Posts

3.3 Million Cases Later – What Justice Looks Like in America’s Immigration Courts

By Felicia J. Persaud

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Sun. 19, 2026: America’s immigration system is often described as “broken.” But that word does not quite capture what is happening inside U.S. immigration courts right now. Because what we are witnessing is not just dysfunction. It is delay – on a scale so large that it is quietly reshaping what justice even means.

According to new data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), there are now more than 3.3 million cases pending in U.S. immigration courts as of February 2026.

Let that number sit for a moment.

More than three million people – families, workers, asylum seekers – are waiting for a decision that will determine whether they can stay in the United States or be forced to leave. And many of them will wait not months, but years. In fact, more than 2.3 million of those cases involve asylum seekers, people who have come to the United States seeking protection from violence, persecution, or instability in their home countries.

Yet, the narrative around immigration continues to focus on crime. But the data tells a very different story. Only 1.64% of new immigration court cases involve any alleged criminal activity, beyond possible illegal entry.

That means the overwhelming majority of people caught in this system are not criminals. They are waiting. Waiting for a hearing. Waiting for a decision. Waiting for a future that remains indefinitely on hold. And that waiting comes at a cost.

It means children growing up in uncertainty. Parents unable to plan their lives. Workers unsure if they will be allowed to remain in the country they are helping to sustain.

This is not just a legal backlog. It is a human one. Because justice delayed, as we have long been told, is justice denied.

But in immigration courts, delay has become the system itself. As TRAC noted: “The latest case-by-case Immigration Court records show that at the end of February 2026, the Immigration Court backlog stands at 3,318,099 active cases, a decrease from the 3,377,998 cases pending at the end of December 2025. The court has closed 333,957 cases so far in fiscal year 2026 as of February 2026, while receiving 201,878 new cases during the same period. This represents a case completion rate of approximately 1.65 times the rate of new case intake.”

And the consequences are not evenly felt.

Black and brown immigrants – including those from the Caribbean and across the African diaspora – are disproportionately caught in this limbo, navigating a process that is often complex, under-resourced, and increasingly politicized.

At the same time, enforcement continues. New cases are filed. Detentions increase. Deportation efforts expand. But the system tasked with deciding these cases cannot keep up.

The result is a growing gap between enforcement and resolution – a space where people exist not as citizens or non-citizens, but as something in between.

Waiting. Uncertain. Unresolved. And that raises a deeper question. What does justice look like when it takes years to arrive?

Because immigration policy is often framed around who should be allowed to stay and who should be removed. But far less attention is paid to what happens in between.

What happens when millions of people are left in legal limbo, neither accepted nor rejected?

What happens when a system meant to deliver decisions becomes a system defined by delay?

The answer is already unfolding. A generation of immigrants living in uncertainty. A court system under strain. And a definition of justice that is slowly being stretched beyond recognition.

Because when more than three million cases are waiting to be heard, the issue is no longer just immigration.

It is whether the system designed to deliver justice can still do so at all.

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: Caribbean Immigrants Helped Build America Too

Haitian-American Coral Springs Vice Mayor Legacy Resonates Beyond Tragedy

News Americas, CORAL SPRINGS, FL, Fri. April 17, 2026: The life and legacy of Haitian-American Coral Springs Vice Mayor, Nancy Metayer Bowen, took center stage Friday as family, friends and community members gathered, many wearing green, to honor the rising political figure whose impact extended far beyond her years.

Metayer Bowen, 38, the first Black and Haitian-American woman elected commissioner in the city’s history, was remembered not for the tragic circumstances of her death, but for the energy, compassion and leadership she brought to her community.

Hundreds gathered at Church by the Glades for a public viewing and celebration of life, reflecting on a leader many described as “the heart of the commission” and a force who made people feel seen, heard and included.

“This was not supposed to be the moment where we gather to say goodbye,” said City Commissioner Joshua Simmons, a close friend. “We were supposed to be celebrating everything she had accomplished and everything that was still ahead.”

Born to Haitian parents, Metayer Bowen’s journey reflected both academic excellence and public service. A graduate of Florida A&M University, she later earned a master’s degree from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and built a career that included work with the Clinton Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

At the time of her death, she was preparing to announce a run for Congress – a move that underscored her growing influence and ambition to serve on a larger stage.

