May has been a fast-moving month in Washington, and one story almost got missed entirely — the fact that the Trump administration all but shut down the most abused immigration program we have, Temporary Protected Status.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen announced earlier this week that Hondurans protected under the program — roughly 60,000 individuals, according to The Hill — will have their TPS status terminated in the near future.

“To allow for an orderly transition, she has determined to delay the effective date of the termination for 18 months. The designation will terminate on January 5, 2020,” the DHS statement on the termination read.

TPS is supposed to allow non-residents who are nationals of a country ravaged by disasters — either natural or man-made — to apply for temporary residency in the United States if they’re already here. That seems like a pretty noble goal. Honduras, for instance, was added after Hurricane Mitch swept through the Central American nation.

So that’s the good side of TPS. The bad side? Well, let’s begin with the fact that Hurricane Mitch happened in 1998. That means these individuals have been “temporarily” in the country, allegedly waiting with baited breath for it to rebuild, ever since Sugar Ray’s “Every Morning” was on top 40 radio. And, as the Federation for American Immigration Reform noted, most of the recipients are illegal aliens.

Honduras isn’t the only country whose citizens have received exceptionally-long TPS exemptions. Haiti received it in 2010 after earthquakes hit the country; that “temporary” status will only end in 2019. El Salvador received it in 2001 after an earthquake there; Salvadorians will also be here until September of 2019, a whopping 18 years. Sudan (and by extension South Sudan, since it didn’t exist at the time) received TPS designation in 1997 for a civil war that ended in 2005; residents of Sudan will see TPS end for them in 2018 whereas residents of South Sudan will have their TPS extended until 2019.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that for many illegal immigrants, TPS is a way around the system, particularly since those with TPS status cannot be detained by DHS because of their immigration status. They can also obtain an employment authorization document allowing them to work and can also be granted travel authorization to leave the country. While not necessarily a path to citizenship, TPS also doesn’t preclude recipients from applying for it, as well as “for any other immigration benefit or protection for which (they) may be eligible.”

In other words, this is exactly the kind of program Americans elected Donald Trump and a Republican Congress to eliminate. And, with the decision to excise Hondurans from the TPS rolls, the DHS has all but eliminated the program, at least in its current form.

“The decision to terminate TPS for Honduras was made after a review of the environmental disaster-related conditions upon which the country’s original 1999 TPS designation was based and an assessment of whether those originating conditions continue to exist, as required by statute,” the statement from DHS read.

“Based on careful consideration of available information, including recommendations received as part of an inter-agency consultation process, the Secretary determined that the disruption of living conditions in Honduras from Hurricane Mitch that served as the basis for its TPS designation has decreased to a degree that it should no longer be regarded as substantial. Thus, as required under the applicable statute, the current TPS designation must be terminated.”

With Honduras’ 60,000 TPS recipients off the rolls, that leaves only 7,000 individuals from four countries still covered under the program. And, needless to say, the liberal tears are flowing like a river.

“U.S. immigration officials view Harold James Tatum as a Honduran but Tatum views himself as a New Yorker,” a suitably lachrymose piece published this week by NPR reads. “Tatum was deported to Honduras 18 years ago but he says he’s never really gotten used to it.

“‘I don’t even know the national anthem of this country,’ says Tatum, sitting behind a table selling jewelry near the beach in Tela on Honduras’ Caribbean coast,” the story continues. “‘I feel like I’m more American than I am Hondureñan because everything that I do is American, you know.’ For instance his boom box is streaming the New York radio station 77 WABC. It’s keeping him up to date on the latest twists in the Stormy Daniels/Donald Trump saga.”

RELATED: Mainstream Media Outlets Caught Completely Ignoring Trump’s Big Win Against ISIS

It’s not until the fifth paragraph of the story that this gem is unearthed: “(Tatum) never got around to applying for American citizenship. In the mid-1990s after serving five years in prison for a drug conviction, Tatum lost his legal residency in the U.S. and was deported to the country of his birth, Honduras.” (Emphasis ours.)

That lede is so buried that strip miners might not uncover it.

Of course, most TPS recipients haven’t been convicted of drug offenses like Tatum. The problem lies in the fact that TPS is a good-faith program in which residency is extended to those whose countries have been ravaged by war or natural disasters on the assumption that they will make a good-faith effort to either return to that country or apply to change their citizenship status, should they be eligible. If not, then the government ought to step in and deport them.

When some TPS recipients have been here for over two decades, it’s clearly a broken program that needed to be fixed. Furthermore, safeguards need to be enacted to ensure that time limits are enforced on TPS in the future.

