Geraldo Rivera drew sharp criticism this week for pushing a narrative that opposes deporting Haitian migrants after the end of temporary protected status, and the exchange has turned into another argument about hypocrisy, public safety, and what “temporary” actually means.

President Trump’s past remark where he called some nations “s**tholes” still stirs feelings, and Haiti was explicitly lumped into that phrase. The country has grappled with persistent violence and instability, with reports over the years of flights disrupted by gang activity and major security failures at the capital. Those realities shape why many Americans reacted unfavorably when leaders argued against enforcing immigration limits.

Celebrities and pundits rushed in on both sides, defending Haiti’s dignity while also criticizing blunt language. Bill Maher and Conan O’Brien pushed back at the insult and even turned it into merch, but public opinion changed when policy moved from rhetoric to enforcement. Now that the Trump administration ended TPS for Haitians, opponents scramble to square their earlier defenses with opposition to the policy change.

One high-profile voice defending Haitians this time was Geraldo Rivera. His sudden shift prompted ridicule from critics who reminded everyone of his prior calls for apologies over the “s**tholes” comment. The flip-flop looks less like principled consistency and more like political convenience to many observers who track media behavior closely.

There’s a broader point Republicans are making: immigration policy has to be consistent with national interest and rule of law. Letting TPS become a permanent workaround undermines orderly immigration systems and rewards those who exploit temporary protections as a path to staying indefinitely. When an administration decides to end a truly temporary program, it is within its authority to restore order.

Also, remember that Geraldo demanded President Trump apologize for the “s**thole” remark. That demand remains part of the record and fuels accusations that some on the Left will loudly oppose a leader one moment and then quietly adopt his position when it fits their goals. Critics say this pattern damages credibility and confuses the public debate over what policies actually serve Americans.

https://x.com/GeraldoRivera/status/2086561253103673562?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The Left will say anything, even to the point of contradicting themselves, to advance their agenda. That charge cuts across multiple issues, but in this case it centers on whether national security and immigration rules should yield to media-driven compassion tours. Voters notice when policy consequences follow a pattern of inconsistent advocacy from elites.

Less than a decade ago, Haiti was often described as a “beautiful country” by celebrity defenders and commentators who focused on culture and resilience. That sentimental view runs up against the hard facts of governance breakdown, economic collapse, and chronic insecurity that have driven waves of migration. Acknowledging a country’s beauty does not erase the practical problems that push people to leave.

But Geraldo will assure us we only brought the good people and not the ones who made Haiti hell in the first place. That distinction sounds reasonable until you examine how migration systems operate: when an influx occurs, screening and enforcement get stretched, and unintended consequences emerge. Responsible policy requires blunt assessments and realistic limits, not selective wishful thinking.

So weird. The refusal by some to admit President Trump was right about aspects of Haiti’s condition becomes an article of faith for parts of the media world. Still, the case for ending TPS is framed around a simple truth: the “T” in TPS means temporary, and after years of misuse, reinstating strict enforcement reflects a decision to preserve legal order and national sovereignty.

Editor’s Note: Hollywood, academia, and liberal elites are out of touch with the average American.