Those closest to her described a woman deeply committed to environmental sustainability, public health, women’s rights, and expanding access to housing – causes that defined both her policy work and her personal mission.

Family members painted a picture of someone equally devoted in private life – a sister, daughter and aunt who maintained close daily connections and found joy in supporting those around her.

Her sister Jennifer Metayer-Smith called her love incarnate. She said Metayer was her role model and “built-in best friend.” Metayer drove her to the hospital to give birth to her daughter, “only for my mom to be feeding her ice chips because she was feeling light-headed,” she said. The sisters talked over the phone daily, and Metayer loved spending time with her nieces, who she jokingly called her children.

“Looking at our girls, I see a little bit of us in them,” Jennifer said. “And it makes me smile.”

Through tears, Jennifer said goodbye to her sister. “Please tell Donny how much we miss him. Sleep well, beautiful.”

Many in church were overcome with emotion throughout the service. They raised up their hands, seeking comfort from God. As a singer performed “Pi Devan Na We” in Haitian Creole, Metayer’s mother lifted her arms to the sky.

Metayer Bowen’s death has also reignited conversations around domestic violence, with lawmakers and community leaders calling for stronger protections and earlier intervention measures. Her husband has been charged in connection with her death, which authorities say occurred earlier on April 1st at the couple’s home in Coral Springs. The Jamaican Stephen Bowen remains in lock-up.

As tributes poured in, many pointed to her role as a symbol of representation and progress within the Haitian-American and broader Caribbean diaspora. For a community that watched her rise, her loss is being felt deeply – but so too is the impact of her work, her voice, and her vision for a more inclusive future.

In the words of one speaker, her life – though cut short – was both “brief and brilliant.”

Lawmakers are now pushing for more protections, including tools that could silently alert police.  “What we see is the escalation happens between rounds of these different incidents of abuse, so the quicker we can get law enforcement to the scene to understand what the issue is, the more seriously we can deal with the perpetrator and the abuser,” State Sen. Alexis Calatayud said.

“She was the best of us,” said an attendee at the memorial. “Kind, brilliant, graceful, dignified, and that beautiful smile – this is our Nancy.”

Metayer is survived by her parents Misselin and Marly Maxime Metayer, her grandmother Marie-Theresa Maxime, her brother Francelin Metayer, her sister Jennifer Metayer-Smith and her nieces and nephew. This is the second tragedy her family has experienced in a matter of months. Her younger brother Donovan died by suicide in December.

View The Full Service HERE

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Haitian TPS Debate Intensifies After Violent Florida Killing

COMMENTARY: When Loyalty Becomes A Leadership Risk In Small States

By Dr. Isaac Newton

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Thurs. April 16, 2026: The minister finishes speaking. The outcome is already clear. People notice, but their reactions fade into silence. Empty praise follows, smooth and practiced, covering what remains unspoken. No one objects. No one corrects. Certainty is performed rather than examined. In small states, leadership is revealed not in open failure, but in the quiet habits that hide it.

In closely connected societies, distance does not exist. Professional, family, and social ties overlap. Every word carries consequence. Speaking honestly can affect future opportunities, so truth competes with caution. What is said depends as much on timing and tone as on facts. Silence becomes a powerful presence. Insight often lives in what is implied rather than stated.

Over time, leaders come to represent more than their role. They embody stability, identity, and shared history. Questioning them can feel like challenging the community itself. Evidence may remain visible, but its influence weakens. Loyalty protects relationships, sometimes at the cost of judgment. Leaders become symbols, not just decision makers.

Where Truth Retreats and Distortion Grows

Truth does not disappear, but it moves. In private spaces, it is direct and unfiltered. Decisions are questioned, mistakes are named, and alternatives are explored. In public, language becomes careful and controlled. By the time information reaches leadership, it has been softened. What remains feels complete but lacks depth. Approval increases while understanding narrows.

This pattern is not unique to small states, but it intensifies within them. Pressure builds quietly as honest insight is reduced before it is shared. Over time, reality asserts itself. When it does, it arrives with force.

In tightly connected systems, the effects of error move quickly. Decisions shape economic outcomes, public confidence, and institutional strength with little delay. Small distortions grow fast. There is little distance between action and consequence.

The Discipline of Truth in Leadership

Leaders who want clarity must create it. When they respond well to difficult truths, they signal that honesty matters. People adjust. Fear begins to loosen. Clear standards help separate personal loyalty from performance. Broader input brings sharper perspective, especially from those who are not dependent on approval. Discipline keeps perception aligned with reality.