This program has already been abused for long enough. It’s time to make sure that TPS designations in the future are narrow, clearly outlined and time-limited. Without those precautions in place, TPS is transformed from a humanitarian program into a giant loophole.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

President Donald Trump’s nominee to become the next director of the CIA has hit several roadblocks on her way to confirmation… but she just received support from a surprising voice.

Career intelligence expert Gina Haspel is poised to become the first female CIA chief in history. However, two Republicans — Senators Rand Paul and John McCain — have declared that they will not vote to confirm her.

Paul is known for his strong libertarian views, and often disagrees with others in the GOP when it comes to international issues. McCain is perhaps the most well-known name in Congress, but is a vocal critic of Trump and very moderate.

After McCain raised objections to the CIA’s past use of enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding against terrorists, he came out against Haspel. That could have derailed her confirmation completely… but a Democrat senator has now sided with Trump’s nominee.

On Saturday, Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana announced that he will break from liberals in his party and back Haspel.

According to The Hill, the Democrat explained that he thought the nominee “has learned from the past, and that the CIA under her leadership can help our country confront serious international threats and challenges.”

Another Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has also indicated that he will back Haspel. With two Democrats now supporting her, the nominee has a good chance of being confirmed, though nothing is set in stone.

In a written statement, Donnelly spoke positively about Haspel’s experience. He also cited her “intellect, steady temperament, vast knowledge of threats we face, and dedication to our country are undeniable” as factors in his decision.

“I have found Gina Haspel to be a person of great character,” the Indiana lawmaker stated.

“Over her 33 year career as a CIA operations officer, she has worked in some of the most dangerous corners of our world, and I have the utmost respect for the sacrifices she has made for our country,” he said.

Haspel has been endorsed by many respected names, including current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Three former CIA directors have backed her, and they themselves are well regarded on both sides of the political aisle.

Republican mavericks like McCain may find that they’re running out of excuses for not supporting the president’s nominee. McCain’s primary complaint is that Haspel wouldn’t condemn the use of waterboarding in the months after 9/11.

RELATED: Uh-Oh: Pelosi Had Knowledge of Enhanced Interrogation Before Haspel

His squeamishness about that issue is understandable, considering his own mistreatment by the Viet Cong after he was captured during the Vietnam War. Haspel, however, refused to budge on the matter.

“I’m not going to sit here, with the benefit of hindsight, and judge the very good people who made hard decisions, who were running the agency in very extraordinary circumstances,” she said during the Senate hearing.

With that said, Haspel did pledge that those techniques would not be re-started under her watch.

Nobody, including McCain and Paul, seems to dispute that Haspel would be an effective and focused CIA director. With Democrats like Donnelly now backing her, the path to her confirmation may not be perfectly smooth, but there are far fewer obstacles than it appeared earlier in the week.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin signed a bill Friday that will protect private adoption agencies from coercion, discrimination, or punishment as they help orphans find homes with a mom and a dad.

Bill 1140, drafted by Republican Sen. Greg Treat, provides legal protections to faith-based agencies that will not place children in homes with same-sex couples because of religious or moral convictions.

While opposed by the LGBT lobby, many are touting the law as a victory for true diversity and religious freedom, as it offers options to Christian families that had been denied to them previously.

In many states, Christian adoption agencies suffer discrimination for insisting on placing children in homes with a mother and a father. Many Christian parents who put their children up for adoption prefer they be placed in a home with a Christian mom and dad but are often unable to have their wishes fulfilled because of legal restrictions.

In 2011, most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois announced they would be closing down rather than complying with a requirement forcing them to place children with same-sex couples as foster care and adoptive parents.

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield said at the time.

Oklahoma’s Catholic bishops have praised the new law, noting in a statement that it will “bring more adoption services to the state and allow crucial faith-based agencies to continue their decades-long tradition of caring for Oklahoma’s most vulnerable children.”

Predictably, the mainstream media, including AP, Reuters, CNN, and NBC News, marched in lockstep to highlight LGBT opposition to the bill, rather than its emphasis on putting children first and protecting religious liberty.

NBC said the bill was “aimed at curtailing LGBTQ rights,” while the AP dedicated more than a third of its text to airing LGBT grievances against the new law. Each added a token comment in favor of the legislation near the end of the article.

In fact, the new law does not even mention same-sex couples or LGBT issues, but merely defends private child-placing agencies from having to participate in the placement of a child for foster care or adoption “when the proposed placement would violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies.”

