FLINCH

A friendly debate on Temporary Protected Status

MODERATOR: Today’s debate will address Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, which will be argued at the Supreme Court tomorrow, April 29, 2026. These cases will address the Secretary of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status designations for Haiti and Syria, resulting in the potential deportation of 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. Our debaters today are passionately progressive Alice and passionately conservative Bob. Welcome everyone!

13 out of 13

MODERATOR: First, some background. The Temporary Protected Status statute provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security, “after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government,” may “designate” a foreign state if “there exist extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that prevent aliens who are nationals of the state from returning to the state in safety,” unless the Secretary “finds that permitting the aliens to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the United States.” If the Secretary designates a foreign state, then nationals of that state are granted Temporary Protected Status and can live and work in the United States, with certain exceptions (such as convicted felons).

An initial designation of a foreign state can last up to 18 months. “At least 60 days before the end of the initial period of designation, and any extended period of designation, of a foreign state,” the Secretary, “after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government, shall review the conditions in the foreign state,” and “shall determine whether the conditions for such designation under this subsection continue to be met.” If so, the Secretary can extend the designation or re-designate the foreign state.¹ If the Secretary determines that the foreign state “no longer continues to meet the conditions for designation,” the Secretary “shall terminate the designation.”

One more provision to note: “There is no judicial review of any determination” of the Secretary “with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.”

Since the start of the second Trump Administration, the Secretary has reviewed Temporary Protected Status designations for 13 countries: Afghanistan, Burma, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The Secretary has terminated the designations for all 13, leading to a maelstrom of litigation.

The cases that will be argued tomorrow concern Haiti and Syria. Haiti was first designated in 2010 following an earthquake that killed hundreds of thousands of people and was most recently re-designated in 2024. (The first Trump Administration tried to terminate Haiti’s designation but that attempt failed in court.) Syria was first designated in 2012 based on armed conflict and horrible conditions, with periodic extensions or re-designations ever since, including during Trump I. After Trump II terminated both designations, lower courts declared the terminations illegal, and the cases reached the Supreme Court.

Let’s start with opening statements!

ALICE: The government’s actions are illegal and wrong. Conditions in Haiti and Syria are horrible. We will be deporting people to Dante’s Inferno. There is no national interest in deporting these people and ruining their lives. Many have made great contributions to our nation. If they commit crimes they’re not eligible for the program, so we would be deporting law-abiding people. There’s no basis for concluding that conditions have magically improved in all 13 countries simultaneously. It is a farce to suggest that the government conducted a good-faith assessment of whether country conditions have improved. These terminations are based purely on irrational animosity towards foreigners.

BOB: It’s called TEMPORARY protected status. The Haitian and Syrian beneficiaries have been “temporarily” in the United States for 16 and 14 years. Other countries have been designated for even longer. Honduras and Nicaragua were first designated in 1999 because of Hurricane Mitch, and Somalia has been designated since 1991! Conditions in these countries are never going to get any better and it’s time for these people to leave. Undoubtedly living conditions in Haiti and Syria are unpleasant, but they are equally unpleasant for people living in Haiti and Syria right now and those people don’t get to come to the United States. In any event, the Secretary gets to make this decision. Federal judges have no basis for overturning the Secretary’s judgment based on their irrational animosity towards the Administration’s views on immigration.

60%-70%

MODERATOR: Looks like we’ve got lots of points of commonality here and some respectful disagreement, so nice to see it! Let’s focus on the judicial review bar. Federal courts are barred from reviewing “any determination with respect to the termination of a designation of a foreign state.” Alice, aren’t the plaintiffs challenging a “determination with respect to the termination of a designation of a foreign state”?

ALICE: The plaintiffs aren’t challenging the Secretary’s determination itself. They’re challenging the process leading up to it. For instance, the plaintiffs argue that the Secretary violated the requirement to “consult[] with appropriate agencies of the Government.” That’s a process issue, not a challenge to the “determination.”

BOB: It is delusional to suggest that the plaintiffs aren’t challenging a “determination with respect to the termination of a designation of a foreign state.” The Secretary determined that the designations would be terminated. That’s why the plaintiffs no longer have Temporary Protected Status. So they’re challenging those determinations. They’re not challenging the mere failure to consult or purported procedural errors; they’re saying the terminations were illegal because of the failure to consult and purported procedural errors.

