President Donald Trump Refugee organisations have expressed concern for how the US travel ban will effect refugees in transit and those who are refused entry into the country. Donald Trump’s strict immigration laws have been watered down since they were first announced, but the US Supreme Court has implemented a partial ban which will come into effect today (Thursday).
Instead of a blanket ban on people from six majority-Muslim countries including Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, anyone with a bona fida relationship with the US will be permitted entry. This means those who have a relationship with certain parties such as family members, employees or universities.
“The immediate priority is the safety of those refugees who are en route, ensuring they reach their destination,” said Ashley Feasley, policy director for Migration and Refugee Services at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington.
“We are also very concerned about the individuals who have assured cases that are scheduled for travel after July 6 who may not be able to arrive now due to the interpretation of the Supreme Court decision and the executive order.”
Administration
The US administration has said it needs time to review the refugee resettlement programme and its vetting procedures for allowing refugees into the country, adding that it is necessary to limit the number of refugees allowed in the US to 50,000 this year.
“These people have travel documents, they are ready to go,” said Mr Feasley. “They have relationships with the resettlement offices in the cities they were to be resettled in. It would be heartbreaking and administratively inefficient if they are not able to complete their journey of seeking refuge.”
In a statement, Jesuit Refugee Service USA said the administration was preventing the reunification of family including that of grandparents and other extended family – which are not counted under the bona fida familial relationships.
Hans Van de Weerd, chairman of the Washington-based Refugee Council USA, said in a telephone briefing that targeting “vulnerable” populations, such as refugees, was “morally wrong” and it also was bad policy.
The travel ban was said to tackle terrorism, but several states and refugee organisations sued to stop it proceeding, claiming it targeted Muslims and was discriminatory.