In evaluating prospective adoptive parents, all adoption agencies legally discriminate based on a number of factors, to make sure children are placed in the best homes possible. Economic level, education, employment, lack of drug use, and many other elements enter into the decision-making process. Christian agencies’ acting on their conviction that a child benefits from having both a mother and a father follows this same pattern of careful discernment.

The bill does not do anything “to prohibit same-sex couples from adopting,” Treat said. “All it does is protect faith-based institutions who wish to participate, and some are sitting on the sideline right now, and I hope to get them involved to help us take care of the huge need.”

“I would not be standing here on a bill as controversial as this if I didn’t believe it would help more children to get into loving homes,” Treat said.

The new law is slated to go into effect on November 1.

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter Follow @tdwilliamsrome

The “handmaids” of Planned Parenthood strode through the Missouri Statehouse this week as the state’s lawmakers passed a budget prohibiting the direction of funds to facilities associated with abortion providers.

Dressed as women from Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood’s 1985 dystopian feminist novel about a totalitarian theocracy that forces women to procreate, the protesters are now a familiar sight in government buildings when Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding is in jeopardy:

“Handmaids happen when government attacks reproductive rights”
Missouri handmaids protest on behalf of #PlannedParenthood
(@PPMO_Advocates)https://t.co/vsAb7ApOse pic.twitter.com/DVmQyDhyrl

— Gabriella Nuñez (@gabnun13) May 10, 2018

The “handmaids” in Missouri were protesting two bills that would prevent the state’s Medicaid funding to be used for reimbursement at Planned Parenthood or other facilities that perform abortions.

The bills were part of the state’s $28 billion budget that passed the legislature and now await Republican Gov. Eric Greitens’ signature.

M’Evie Mead, director of policy and organizing for Planned Parenthood Advocates in Missouri, told the Kansas City Star the handmaids are a sign of what happens when “politicians and governments try and substitute their judgment for those individuals’ judgment.”

“And that’s what ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ is all about — what happens when a government takes control over a certain segment of women’s lives and tries to run them for their own purposes,” Mead said.

GOP State Rep. Robert Ross wrote the language in the amendments to two of the bills that refer to blocking Medicaid funds to facilities associated with abortion providers. During a floor debate in March, Ross said abortion providers had set up a “shell game” to provide abortions while still benefiting from Medicaid reimbursements for other women’s health services.

“This Republican lead administration is really creating an unbelievably hostile environment for access to reproductive health care in Missouri,” said Mead, according to Rewire.

In a statement to LifeNews, Samuel Lee of Campaign Life Missouri praised state lawmakers for passing a budget that prioritizes support for mothers and babies.

“The Missouri General Assembly has passed the state’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year beginning July 1, and it is great news for pro-life agencies, pregnant mothers and their unborn children – and for pro-life taxpayers – by defunding abortion providers like Planned Parenthood,” Lee said.

Democrats are growing worried that President Donald Trump’s economy will break their hoped-for “blue wave” in November and also ensure his reelection in 2020, according to The Hill.

“It’s a very big concern,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, told TheHill.  “The economy is the No. 1 issue out there for people and right now Trump has a very aggressive economic message that seems to cross traditional party lines to voters.”

The news site continued:

A CNN poll out this month showed that 57 percent of those surveyed think the country is doing well, an uptick from 49 percent in February. At the same time, a CBS poll also out this month showed that 66 percent of those polled believe the economy is good.

…

“Our biggest challenge in the midterms is you’re going to have a waterline on the economy and unless you’re able to articulate a theory of the case, you’re going to be dependent on where that waterline is,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist.

“Democrats right now, we’re going up to bat and we’re not even looking to hit,” Lehane added about the messaging. “We’re hoping to get hit by the pitcher so we can walk to first base.”

GOP leaders say their tax cuts should get credit for the economic boom, and they want to downplay Trump’s low-immigration/high wage policies. Polls show this GOP claim is not getting political traction because middle-income voters — including Latinos and blacks — are more concerned about the economic impact of cheap-labor migration.

Trump is more focused on migration that taxes but has yet to show voters that his policies are pressuring employers to offer higher wages and to hire sidelined Americans after ten years of minimal economic gains for his voters.

Wage raises in the Trump economy are being slowed by desperate opposition from business leaders — many of whom are pushing Trump to approve another wave of cheap-labor migration — and various polls show that many voters are taking a very cautious view of the economy.

For example, a May 9 poll from Monmouth University, for example, shows that 65 percent of Republicans, but only 44 percent of independents, say their family has benefitted greatly or somewhat from the economic gains.

Economists expect the wage raises to accelerate in the next year, especially if Trump publicly urges higher wages while rejecting employers’ demands for more cheap labor.