IMAGE: CNS photo/Shannon Stapleton, Reuters
By Rhina Guidos
WASHINGTON (CNS) — Agencies and organizations that help
refugees start new lives in the U.S. worry about the fate that awaits migrants
in transit as well as those who will not be allowed into the country as the
partial ban that the U.S. Supreme Court set in motion with its late June ruling
goes into effect in early July.
“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 U.S. 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.”
The Supreme Court announced June 26 it
would temporarily allow the Trump administration’s plan to ban of refugees from
six majority-Muslim countries, unless those refugees had “bona fide”
relationships with parties in the United States, meaning certain family
members, employees or universities.
In an executive order that underwent one
revision and was blocked by lower courts, the administration has said it needs
the time to review the refugee resettlement program and its vetting procedures
for allowing refugees into the country, and also said it was necessary to limit
the number of the refugees allowed into the U.S. to 50,000 for 2017. That number is
expected to be reached July 6 in the evening.
“These people have travel documents, they are ready to go,”
said 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.”
But heartbreak and uncertainty is exactly what many of them,
as well as the resettlement agencies and communities that already have a
connection to the refugees may face, say officials from agencies pleading with
the administration to involve them in the developments that are about to
unfold.
“We urge the administration to issue more clarity on its
interpretation of the executive order and the decision and work with the
resettlement agencies to ensure as smooth and humane implementation as possible
at this time,” said Feasley.
On June 30, representatives from Refugee Council USA, which
included some faith groups that resettle refugees, cried out for involvement in
the process.
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.
Some criticized the high court as
well, which said it would review the constitutionality of the executive order
in October. During the refugee council briefing, officials from refugee resettlement agencies
said the court’s decision to allow a partial ban to be put in place amounts to
slamming the door on the face of the vulnerable “for no good reason.” Though
the partial ban will keep some refugees out, the court said that those with “bona
fide” relationships in the U.S. could still enter, even if the 50,000 cap had
been reached.
In a statement, Jesuit Refugee Service USA, said the
administration, with its actions, was preventing the reunification of family,
particularly the special relationship of grandparents and grandchildren, which along
with aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, nephews, cousins and some in-laws, the State
Department said does not count as being close enough to qualify as a “bona fide”
familial relationships.
“As a result, many refugees, including the elderly,
unaccompanied children, and those in need of medical treatment will be delayed
in receiving U.S. protection for at least several additional months,” said the organization
in the statement.
Some like Jordan Denari Duffner, of Georgetown University’s
Bridge Initiative research project that provides information about
Islamophobia, said the danger of the ban extends beyond preventing people from
entering the country. It’s also caused damage within the U.S. because it’s an
extension of what the president promised when, during his campaign, he called
for a “Muslim ban,” and promotes views seeking to paint Muslims as dangerous.
“Even if the travel ban seems more watered down today, it’s
been the product of an administration that has played off of and promoted
Islamophobia,” she said.
– – –
Follow Guidos on Twitter: @CNS_Rhina.
– – –
Copyright © 2017 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. www.catholicnews.com. All rights reserved. Republishing or redistributing of CNS content, including by framing or similar means without prior permission, is prohibited. You may link to stories on our public site. This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To request permission for republishing or redistributing of CNS content, please contact permissions at cns@catholicnews.com.
