, and those who orchestrated the retreat decision, seeking to insulate Barnett’s tenure from a potential veto by the bloc’s largest financial contributor?

Trinidad and Tobago contributes between US$4 million and US$5 million annually to CARICOM, and Persad-Bissessar has threatened to reduce that financial contribution in response to what she sees as a breakdown in accountability.  She has stressed that as the country contributing approximately 22% of CARICOM’s budget, Trinidad and Tobago expects accountability and transparent adherence to agreed rules.  The threat of a funding reduction is not one the Secretariat can dismiss lightly. It would force a genuine reckoning with whether the organization can sustain itself if its largest single contributor withdraws confidence – and funding – from the institution.

Not for the first time in their post-independence history, CARICOM member states find themselves in a trajectory where national and regional interests are pulling in opposite directions.  The Secretariat’s Strategic Plan 2022–2030 envisions a community that is “integrated, inclusive and resilient,” but integration cannot be imposed through institutional pressure on member states whose geopolitical realities demand different alignments. Some voices have gone as far as suggesting that the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas should be amended to allow a member state whose foreign policy runs diametrically opposed to bloc interests to withdraw – or even be expelled.  That such ideas are being aired publicly speaks to how seriously the institutional compact has frayed.

What CARICOM’s Secretariat has not adequately grappled with is the possibility that rigid adherence to bloc consensus in an era of great-power competition may itself be a destabilizing force. Persad-Bissessar warned that beneath the thin mask of unity lie many widening fissures that, if left unaddressed, will lead to the organization’s implosion – driven by poor management, lax accountability, factional divisions, and what she called the inappropriate meddling in the domestic politics of member states.  Whether one agrees with Trinidad and Tobago’s U.S.-aligned posture or not, those structural criticisms now carry the added weight of a concrete governance failure: a Secretary General reappointed through a process that excluded key member states, violated the organization’s own rules of procedure, and has been met with institutional silence in the face of legitimate formal objections.

The CARICOM Secretariat must come to terms with an uncomfortable truth: in a region of small, vulnerable states navigating a turbulent global order, there is no single correct foreign policy answer. Demanding ideological conformity on matters as sensitive as Venezuela, Cuba, and U.S. relations – and then publicly rebuking member states that deviate – does not strengthen the bloc. Neither does circumventing the procedural safeguards that give every member state confidence in the legitimacy of collective decisions. If the Secretariat continues on this path, it risks losing not just Trinidad and Tobago’s political support, but the financial foundation on which the entire regional project depends.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Keith Bernard is a Guyanese-born, NYC-based analyst and a frequent contributor to News Americas.

RELATED: CARICOM’s Animal Farm? – Why The Caribbean Is United in Rhetoric, Divided In Reality

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Thurs. April 9, 2026: A celebration of life event has been scheduled for April 17th for murdered Haitian-American Coral Springs Vice Mayor, Nancy Metayer Bowen.

The celebration will begin at 12:30 p.m. at Church by the Glades in Coral Springs. Guests attending the service are asked to arrive by noon. A public viewing will follow, allowing attendees to pay their final respects.

“We are heartbroken and devastated by the loss of Vice Mayor Metayer,” said Coral Springs Mayor Scott Brook. “Nancy led with grace, conviction, and an unwavering belief in the power of community.”

City officials described her legacy as one rooted in compassion, service and a deep love for the people she served. They are encouraging residents to honor her memory by continuing her work – uplifting others, creating opportunities and fostering inclusive communities.

Metayer was found dead from a gunshot last Wednesday, April 1st, at her home in the 800 block of Northwest 127th Avenue while officers were conducting a welfare check.  Her husband, Stephen Bowen, has been charged with premeditated murder and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. 

He is being held without bond at the Broward County Jail. 

First elected in 2020 and re-elected in 2024, Metayer Bowen was serving her second term as vice mayor. She made history as the first Black and Haitian American woman elected to the Coral Springs City Commission.

An environmental scientist by training, she earned degrees from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University and Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health. Her work spanned environmental advocacy, disaster relief, and community development, including service on the Broward County Commission on the Status of Women and other advisory boards.

She focused on economic growth, public safety, and sustainability, while also serving as Vice Chair of Haitian Outreach for the Florida Democratic Party.

HONORING HER

Tributes have poured in across the community, with a growing memorial outside City Hall and a peace march held near the Coral Springs Museum of Art. The Florida Panthers also honored her during an April 2 game.

“Vice Mayor Metayer Bowen was a light in the Haitian community and a true champion for immigrants,” said Guerline Jozef, Executive Director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance. “Her advocacy was not performative – it was rooted in lived experience, empathy, and an unwavering belief in the dignity of all people. We have lost not only a partner in this work, but a dear friend. Her legacy will continue to inspire us to fight for justice, humanity, and the protection of immigrant communities everywhere.”

“She meant the best for the city,” said Commissioner Joseph McHugh, while Mayor Scott Brook noted the community is seeking solace through unity.

Her family described her as a leader who “led with integrity, compassion, and an unwavering sense of purpose,” adding that her legacy will live on in the lives she touched.

Her death comes months after the loss of her younger brother, deepening the tragedy for a grieving family now calling for privacy and prayers. For many, Metayer Bowen represented progress – proof that Caribbean roots and public leadership can intersect powerfully.

RELATED: Coral Springs Vice Mayor Nancy Metayer Bowen’s Voice Silenced In Florida Tragedy