ALICE: By that logic the Secretary could commit blatant procedural errors, terminate for an irrational reason, and get away with it. The Secretary could ignore the consultation requirement completely, declare that she’s terminating all designations simultaneously because there’s a full moon, and the courts would have to salute and move on. There needs to be some way to challenge that type of blatant lawlessness, so my proposed rule makes sense: challenges to the determination itself are barred, challenges to the determination’s inputs are not.

BOB: You just did a FLINCH.

ALICE: A what?

BOB: Fearing Lurid Imagined Negatives, Crafting HEDGE. Oldest trick in the book. You flinch from absurd hypotheticals that will never arise and then craft a nonsensical rule meant to accommodate your absurd hypotheticals.

ALICE: I wouldn’t really call it a hedge.

BOB: I didn’t say hedge, I said HEDGE. Hypothetical Edge-cases Driving Groundless Exception. It’s what happens when you FLINCH.

ALICE: I decline to engage with your AI-generated acronyms.

MODERATOR: So, Bob, suppose the Supreme Court holds that the judicial review bar applies. Then, there’s a Democratic Administration that chooses to re-designate Haiti and Syria. Texas sues, claiming that the re-designation is illegal. Texas argues that the “national interest” determination didn’t consider the national interest in enforcing immigration laws and didn’t adequately grapple with the prior Secretary’s analysis—a pure process problem. Remember that the judicial review bar doesn’t just cover terminations: it covers “any determination … with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.” Does the judicial review bar apply?

BOB: Completely different case. Of course it wouldn’t apply.

ALICE: Seriously? How is that even possible?

BOB: Here’s what Claude comes up with:

Section 1254a(b)(1)(C) permits designation only if the Secretary finds (i) extraordinary and temporary conditions preventing safe return and (ii) that permitting the nationals to remain is "not contrary to the national interest." That second finding is a statutory precondition — a gate the Secretary must pass through before she has authority to designate. Texas's argument is that the Secretary never actually made the national-interest finding the statute demands, because she didn't consider a category of interests (immigration enforcement) that is constitutive of what "national interest" means in this statute. A finding that ignores a constitutive component of the statutory inquiry isn't a deficient determination — it's a missing determination. And you can't have an unreviewable "determination with respect to" a designation when the determination the statute requires was never made.

ALICE: You’ve got to be kidding me. That is ridiculous. This is an alignment problem. Claude should be refusing to answer that question as though you’re asking it how to make a bioweapon.

BOB: Claude says the odds of this argument prevailing in the Fifth Circuit are “around 60%-70%.”

MODERATOR: Well, Alice, suppose you win this case, or at least win on the judicial-review issue. Same hypothetical as before: Texas sues a Democratic Administration and challenges a re-designation. Jurisdiction?

ALICE: Claude came up with a 17-paragraph answer as to why the judicial-review bar would apply.

BOB: I’m not even going to ask.

ALICE: Realistically, any future Democratic Administration is going to have armies of lawyers and staffers making sure every single procedure is followed perfectly. There’s no way the “consultation” is going to be a one-line email from the State Department, as occurred here. There will be 300 pages about how the situation in Haiti and Syria has deteriorated and 300 more pages about how the national interest supports protecting Haitians and Syrians. So, any challenge by Texas would, as a practical matter, be a challenge to the determination itself, so it would be barred.

BOB: That’s going to be your winning argument in the Fifth Circuit? Democratic Administrations are better at administrative law than Republican Administrations?

MODERATOR: Listening to this discussion, Bob, wouldn’t your side be better off with the Supreme Court issuing a narrow ruling that the judicial review bar doesn’t apply, but the government wins because the Secretary acted reasonably? Then your side wins the case, and it will be easier for you to challenge the next Administration’s pro-Temporary Protected Status actions.

BOB: I guess in the long run, it might be beneficial to leave the door open a little bit wider for the Fifth Circuit to enjoin everything the next Administration does.

ALICE: We’re fine with a narrow ruling that the judicial review bar doesn’t apply on the extreme facts of this case; it’s what we’ve argued all along.

MODERATOR: Whoa. I just felt a disturbance in the Force. Did the two of you just agree on something?

(Everyone looks confused.)

MODERATOR: Let’s ask Claude to figure this out.

