Those from the countries on Trump's travel ban say they're confused and angry about what comes next
While the Trump administration said the travel ban is meant to keep Americans safe, critics lobbed accusations of discrimination, cruelty, racism, inhumanity and more in response. Meanwhile, the news also elicited confusion over what will happen once the ban goes into effect on Monday.
"This travel ban is a racist, bigoted and xenophobic and deeply un-American attack on human rights — it's like persecution. We have fled dictatorship, violence, hunger,' Adelys Ferro, executive director of the Venezuelan American Caucus, told NBC News from Miami, a city with a large population of immigrants from several of the countries on Trump's list.
'This administration clearly has something against immigrants, and it has something against us in particular,' said José Antonio Colina, a former Venezuelan army lieutenant who fled to Miami in 2003 and heads the exile organization Veppex. 'We are double-persecuted. We are persecuted by the tyranny of Nicolás Maduro and we are persecuted by the administration of Donald Trump.'
A 38-year-old Haitian green-card holder in Miami who was too fearful to allow her name to be used said she and many others in the community feel 'confused and scared' over the travel ban on Haiti. She said most of her family lives there, including her sister and father, who is sick. 'They come all the time to visit and now I don't know if they will be able to,' she said, adding she heard there were exceptions to the ban but wasn't sure.
There are some exceptions, including for people with lawful permanent residency, spouses and children of U.S. citizens, those who are adopted and others.
'But if you are a spouse of a permanent resident, forget about it,' said Doug Rand, former director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services during the Biden administration. It will also impact other relatives, such as adult children and siblings of lawful permanent residents, people who won the diversity lottery or were sponsored by a U.S. employer and are from the listed countries, 'people who have been waiting for years and done it the right way,' he said.
In Havana, a queue of people outside the American Embassy learned the news of the travel ban and suspensions as they waited for their visa interviews.
'I had been waiting nine years for this moment,' said one young woman in line, who declined to be identified by name for fear it might affect her visa chances. She and others said the suspension means not being able to visit family or escape dire circumstances in Cuba.
'If they don't grant visas, Cubans will starve, given the situation, they will starve,' said Ismael Gainza, a retired Cuban. 'I see that measure as bad, I see it as bad because the situation is tough and we have to survive.'
Trump's proclamation issued Wednesday night bans people from 12 countries from traveling to the U.S. The countries are: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
In seven more countries, travel to the U.S. was suspended but not banned. They are Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
Shahzeen Karim, managing attorney at Hafey & Karim law firm, said that although she's in the immigration law space, she holds 'Republican views' on the topic, agreeing there's a need for a stricter immigration policy and more thorough screening.
'I know the White House presented some explanations as to why each of those countries, but I can't help but feel very targeted, being a Muslim immigration attorney,' Karim said. 'The countries are majority Muslim unfortunately.'
Immigration advocates said that, unlike Trump's previous travel ban, which caught them off guard, they expected the president would enact a similar policy in his second term. Trump's 2017 ban immediately barred Muslims from entering the country, leaving some stranded at airports or unable to board flights.
But like his previous ban, the impact of the current ban taking effect next week will be felt by people trying to bring together families, those who landed a job in the U.S., who had tours or visits planned, who planned to study here or were looking forward to a cultural exchange.
It took three tries for Trump, in his previous administration, to come up with a travel ban that the U.S. Supreme Court would accept. Lower courts nixed the first version and the administration kept revising it until the high court accepted its third version in June 2018. Immigration and civil rights groups opposed all three versions.
Raha Wala, vice president of strategy and partnerships at the National Immigration Law Center, said that challenging the latest ban 'will be an uphill battle' because the Supreme Court decision is the law of the land.
Edward Cuccia, an immigration attorney in New York City, said that blocking the latest ban could be tougher now than in 2017.
'Trump got smarter this time,' he said, explaining that the mix of countries makes it harder to argue that the ban is discriminatory.
Also, the implementation won't be as abrupt and the argument that the singled-out nations do not vet the documents of their citizens well may hold up in court, according to Cuccia.
Even so, the implications are vast for the people who are affected and are not a security threat, he said.
'What is this going to mean for family unification? There's a lot of countries here!' Cuccia said. 'And then, there are people that maybe had business dealings, people who wanted to do investments here in the United States or come over on temporary work visas, student visas or even just to visit … That seems to be gone out the window.'
Wala called the justification for the ban — that visa overstays present a national security threat and the inability to fully vet visa travelers in those countries — a 'fig leaf.'
If there is a gap in vetting, 'that's worth taking a look at,' he said, but added that 'all kinds of people overstay their visas — and just because someone overstayed their visa and committed a crime, we just have to get away from this guilt by association concept.'