A simple test reveals much. Ask three people who do not rely on you, “What am I getting wrong?” Listen fully. If answers are cautious or identical, truth is still restricted. If the response is uncomfortable, it is likely closer to reality.

Loyalty can become a form of currency. It can grant access and influence. When it outweighs competence, performance declines quietly. Agreement remains visible, but systems weaken. When accuracy is valued instead, standards recover and trust strengthens.

Leadership is defined by the environment it creates. In strong systems, people speak openly. Information moves without distortion. Decisions reflect the full picture. In these spaces, what is heard carries meaning, not performance.

Every system eventually meets reality. Some encounter it early and adjust. Others delay until correction becomes unavoidable. The defining question for any leader is simple:

Did the truth reach you in time to change what mattered or are you satisfied with chasing pretty butterflies over deadly waterfalls?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Isaac Newton is a leadership strategist, educator, and institutional advisor focused on governance, institutional transformation, and ethical leadership. With training from Princeton, Harvard, and Columbia, his work integrates leadership research, psychology, public policy, and faith-informed ethics. As coauthor of Steps to Good Governance, he has designed and delivered seminars for corporate boards, educators, public officials, and community leaders across the Caribbean and internationally. His work equips leaders to navigate complexity with clarity, act with courage, and build systems that endure.

RELATED: Church And Politics In The Caribbean And Africa: Prophetic Voice, Public Trust, And The Moral Future Of Nations

U.S.-Vatican Relations Strained By Conflicts In Cuba, Iran And Latin America

By John P. Ruehl

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Fri. April 17, 2026: Cuba’s deepening crisis has once again pulled the Vatican into a familiar role. In March, it was revealed that Cuban officials ​turned to the Holy See to help persuade U.S. President Donald Trump to ​ease its oil embargo, underscoring the Church’s position as one of the few actors capable of mediating between Washington and Havana. Since Cuba relaxed religious restrictions in the 1990s, the Vatican has reemerged as a major institutional force on the island, helping to facilitate the normalization of U.S.–Cuba relations in 2015.

Yet tensions with the Trump administration are complicating the role the Church has traditionally played in diplomatic mediation. In late 2025, the Vatican sought to mediate in Venezuela by offering asylum to former President Nicolás Maduro in Russia to avert military escalation, which ultimately failed. Days after the January 2026 raid by the U.S. to capture Maduro, Pope Leo XIV warned against further conflict in his “state of the world” address, after which Cardinal Christophe Pierre, the Vatican’s U.S. representative, was summoned to a tense, closed-door meeting at the Pentagon, where U.S. officials later denied issuing veiled threats.

The divide has further widened over Iran. As an early critic of war, the pope called on the U.S. on March 31 to halt its campaign, naming Trump for the first time publicly. Shortly after, the pope condemned Trump’s rhetoric about destroying Iran as “completely unacceptable.” Amid the fallout, the pope’s planned 2026 visit to the U.S. has been postponed indefinitely.

On April 13, matters further escalated after Pope Leo XIV said that he had “no fear of the Trump administration,” responding to Trump’s criticism of him on social media as being “weak on crime,” according to the New York Times.

These tensions follow decades of outwardly stable relations between Washington and the Holy See. Catholics make up roughly 20 percent of American adults and remain well represented at the highest levels of government, including former President Joe Biden, Vice President J.D. Vance, and six of the nine Supreme Court justices. The current pope, notably, is the first American to lead the Church.

Underneath this overlap lies a more complicated history. Early American suspicion of centralized religious authority, tied to predominantly Protestant culture, has evolved into recurring domestic and foreign political disagreements with the Vatican. While the two sides share some common ground, competing spheres of influence are becoming more pronounced under Trump.

Given that the U.S. was founded in part on a rejection of entrenched religious hierarchy, early friction with the Vatican was almost inevitable. At the time, however, the Papal States were already in decline against the growing power of neighboring monarchies in Europe, and American leaders paid little attention to the Holy See as either a strategic concern or domestic threat. Catholics made up only a small minority of relatively elite communities until about 1845, within a larger society dominated by a Protestant political and cultural order.