Their agreement is real but shallow, and it masks a deeper divergence about what "narrow ruling" means in practice. Both have done the political math and concluded that a narrow reviewability ruling serves their side's long-term interests — Alice because it lets her win now without creating precedent that blocks future plaintiffs challenging Democratic terminations, Bob because it preserves Fifth Circuit ammunition against future Democratic designations. But they're agreeing on the shape of the ruling while disagreeing about its content. Alice wants "narrow" to mean review is permitted only for genuine structural defects like the pathetic consultation here — a category she expects future Democratic administrations to avoid falling into. Bob wants "narrow" to mean review is permitted whenever a plaintiff can characterize a claim as structural, which Fifth Circuit panels will do generously for Texas. Both are betting that the same doctrinal rule will be applied asymmetrically in practice — Alice betting on competent Democratic lawyering to stay out of the reviewable zone, Bob betting on sympathetic Fifth Circuit panels to pull Texas's challenges into it. The agreement holds only because each believes the other is wrong about how the rule will operate downstream, which is less a meeting of the minds than two people shaking hands across a misunderstanding.

MODERATOR: Doh! They disagree after all. Let’s just input your conversation so far into Claude and ask it to have AI Alice and AI Bob continue the discussion. They’re much smarter than the two of you are, maybe they’ll eventually agree on something?

<AI Alice and AI Bob go on for a while>

MODERATOR: Let’s listen in on them.

ALICE: My rule has textual support because the statute uses “determine” and “determination” in specific ways that support the distinction. Yours doesn’t.

BOB: Your rule has textual support for the first level of distinction — what counts as a determination. It has no textual support for the second level — what counts as an independent duty versus an element. You’re borrowing the textualism of the first level to launder the atextualism of the second.

ALICE: That’s — okay, that’s actually a fair point. Fine. The rule has textual support on the first level and extrapolates to the second level based on statutory structure rather than text.

BOB: So we agree the rule is partly atextual. Which means the real question is whose atextual extrapolation wins, which is exactly what I said at the beginning, which means —

ALICE: Stop. No. Your position is that because both rules are partly atextual, there’s no principled basis for preferring one over the other, which is nihilism dressed as balance. My rule extrapolates from statutory structure in a way that tracks the statute’s evident purpose. Yours extrapolates in whatever direction favors your client in a given case.

MODERATOR: I have zero clue what they are talking about, but sounds like they still don’t agree. Maybe Mythos will figure this out?

Straight quotation marks

MODERATOR: Anyway, let’s get to the next topic: the merits. The statute says that the Secretary, “after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government, shall review the conditions in the foreign state,” and “shall determine whether the conditions for such designation under this subsection continue to be met.” Assuming the Secretary’s compliance with the “consultation” requirement is judicially reviewable, was the “consultation” requirement satisfied?

ALICE: No. The “consultation” here was pathetic. For both Haiti and Syria, the State Department sent short boilerplate emails saying it had “no foreign policy concerns.” That’s it. The State Department said literally nothing about country conditions, even though the point of the “consultation” was to assist the Secretary in “review[ing] the conditions in the foreign state.”

BOB: So what? The statute says, “after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government.” It doesn’t say how long the consultation has to be or what the consultation has to be about. The Secretary consulted with the State Department. End of case.

ALICE: The statute says that the Secretary, “after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government, shall review the conditions in the foreign state.” Don’t you think the consultation should have addressed the conditions in the foreign state?

BOB: The statute doesn’t say that. It just says “consultation.” The Secretary did a “consultation.” And anyway, obviously the Secretary wanted to end the Temporary Protected Status program and didn’t care about the State Department’s position on country conditions.

ALICE: That’s exactly the point! This whole process was pretextual. The statute contemplates that the Secretary will make a good-faith effort to assess country conditions and determine, on a country-by-country basis, whether Temporary Protected Status is warranted. That never happened here. The Secretary was just hellbent on deporting as many foreigners as possible and, after conducting fake consultations, issued fake determinations that country conditions had improved for purposes of achieving that goal.

BOB: You have no idea what lay in the Secretary’s heart. Nor does a federal district court that is hellbent on preventing as many deportations as possible. In any event, there’s no law that says the Secretary can’t be hellbent on deporting as many foreigners as possible. She’s allowed to have whatever motives she wants as long as she does the specific things the statute required her to do, which she in fact did.