For Wala, the newly announced ban cannot be separated from the president's previous policies and statements.
"This ban started as the president saying he was going to have a complete and total shutdown of Muslims in the country. And he also said he wants to ban folks — and pardon my French here — from s---hole countries," Wala said.
In Miami, Colina said he was glad the ban would prevent officials of Maduro's regime in Venezuela and their families "who always find a way" to get a visa to enter the country, "but they are a minority, and the partial ban will negatively impact the larger community and it's not fair.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
School choice may be the fix to DC's crime crisis
Washington, D.C., faces a serious crime crisis, with violence and homicide rates dangerously high. Even government officials have been targeted. While the Trump administration's plan to increase federal involvement may help temporarily, relying on permanent federal intervention is unsustainable. The long-term solution requires tackling root causes — especially chronic disengagement from education, which is widespread in D.C.'s traditional public schools and contributes significantly to youth crime. In the 2023–2024 school year, more than half of all high school students in Washington, D.C., were chronically absent, meaning they missed 10 percent or more of the school year. This absenteeism represents a failure to keep students connected to constructive environments and opportunities for success. When young people are not in school, evidence overwhelmingly shows they are at much higher risk of engaging in criminal behavior. The academic outcomes for D.C. public school students further illustrate the crisis. On recent standardized tests, only about 32 percent of students in grades 3–5 met or exceeded expectations in English Language Arts, a slight improvement from the previous year but still alarmingly low. Just 11 percent of high school students met or exceeded math standards. These outcomes are a direct reflection of an education system unable to provide the foundation students need for success, making disengagement and subsequent criminal activity more likely. Charter schools offer a proven, evidence-based alternative that can disrupt this cycle. Unlike traditional public schools in D.C., charter schools provide students with 30 to 50 percent more instructional time, effectively giving students up to four additional months of schooling each year. This extra time in the classroom correlates with improved academic performance and stronger student engagement. A landmark study conducted by Harvard and Princeton researchers demonstrated that winning a lottery to attend a New York City charter school almost completely eliminated the chance of incarceration for male students in the study sample. The same study also found a 59 percent reduction in teen pregnancy rates for female students who attended charter schools through the lottery. Another study, published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, found that winning a lottery to attend a school of choice in Charlotte, N.C., halved the rate of criminal activity among high-risk male students. And research on Milwaukee's voucher program found that students attending charter schools were significantly less likely to commit crimes by their mid-twenties compared to matched peers in public schools. Despite delivering compelling results, D.C.'s charter schools face significant funding disparities compared to traditional public schools. Though only a few studies have examined the precise funding differences between charter schools and public schools, one found that charter schools in D.C. receive approximately 41 percent less funding per pupil than public schools, averaging $17,525 per student compared to $29,808 per student — a gap of $12,283. This significant disparity limits charter schools' ability to expand facilities, attract qualified staff and improve programs. Meanwhile, demand for charter school seats far exceeds supply, with 17,047 students on waiting lists during the 2021–2022 school year, reflecting strong parental preference for alternatives to the struggling traditional system. Despite this funding disparity, evidence shows that public charter schools in Washington, D.C., specifically, continue to outperform traditional public schools. The success of charter schools in other cities demonstrates what could be achieved if D.C. removed these barriers and increased support. New York City's Success Academy, whose student population is 98 percent non-white and predominantly low-income, achieved remarkable academic results: 96 percent of students passed state math exams and 83 percent passed English Language Arts exams. This starkly contrasts with New York City's overall public school proficiency rate of around 49 percent, illustrating that well-supported charter schools can deliver superior outcomes even among disadvantaged populations. Washington, D.C. must view charter school expansion and equitable funding as integral parts of its strategy to reduce crime. Increasing access to quality education through charter schools addresses the root causes of criminal behavior by keeping youth engaged in structured, rigorous environments that foster academic achievement and discourage delinquency. Ultimately, no city can arrest or incarcerate its way out of a crime crisis. Long-term, sustainable solutions demand investments in education and opportunity. The District of Columbia has a proven tool in charter schools to disrupt the cycle of violence and provide at-risk youth with a pathway out of crime and into success. It is time for policymakers to remove funding disparities, lift arbitrary caps, and prioritize school choice as a core component of public safety reform in the nation's capital.