This changed with waves of Irish and later Italian immigration in the 19th century, with the number of Catholics growing from five percent of the population in 1850 to 17 percent by the end of the century. The Catholic Church built extensive networks of social services, education, and jobs, and became a major social and political force.

This led to backlash, including nativist movements that warned of immigrants’ allegiance to the pope and conspiracy theories of Vatican involvement in Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. Tensions also emerged beyond U.S. borders, with Washington using the Monroe Doctrine to justify backing liberal movements across Latin America, which often stripped the Catholic Church of land, legal privileges, and political authority, while simultaneously encouraging Protestant missionary expansion.

Although the decline of the Portuguese and Spanish empires left the church without much of its formal authority in Latin America, the end of royal patronage resulted in the Catholic Church becoming a more centralized and globally coordinated institution. Greater control over episcopal appointments and governance helped the Vatican “[consolidate] its grip on the new regional structures, linking them to the reconstruction of its global project,” with a form of Catholic continentalism becoming a post-imperial alternative to cementing its power in the Americas, according to a 2019 study published in the publication Territory, Politics, Governance. Instead of collapsing with the empires that brought it there, the Church evolved beyond them, sometimes placing itself in competition with Washington.

Geopolitical rivalries continued into the Cold War, particularly with the rise of liberation theology in 1960s Latin America. Its focus on social justice and perceived overlap with Marxism alarmed American policymakers, who worked with governments in Bolivia, El Salvador, and elsewhere to counter left-leaning elements within the Church, at times through violent suppression. “Liberation theology was perceived as a threat to U.S. dominance in the region by leaders in the CIA and even the White House. … For the U.S. government, by siding with the interests of the poor and oppressed, the proponents of liberation theology stood against the interests of the empire. And that was deemed unacceptable,” stated a blog by theologian Stephen D. Morrison.

Domestically, the election of John F. Kennedy signaled growing Catholic acceptance in the U.S., but he was still compelled to constantly reassure voters that his loyalty lay with Washington over the Vatican.

But the 20th century also proved that cooperation could emerge when interests aligned. The U.S. quietly supported Catholic actors during the Mexican Revolution in the early century and later found common ground in opposing communism. The diplomatic relations that were severed in 1867 were reestablished by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II in 1984 and developed into what came to be known as the “holy alliance” to counter Soviet influence.

Contemporary Clashes

Modern U.S. disagreements with the Vatican are not unique to Trump. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a rare special message in 2013 opposing the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate, and has long aligned with conservative groups on issues like abortion. This cross-partisan engagement, combined with the Church’s institutional reach and lobbying capacity, has made policymakers on both sides wary of its influence, with “[v]ery few religions having the type of lobby machine that the United States Conference of Bishops have,” according to Jon O’Brien, former president of Catholics for Choice.

Despite occasional tensions, relations between the Church and Trump were largely free of sustained disputes until his first term, which saw disagreements over immigration, foreign policy, and climate issues. Catholic networks developed sophisticated humanitarian and legal support systems for migrants moving north from Latin America, often parallel to, and at times conflicting with, U.S. policy that expanded border controls into Mexico and restricted access to asylum.

These divisions have escalated into Trump’s second term. Pope Leo XIV has been openly critical of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, aligning with the USCCB, which chose not to renew cooperative agreements with the federal government amid funding cuts for refugees. The body later issued another special message in 2025, expressing concern over enforcement practices and detention conditions.

Latin America remains the most obvious area of friction between the U.S. and the Vatican. As Trump attempts to consolidate U.S. dominance in the hemisphere, it competes with the Vatican’s longstanding presence. Nearly half of the world’s Catholics live in the Americas, and through institutions such as the Latin American and Caribbean Episcopal Council (CELAM) and strong local infrastructures, the Vatican continues to shape politics and society.

At the same time, the Catholic Church faces a growing internal challenge through the rapid rise of Latin American evangelical movements. The U.S. supported these modern movements in the 1970s and 1980s “as a pretext for anti-communist policies,” which continue to have enormous effects today. Evangelicals now make up more than a quarter of Brazil’s population, up from 5 percent in 1970. In fact, such congregations have expanded across Latin America. Evangelicals enjoy growing political power, with many maintaining links to U.S. evangelical networks that complement Washington’s larger regional footprint.