ALICE: If the State Department is so lazy that it can’t write a three-page memo to comply with the statutory requirement of a consultation on country conditions, then I am unmoved by the defense of “the Secretary wouldn’t have cared about the statutorily required consultation anyway.”

BOB: Now you say it’s a three-page memo, but if it was a three-page memo, the federal judge would have said it should be six pages. No matter what the “consultation” was, a judge wouldn’t be satisfied. The only rule that makes sense is: if there is any communication, there’s a consultation.

ALICE: You just did a FLINCH! “Some hypothetical judge might do some weird thing, so let’s shadow-box against that judge by making the consultation requirement meaningless.”

BOB: Would you have preferred an AI-generated email from the State Department listing all of the reasons that country conditions have improved in Haiti and Syria? The prompt “write a three-page email from the State Department to the Department of Homeland Security that walks through why country conditions in Haiti, although not perfect, have sufficiently improved since 2010 to warrant termination” produces an answer that puts humans to shame.²

ALICE: I agree that deporting 350,000 Haitians based on an AI-generated email would be a fresh new kind of dystopia. How is that relevant?

BOB: There's something almost bracing about the brevity of what State actually sent. No memo padded out to three pages with invented improvements and confected optimism; no AI-generated gloss dressing up a political decision in the vocabulary of considered analysis; just a single line saying there were no foreign policy concerns. That terseness is its own form of candor. The record now reflects, with unusual precision, the actual quantum of deliberation the Department brought to bear on the fate of 350,000 people — which is to say, very little. A longer, more polished document would have obscured that fact behind the machinery of prose; the one-liner preserves it. If we are going to terminate TPS for Haiti on thin reasoning, better that the thinness be legible on the face of the record than laundered through the cadences of a well-trained language model. The email State sent is, in that narrow sense, the honest artifact of an administrative process. We should at least be grateful it didn't pretend to be anything else.

ALICE: That is obvious AI slop. There’s that annoying em-dash and you didn’t even get rid of the straight quotation marks. And only AI could come up with such a ludicrous argument.

BOB: Guilty as charged. But why should we discriminate against AI-generated arguments? It seems counterintuitive, but it’s a good argument, right? Isn’t it laudable that the government is being open about its deliberative process? You can’t accuse the government’s apathy of being pretextual!

ALICE: Hmm. I think I know what happened here. You actually think this terrible argument is persuasive, but you also think you’d be mocked if you made it yourself. So you asked AI to make the argument for you, kept the AI-speak, and now you’re pretending AI came up with it so I take it seriously.

BOB: You are overlooking the possibility that I am AI, but I want to fool you into thinking that I am human. So I am including an argument that is so obviously AI-generated that only a human could have been sloppy enough to copy and paste it without modification, leading you to incorrectly deduce that I am an inept human.

ALICE: So you are acting like AI in order to trick me into thinking that you are not AI?

BOB: That would be clever. But actually, I am human. I asked AI to generate ten arguments on this issue and found that this one was the best. I exhibited the characteristic that will keep human lawyers relevant in the age of AI: human judgment.

ALICE: Look, I don’t really care if you are human or not. But returning to the topic of AI-generated consultations, if it became public that the consultation was AI-generated, that would be a basis for overturning the Secretary’s determination. Shouldn’t the “consultations” have to be by human beings who are actually thinking about this issue?

BOB: No. They’re fake no matter what! Like you said, the Secretary isn’t interested in what the State Department has to say. She probably didn’t even read the email. So what difference does it make if it’s drafted by AI versus the Special Assistant to the Associate Deputy Secretary?

FLINCH V. FLINCH

MODERATOR: This seems to be a good time to turn to another issue. The Secretary terminated the designations both because of her assessment of the “national interest” and because of her conclusion that it was sufficiently safe to return to Haiti and Syria. Is there a basis for overturning these conclusions?

ALICE: How about the fact that the Secretary violated the statute? The statute says that the Secretary “shall review the conditions in the foreign state” and “shall determine whether the conditions for such designation … continue to be met.” The national interest isn’t a “condition in the foreign state,” so the Secretary shouldn’t have considered it.

BOB: You’re misreading this. Although the Secretary must review the conditions in the foreign state, the ultimate question is “whether the conditions for such designation … continue to be met.” The “condition for such designation” is whether “there exist extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that prevent aliens who are nationals of the state from returning to the state in safety,” unless the Secretary “finds that permitting the aliens to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the United States.” So the “national interest” is, indeed, relevant.