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
Raskin: Maxwell prison move ‘speaks to the irregularity of the process'
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Wednesday questioned disgraced socialite Ghislaine Maxwell's recent prison transfer, as lawmakers press the Trump administration to release more files related to its probe of the late Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking case. Maxwell, who was convicted and sentenced to 20 years as Epstein's co-conspirator, was quietly transferred from a Florida prison to a lower-security prison camp in Texas earlier this month, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The move comes as she is appealing her case to the administration and Supreme Court. 'It was practically instantaneous. And of course, that then speaks to the irregularity of the process leading up to it,' Raskin said during a Wednesday appearance on MSNBC's 'The Last Word.' 'Remember that this was preceded by the sacking of Maureen Comey, who was one of the senior prosecutors leading that prosecution, and they simply fired her,' he continued. 'And then that's when [Deputy Attorney General] Todd Blanche decided to take matters into his own hands.' Blanche, who formerly defended President Trump during criminal proceedings, met with Maxwell one-on-one in Florida for two days to discuss Epstein. The case resurfaced after the Justice Department (DOJ) and FBI released a joint memo last month finding the disgraced financier did not keep a 'client list.' It also sought to dispel conspiracies around his 2019 death in a New York City jail cell, which has been ruled a suicide. Raskin suggested Blanche helped move Maxwell because he liked what he heard in the closed door meetings. 'So look, I think it seems pretty clear to the vast majority of Americans, as you're pointing out this evening, that Donald Trump's got one major interest in this whole affair at this point, which is burying any information that reveals the connection between him and Jeffrey Epstein,' the Maryland Democrat said. 'We know that they had more than a thousand FBI agents working 24 hour shifts, looking for mentions of Donald Trump's name in the Epstein files and looking for photographs of him, video snippets of him, whatever it might be,' he added. President Trump, following pressure from his base, ordered the DOJ to make transcripts of the five days of Epstein and Maxwell's grand jury testimonies public and to ask the court to unseal exhibits related to the case. A judge days later denied the request. While Republican lawmakers left Washington earlier this summer to avoid the controversy, it is likely to ramp up once again when they return in September.
Los Angeles Times
3 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's nod to Europe on a future peace force for Ukraine vastly improves its chances of success
BRUSSELS — The greenlight given by President Trump on U.S. backup for a European-led force to police any future peace agreement in Ukraine vastly improves the likelihood it might succeed. European leaders said Trump offered his backing during a call they held ahead of his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday. The effectiveness of the operation, drawn up by the so-called coalition of the willing of around 30 countries supporting Ukraine, hinges on U.S. backup with airpower or other military equipment that European armed forces do not have, or only in short supply. EU leaders regularly have underlined how the United States is 'crucial' to the success of the security operation dubbed Multinational Force Ukraine. But the Trump administration has long refused to commit, perhaps keeping its participation on hold as leverage in talks with Russia. After a meeting Wednesday between Trump and European leaders, European Council President Antonio Costa welcomed 'the readiness of the United States to share with Europe the efforts to reinforce security conditions once we obtain a durable and just peace for Ukraine.' French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump had insisted NATO must not be part of these security guarantees, but the U.S. leader agreed 'the United States and all the (other) parties involved should take part.' 'It's a very important clarification,' Macron said. Trump did not publicly confirm he would allow U.S. backup, and no details of possible U.S. support were made public, but U.S. Vice President JD Vance sat in on the coalition meeting for the first time. More than 200 military planners have worked for months on ways to ensure a future peace should the war, now in its fourth year, finally halt. Ukraine's armed forces also have been involved, and British personnel have led reconnaissance work inside Ukraine. The exact size of the force has not been made public, although Britain has said it could number 10,000 to 30,000 troops. It must be enough to deter Russian forces, but also of a realistic size for nations that shrank their militaries after the Cold War and are now rearming. The 'reassurance' force's mission 'will be to strengthen Ukraine's defenses on the land, at sea, and in the air because the Ukrainian Armed Forces are the best deterrent against future Russian aggression,' U.K. Defence Secretary John Healey told lawmakers last month. 'It will secure Ukraine's skies by using aircraft,' Healey said, 'and it will support safer seas by bolstering the Black Sea Task Force with additional specialist teams.' Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey launched that naval force a year ago to deal with mines in Black Sea waters. The force initially will have its headquarters in Paris before moving to London next year. A coordination headquarters in Kyiv will be involved once hostilities cease and it deploys. European efforts to set up the force have been seen as a first test of the continent's willingness to defend itself and its interests, given Trump administration warnings that Europe must take care of its own security and that of Ukraine in future. Still, U.S. forces clearly provide a deterrent that the Europeans cannot muster. Details of what the U.S. might contribute were unknown, and Trump has changed his mind in the past, so it remains to be seen whether this signal will be enough to persuade more countries within the coalition to provide troops. Greece has publicly rejected doing so. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said last month that those discussions were 'somewhat divisive' and distracted from the goal of ending the war as soon as possible. Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has said Rome won't contribute troops, but she previously has underlined the importance of working with the U.S. on ending the conflict and called for the participation of an American delegation in force coordination meetings. Cook writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Emma Burrows in London contributed to this report.
