Link to article: https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-us-deportation-protection-civil-war-ce99bb3f8f30aec9745046c41ac7fa1b
The article from Associated Press reports that human-rights organizations are condemning the U.S. government’s move to terminate the protected status for nationals of Myanmar (also known as Burma).
Under the decision announced by Kristi Noem of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the government concluded that Myanmar has made “notable progress,” including plans for elections and cease-fire deals, and deemed the country sufficiently stable to allow a return of its nationals. Rights groups strongly dispute that assessment, pointing out that Myanmar remains engulfed in a war-torn crisis under the military regime of Min Aung Hlaing (who seized power in 2021), and they accuse the U.S. of ignoring evidence of serious abuses: forced conscription, attacks on civilians, unlawful detentions, and other widespread rights violations. They argue that ending the protections now risks sending those covered back into a precarious and dangerous situation. Overall, the article emphasizes the tension between the administration’s decision and the ongoing instability in Myanmar which human-rights groups say still endangers returnees.
This issue is very on par with all of the recent change in US immigration policy since the start of the Trump administration. The US has also ended Temporary Protection Status (TPS) programs for displaced peoples in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Nepal, and more. With the termination of TPS, displaced people revert back to their previous immigration status, which causes things like employment, schooling, and other means of a better life to become harder for people who have already overcome so much. Additionally, with the US increasing immigration in general, those issues could become even worse as Burmese people struggle to stay in the US and not be caught by ICE if they overstay their VISA. The ending of these programs bothers me because not only is it affecting the displaced people, but also the surrounding countries. If people are deported back, they will probably move to surrounding countries like India and Bangladesh, who are already packed with Burmese refugees, placing a harder burden on them. I think harshering on immigration is valid, but we need to work for better ways for these people to gain citizenship or better ways to prove they can stay here for longer as a refugee or just an immigrant. A program that cut some of the benefits that someone would have to go through to earn, OR renewing their TPS states would work. Overall, it will be interesting to see going forward the effects of cutting the TPS program across the board.
I could see the governments of the countries that surround Myanmar cutting some of their aid for displaced peoples, as they cannot keep up financially with the potential influx when the US cuts their aid. Additionally, those countries could retaliate against the US by putting in place tariffs on exports like electrical and electronic equipment that the US relies on, and that MNCs in the technology field rely on like AWS and Apple Inc. Additionally, the UN has a principle of non-refoulment, which stops countries from sending people back to other countries they could face serious harm, and members may reference that TPS ending is going against the principle. Under the Trump administration, immigrants are typically seen as threats to our national security, with many people thinking that as more immigrants have entered the US, they think they cause crimes and think they need to follow the citizenship procedures in order to be here.
The US is following Realist theory. With realism arguing that states prioritize national interest over morals, humanitarian, and all else and ending the TPS fits this. The US ended it because they thought it was necessary for domestic political goals, immigration control, and more than human rights inside Myanmar. Additionally, we see how the change in national interests is affecting how the US conducts foreign policy. With before, being more geared towards being a global hegemon to now, being more towards being a regional hegemon.