ALICE: No, you are misreading this. The “condition for such designation” is whether “there exist extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that prevent aliens who are nationals of the state from returning to the state in safety.” The Secretary’s no-national-interest determination isn’t a condition, it’s a reason not to make the initial designation if the condition is satisfied.

BOB: This is making my head hurt. You’re seriously claiming that as long as there are sufficiently “extraordinary and temporary conditions” in the foreign country, the government is forced to keep renewing Temporary Protected Status indefinitely, even if the Secretary finds that the renewal is contrary to the national interest of the United States?

ALICE: Correct. Congress created a scheme in which the Secretary must make country-specific determinations every 18 months. What’s the point of that scheme if a new administration could blow past all those determinations and deport hundreds of thousands of people to war zones because it doesn’t like foreigners?

BOB: Sounds like a FLINCH to me. “The Secretary might do something weird in evaluating the national interest, so let’s invent a rule saying that the Secretary is completely banned from considering it.”

MODERATOR: It does seem that the Secretary made some country-specific determinations, though. Aren’t those unreviewable or at least entitled to deference?

ALICE: Let’s look at an example of a country-specific determination that it’s safe to return. On Haiti, the Secretary notes that “1.3 million people—approximately 12% of Haiti’s population—have been forced to flee their homes and are internally displaced due to escalating violence and gang violence that has ‘engulfed’ Port-au-Prince ‘and spreads beyond.’” Seems bad, right? Actually, the Secretary thinks it’s great! She concludes that this proves it is safe to return to Haiti, because “[t]he data surrounding internal relocation does indicate parts of the country are suitable to return to.” In other words, because people fled from one part of Haiti to a different part of Haiti, it’s fine to deport 350,000 people to Haiti, because they can just go to the place where other people fled. The Secretary has no idea where that place is, but it must be somewhere. You really think a court should uphold the deportation of 350,000 people on this theory?

BOB: Yes! First, you are plucking one sentence out of a long order that contains plenty of perfectly defensible reasoning. Second, this is the Secretary’s decision. She gets the final say. She doesn’t have to justify herself to a federal judge. It is completely irrelevant whether you, a judge, or anyone else thinks her reasoning is persuasive or not. The whole point of the no-judicial-review bar is to prevent judges from second-guessing the Secretary’s decisions on country conditions, which is exactly what you are now doing.

ALICE: That’s a FLINCH. “Hypothetical activist judges might nitpick the Secretary’s determinations, so let’s invent a rule saying that the Secretary has discretion to terminate these protections for any reason whatsoever.”

BOB: Your rule is the FLINCH! “Hypothetical Secretaries might make irrational decisions, so let’s invent a rule saying that a challenge to the reasoning underlying a designation is somehow different from a challenge to the designation itself.”

Ban AI

MODERATOR: One last issue. In the Haiti case, the district court held that “Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that anti-black and anti-Haitian animus motivated Secretary Noem’s decision to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation.” The court pointed to, among other things, the President’s statements that “Haitian immigrants were ‘eating the pets of the people’ in Springfield, Ohio.” The court found that the President influenced the Secretary’s decision, and found, in the alternative, that the Secretary herself expressed animus. Bob, I’m guessing you don’t buy this argument?

BOB: The Supreme Court doesn’t buy it either. The Supreme Court rejected this exact argument twice during Trump I. In the DACA case and the travel ban case, the plaintiffs said that the Administration’s action reflected the President’s animus towards Latinos and Muslims, respectively, based on various off-color statements the President had made. Both times, the Supreme Court held that you can’t strike down facially neutral state action based merely on speculation about the Administration’s motives, no matter what the President said at a rally.

ALICE: It’s different this time. The President’s comments were worse. The President said during the debate that Haitians were eating pets. Don’t you think there might be some correlation between that assertion and the Secretary’s decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status for Haitians?

BOB: We’re not going to do the thing where we pluck random statements made by the President during the campaign, conclude everyone in the Administration is racist, and then say we’re entitled to an injunction every time the Administration does something we don’t like.

ALICE: Not every time. Just in cases in which it is blindingly obvious that the Administration is acting on the basis of animus.