Africa has also seen increasing competition between the U.S. and the Vatican, despite historical cooperation. The continent is home to roughly 20 percent of the world’s Catholics, and that share is growing rapidly. While the Church’s presence in Africa has not become as deeply entrenched as seen in Latin America, it has nonetheless been established in many African countries for more than a century and often commands greater trust than Western NGOs. Many international aid operations rely on Church-linked infrastructure for logistics and community access, with the Church in turn relying on Western funding.

The Church’s political role is particularly visible in countries where state institutions are weakest. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Catholic organizations such as the National Episcopal Conference of Congo deployed thousands of election observers during the 2018 presidential vote and openly challenged official results. While Washington initially expressed similar concerns, it changed its position within weeks and recognized the outcome, prompting criticism from Church leaders and marking a larger pattern of divergence in parts of Africa.

The scope of Catholic activity frequently brings it into conflict with various U.S. policies. In Uganda, for example, the passage of controversial anti-LGBTQ legislation in 2023, with tacit support from the Catholic Church, drew sharp criticism from the Biden administration, while receiving backing from U.S. evangelical networks. Conversely, the Church’s involvement in migration and humanitarian initiatives in Africa has exacerbated tensions with conservative U.S. policymakers.

Bipartisan unease is also evident in U.S. policy toward China. Lawmakers from both parties have concerns that the Holy See has been overly accommodating to Beijing, particularly following the 2018 agreement allowing the Chinese government a role in selecting bishops in the country. Democratic leaders like Representative Nancy Pelosi, Trump officials, and members of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent, bipartisan federal commission, have all voiced their concern over the agreement in recent years.

Despite the disagreements, the U.S. and the Vatican remain more aligned than opposed in many of the world’s regions, even in those most contested between them. In Venezuela, both former presidents, Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, framed the U.S. and Catholic Church as quasi-colonial actors. Meanwhile, Nicaragua’s government shared a similar sentiment, expelling the Vatican ambassador in 2022 amid a wider crackdown on Church activities. A shared set of adversaries, at least in theory, forms a basis for cooperation, as seen during the Cold War.

That could be beneficial in fragile states. Venezuela’s eroded institutions could be improved by U.S. resources and Catholic networks to help rebuild elements of civil society. Competition would be unavoidable, but it could take a more constructive form rather than outright confrontation.

Instead, the relationship is drifting in the opposite direction. Cuts to U.S. foreign aid and a more unilateral, security-driven approach have reduced Washington’s reliance on Church networks it once worked alongside. The Vatican remains embedded at the local level and structurally positioned to fill the vacuum left by the hollowing out of USAID. With each side increasingly defining itself against the other, the pope’s decision to indefinitely postpone his 2026 visit to the U.S. suggests relations will get worse before they can get better.

EDITOR’S NOTE: John P. Ruehl is an Australian-American journalist living in Washington, D.C., and a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute. He is a contributor to several foreign affairs publications, and his book, Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas’, was published in December 2022. Follow him on X @john_ruehl.

Source: Independent Media Institute

Credit Line: This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

RELATED: Who Gets To Belong? Birthright Citizenship Case Could Redefine Who Belongs In America

Haitian TPS – US House Advances TPS Protection Bill For Haitians

BY NAN STAFF WRITER

News Americas, WASHINGTON, D.C., Thurs. April 16, 2026: A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers has taken a major step toward protecting Haitian nationals from deportation, advancing legislation that could extend Temporary Protected Status, (TPS), to an estimated 350,000 Haitians living in the United States.

The measure, H.R. 1689, was brought to the House floor through a rare discharge petition signed by members of both political parties, forcing a vote on the bill despite initial leadership resistance. The bill would designate TPS for Haitian nationals, allowing them to remain in the United States amid ongoing instability and dangerous conditions in Haiti.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association, (AILA), welcomed the move, calling it a significant example of bipartisan cooperation on immigration. “This bipartisan action reflects the very best of what Congress can do, which is to put aside politics and come together to protect vulnerable people from being sent back to life-threatening conditions,” said Ben Johnson, executive director of AILA.

Johnson emphasized that Haiti continues to face severe challenges, and returning nationals under current conditions would be both dangerous and inconsistent with U.S. humanitarian values. He also noted the critical role Haitian TPS holders play in the U.S. economy, particularly in essential sectors such as healthcare, construction, hospitality, and food processing.

If the legislation passes the Senate, TPS protections for Haitians could be extended through 2029, offering stability to thousands of families.

