Megyn Kelly Goes Slap Off With Racist Diatribe Telling Haitian Migrants to "Go Back to F---ing Haiti" In Wake of Supreme Court TPS Ruling

NEW YORK — Megyn Kelly defended the Trump administration's latest immigration victory by arguing that Temporary Protected Status was never intended to become a long-term pathway to remain in the United States, then launched into a profanity-laced condemnation of Haitian migrants during her SiriusXM program. Her remarks followed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing the administration to resume ending deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and thousands of Syrians.

She argued that TPS had expanded far beyond its original purpose, pointing to protections first granted to Haitians after the 2010 earthquake and to Syrians during the country's civil war in 2012. She said, "Cry me a river. We have our own problems," before insisting the humanitarian program had continued for more than a decade despite being labeled temporary.

As reported by Mediaite, Kelly escalated her criticism by telling Haitian migrants, "Go home. Get out... We don't care if you're offended. Get out. Go home. Go back to f---ing Haiti." She also said immigrants from Haiti were "diluting" the country's culture and claimed many refused to assimilate into American society.

Springfield, Ohio, returned to the center of the immigration debate as Kelly pointed to the city's Haitian population while arguing TPS had drifted far beyond its original purpose. She described the program as "another backdoor way" of creating permanent residency, saying the ruling restored the temporary limits Congress intended for the program.

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision cleared the way for the administration to terminate TPS protections covering more than 350,000 Haitians and about 6,100 Syrians while broader litigation continues. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that federal courts lack authority to review the executive branch's decisions ending those designations.

TPS allows people from countries experiencing war, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions to live and work legally in the United States for limited periods. Immigration advocates warned the ruling could expose longtime residents to deportation while influencing future disputes involving protected immigration status.

Justice Elena Kagan argued in dissent that the administration failed to follow the procedures Congress required before ending the protections, saying courts should have been allowed to review whether those statutory requirements were met. Her opinion highlighted the sharp divide within the court over how far executive authority extends in ending humanitarian immigration protections.