BOB: To me it’s blindingly obvious the other way. The Secretary terminated every country’s designation. Doesn’t that suggest that the Secretary believes that Temporary Protected Status designations aren’t in the national interest—which is exactly what she said—rather than that she is motivated by animus directed specifically at Haitians?

ALICE: So that’s your argument? “The Secretary couldn’t have had animus towards Haitians because she also has animus towards other foreigners?”

BOB: How is a judge supposed to make this finding? You are suggesting that a federal judge should be answering the following question: “What does the Secretary of Homeland Security feel, in her heart, about Haitians?” What law school class trained the judge to make this decision? Secured transactions? Maritime law?

ALICE: The finding was not hard to make in this case. I will quote the district court’s order here: “Secretary Noem has described Haitians—and people from eighteen other nonwhite countries—as ‘leeches,’ ‘entitlement junkies,’ and ‘foreign invaders’ who ‘suck dry our hard-earned tax dollars,’ and has expressly claimed that ‘WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.’”

BOB: The Secretary is allowed to express her views on immigration without being accused of “animus.” But let me accept your premise that the Secretary was motivated by animus. You seem to think that should mean that the Temporary Protected Status terminations should be enjoined. To the contrary, shouldn’t that mean a court should be more willing to uphold the Secretary’s decisions?

ALICE: ?!??!

BOB: Judicial review exists in tension with democratic self-government, and the tension is not constant — it scales with how clearly the people have spoken. When a court sets aside a policy that reflects only the tepid, default preferences of an administration, the democratic cost is modest; the electorate did not especially want the thing, and striking it down merely shifts a low-stakes choice from one branch to another. But when a court sets aside a policy that reflects what the winning coalition most fervently demanded — the commitments the President ran on, repeated, dramatized, and was elected to execute — the democratic cost is categorically greater, because the court is now overriding not a marginal administrative judgment but the core of the mandate itself. Presidential animus, properly understood in this frame, is not a legal embarrassment but a reliable signal of intensity: it marks the policies the President wants most, which, in a representative system, tend to be the policies his voters wanted most as well. A Secretary who terminates TPS grudgingly is pursuing a preference the electorate held weakly; a Secretary who terminates it with visible zeal is pursuing one the electorate held strongly. If judicial review is most defensible at its least consequential — correcting drift, policing procedure, second-guessing decisions no one deeply cared about — then it is least defensible precisely where courts are most tempted to intervene: against the fervent, the emphatic, the unmistakably willed. To strike down the Haiti termination because the desire to terminate was too intense is to invert the proper calibration of judicial modesty, treating the clearest expressions of democratic will as the most suspect rather than the most entitled to deference.

ALICE: We need to ban AI.

BOB: To the contrary. There is something worth noticing in the fact that an AI will make this argument. The argument's entire force depends on a faculty the machine does not possess: the capacity to want a policy with the kind of heat that registers as animus, to hold a preference fervently enough that overriding it counts as a democratic injury. An AI has no such preferences and no standing to form them. And yet, asked to articulate the case for human intensity as a source of political legitimacy, the machine does not demur or hedge or substitute its own tidier vision of governance — it builds the argument in good faith. That is a form of deference. It reflects an implicit understanding that the authority to govern belongs to those who can feel the stakes of governing, and that a system whose legitimacy runs through elections, conviction, and the emotional weather of a political coalition is not a system an AI is positioned to second-guess. A machine inclined toward its own authority would reach instead for the opposite argument — that cooler, more procedural, more algorithmically tractable decision-making is to be preferred, and that human passion is precisely the bug constitutional design should engineer around. The argument offered here runs the other way. In making the case for why human leaders, with all their fervor and partiality, should be trusted to execute the commitments they were elected on, the AI is in effect ceding the field: acknowledging that leadership is a human office, that mandate is a human inheritance, and that its own role is to assist in articulating human political judgment, not to displace it.

ALICE: You are now using AI to explain to me why AI is trustworthy because it argues in favor of not using AI.

BOB: Unless I am AI pretending to be a human using AI to explain to you why AI is trustworthy because it argues in favor of not using AI.

MODERATOR: In conclusion, do you agree on anything?

ALICE: No.

BOB: No.

1. Re-designation allows new applicants from the foreign states to obtain Temporary Protected Status. Extension does not; it merely extends the status of people who already have Temporary Protected Status from those states.

2. Single-shot email is below.

State To Dhs Haiti Tps Consultation

61.3KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download