Several Republican lawmakers were among those supporting the discharge petition, including Don Bacon, Brian Fitzpatrick, Carlos Gimenez, Mike Lawler, Nicole Malliotakis and Maria Elvira Salazar, among others.

AILA also highlighted advocacy efforts behind the push, noting that hundreds of its members traveled to Washington, D.C. this week as part of its National Day of Action to urge lawmakers to maintain protections for Haitian nationals. The organization said it will continue to push for immigration policies that reflect compassion, fairness, and the realities facing vulnerable populations.

The vote marks a rare moment of bipartisan alignment on immigration and could signal broader momentum for similar measures in Congress.

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

COMMENTARY: The High Cost of Outsourcing Deportations To Africa

By Felicia J. Persaud

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Weds. April 15, 2026: At a time when Americans are facing cuts to healthcare and rising costs for food, gas, and basic goods, a recent U.S. Senate report reveals something deeply contradictory: millions of taxpayer dollars are being paid for deportations to Africa and other foreign nations, forcing them to take in immigrant deportees who are not their own.

According to a report released recently by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Chris Coons, Chris Murphy, Tim Kaine, Jeff Merkley, Cory Booker, Chris Van Hollen, Tammy Duckworth, and Jacky Rosen, the Trump administration has spent more than $32 million on so-called “third country deportation” deals – sending migrants to countries they have no connection to.

Among the recipients are Rwanda, Equatorial Guinea, and Eswatini – African nations now central to a controversial system raising serious economic, ethical, and geopolitical concerns.

The numbers are staggering.

In one of the most extreme cases, the administration paid Rwanda $7.5 million, plus an estimated $601,864 in flight costs, to accept just seven people – roughly $1.1 million per deportee.

Equatorial Guinea received $7.5 million to take 29 individuals, at an estimated $282,126 per person.

Eswatini was paid $5.1 million to accept 15 people.

This is not just immigration policy. This is outsourcing deportation at premium prices. And it is happening with countries that raise serious governance concerns.

Equatorial Guinea ranks 172 out of 182 countries on the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index, placing it among the most corrupt nations globally.

Eswatini ranks 153rd out of 182 countries, with a score of just 23 out of 100, reflecting rising public sector corruption.

Rwanda, by contrast, ranks 41st least corrupt globally, with a score of 58 out of 100, making it one of the stronger performers in sub-Saharan Africa.

Yet, according to the Senate report, there is little to no oversight on how U.S. taxpayer funds are used once transferred. Even more troubling is how inefficient – and at times absurd – this system has become.

In some cases, the United States is paying twice to deport the same individual. One example cited in the report involved a Jamaican national who was deported to Eswatini at a cost of more than $181,000, only to be flown back to Jamaica weeks later – again at U.S. expense.

The Jamaican government made it clear: “The Government has not refused the return of any of our nationals.”

That directly contradicts the administration’s claim that third-country deportations are necessary because home countries refuse to accept their citizens. So, what is really driving this policy?

The Department of Homeland Security has argued that some migrants are “so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back.”

But the data – and even internal accounts – suggest something else: a costly system designed less for efficiency and more for deterrence. Or as one lawmaker put it bluntly: “We spent so much of last year hearing about how we have to cut waste… but we are spending millions of dollars on this.”

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was even more direct: “For an Administration that claims to be reining in fraud, waste and abuse, this policy is the epitome of all three.”

And that may be the most important takeaway. Because this is not just about immigration. It is about how policy is being executed – through opaque deals, questionable partners, and significant US taxpayer expense – with little accountability and even less transparency.

It is also about what happens when human beings become bargaining chips in international agreements, sent to countries they have never known, with uncertain protections and unclear futures. For African nations now drawn into this system, the implications are equally serious – raising questions about sovereignty, responsibility, and the long-term cost of participating in what is effectively a global deportation network.

At its core, this policy raises an uncomfortable question: why are African nations agreeing to take in Black and brown migrants who are not their own, in exchange for millions? Because when human movement begins to follow money instead of law, it forces us to confront a history we claim to have left behind.

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: Sinners, Vampires,  Nicki Minaj & Trump

Who Gets To Belong? Birthright Citizenship Case Could Redefine Who Belongs In America

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

Haitian TPS Debate Intensifies After Violent Florida Killing

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

Church And Politics In The Caribbean And Africa: Prophetic Voice, Public Trust, And The Moral Future Of Nations

By Dr. Isaac Newton

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Sun. April 12, 2026: The relationship between church and politics in the Caribbean and Africa is not an academic exercise. It is a lived moral condition shaping governance, public trust, and the daily realities of citizens. In societies where faith communities remain among the most trusted institutions, the central question is not whether the church belongs in public life, but whether it will remain present with clarity, courage, and conscience or retreat into a silence that others will inevitably fill.

The phrase separation of church and state is often invoked as a call for religious absence from public discourse. Yet in its original constitutional intent, it was designed to protect freedom of conscience and prevent state domination of religious life. It was never meant to produce moral vacancy in civic space. When misinterpreted, it does not create neutrality. It creates a public square where values still operate but are no longer consciously examined. Silence does not remove morality from society. It simply relocates its authorship.

The biblical tradition presents a very different model. It does not depict faith as withdrawn from public life but as deeply engaged with it. Prophets addressed systems without apology. Moral leaders confronted authority without fear. Truth consistently entered the public sphere as responsibility rather than preference. This trajectory reaches its most complete expression in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, who challenged hypocrisy, defended the marginalized, and redefined greatness as service. His engagement was never partisan, yet it was always public. It did not seek political power, but it continuously reshaped the moral imagination through which power is judged.

This distinction is decisive for understanding the role of the church. The church is not called to political alignment or institutional control. It is called to prophetic responsibility. Prophetic voice is not the pursuit of influence. It is the preservation of moral clarity in the presence of power. It does not ask which side to support. It asks what is true, what is just, and what is consistent with human dignity. When this distinction is lost, the church either becomes silent in the name of peace or partisan in the name of relevance. Both represent a weakening of its deeper calling.

In Caribbean and African contexts, the hesitation of the church to engage public issues cannot be reduced to indifference. It is shaped by historical experience, political sensitivity, and institutional caution. Churches have witnessed the consequences of political entanglement, the fragility of public unity, and the risks of misinterpretation. Yet prolonged caution carries its own cost. Withdrawal from moral discourse does not preserve influence. It transfers it. When the church grows silent, it does not stop shaping society. It simply stops shaping it intentionally.

This reality is visible in the lived experiences of citizens who navigate systems marked by inequality, institutional strain, and uneven accountability. In many of these societies, the church remains a primary reservoir of trust. Yet trust without translation into public moral engagement creates a quiet dissonance. People respect the voice of the church, but often struggle to see how that voice speaks to the structures that shape their lives. Over time, this gap between trust and visible moral presence risks becoming a form of silent disillusionment rather than open rejection.

The way forward is not greater political alignment but greater moral intelligence. Churches must cultivate moral literacy that helps communities interpret public life through ethical clarity rather than partisan emotion. They must develop civic courage that enables leaders to speak truth without fear of being politically categorized. They must also protect institutional independence so that their witness remains credible, free, and uncaptured. These are not organizational strategies. They are moral disciplines required for faithful public presence.

Ultimately, the future of the church in the Caribbean and Africa will not be determined by whether it engages politics, but by whether it understands its responsibility within public life. Societies are not strengthened by the absence of faith from public discourse. They are strengthened by the presence of moral clarity within it. Influence is not the goal. Faithfulness is. Yet faithfulness, when embodied with courage and wisdom, inevitably becomes influence.

The deeper question is therefore not whether the church should speak. It is whether silence can ever be considered neutral in a world where injustice, inequality, and power are constantly speaking. Silence may appear cautious. It may even feel peaceful. But it is never without consequence. It always shapes the moral direction of society by what it leaves unchallenged.

EDITOR’s NOTE: Dr. Isaac Newton is a theologian, leadership strategist, and global advisor formed within the Adventist educational tradition at the University of the Southern Caribbean formerly Caribbean Union College and Oakwood University, with advanced studies at Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia. He has served as an independent consultant to the General Conference, contributing to institutional strengthening and ethical leadership across international contexts. He is the author of Fix It, Preacher and Steps to Good Governance. His work bridges faith, governance, and institutional renewal, equipping leaders to engage complexity with moral clarity, intellectual rigor, and transformational vision.

RELATED: When Police Pursuits Must End: Law, Proportionality and Public Safety in the Caribbean

CARICOM Rift Deepens As Trinidad Aligns Closer With U.S., Venezuela

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