Iranians react to new Trump travel ban as tensions are high between nations
TEHRAN, Iran — Iranians again face a U.S. travel ban imposed by President Donald Trump, with the decision drawing anger, frustration and some shrugs given the decades of tensions between the countries.
Trump imposed a similar ban during his first term before withdrawing America unilaterally from Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, under which Iran drastically limited its program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.
When he returned to the White House and began seeking a new deal with Iran, it saw the country's rial currency improve and stocks rise. But worries have grown as its government appears poised to reject an initial American proposal. The travel ban has further darkened that mood and led Iranians to fear Trump will lump the nation's 80 million people with its theocratic government even after he repeatedly praised them while seeking a deal.
'Now I understand that Trump is against all Iranians, and his attitude is not limited to the government,' said Asghar Nejati, a 31-year-old man working in a Tehran pharmacy.
Even in the years after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and subsequent U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, Iranian students traveled to the U.S. to attend universities. Between 2018 and 2024, an average of around 10,000 Iranian students went to the U.S. annually.
Estimates suggest some 1 million Iranian-origin people live in the U.S. today.
Mehrnoush Alipour, a 37-year-old graphic designer, said the nations could have better relations if they could spoke to each other in softer tones.
'This is another foolish decision. Trump cannot reach his goals by imposing pressures on ordinary Iranians,' she said. 'The two nations can have better relations through openings, not restrictions.'
Bank teller Mahdieh Naderi said Trump was lashing out over his frustrated efforts to reach ceasefires in the Israel-Hamas war and the Russia-Ukraine war.
'Trump just expressed his anger about his failed plans,' Naderi said. 'He is complaining about the Chinese and others who are living in the U.S., too
Some said interest in the U.S. was already waning before the latest ban.
'Over the past years, two of my grandchildren went to Canada to continue their education there,' said Mohammad Ali Niaraki, 75. 'Iranians are not limited in immigration and they are not as interested to go to the U.S. as they were decades ago. Iranians prefer Canada, as well as neighboring countries with flourishing economies like the (United Arab) Emirates.'
Others pointed out that high-ranking government officials have children living or working in the U.S., despite the tensions, and suggested that it would be fair to remove those as well.
Tehran resident Mehri Soltani offered rare support for Trump's decision.
'Those who have family members in the U.S, it's their right to go, but a bunch of bad people and terrorists and murderers want to go there as well,' he said. 'So his policy is correct. He's doing the right thing.'
___
Nasser Karimi And Jon Gambrell, The Associated Press
Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
5 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
20 states and DC sue DOJ to stop immigration requirements on victim funds
A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C., is asking a federal judge to stop the U.S. Department of Justice from withholding federal funds earmarked for crime victims if states don't cooperate with the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts. The lawsuit filed Monday in Rhode Island federal court seeks to block the Justice Department from enforcing conditions that would cut funding to a state or subgrantee if it refuses to honor civil immigration enforcement requests, denies Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers access to facilities or fails to provide advance notice of release dates of individuals possibly wanted by ICE because of their immigration status. The lawsuit asks that the conditions be thrown out, arguing that the administration and the agency are overstepping their constitutional and administrative authority. The lawsuit also argues that the requirements are not permitted or outlined in the Victims of Crime Act, known as VOCA, and would interfere with policies created to ensure victims and witnesses report crimes without fear of deportation. 'These people did not ask for this status as a crime victim. They don't break down neatly across partisan lines, but they share one common trait, which is that they've suffered an unimaginable trauma,' New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said during a video news conference Monday, calling the administration's threat to withhold funds 'the most heinous act' he's seen in politics. The federal conditions were placed on VOCA funding, which provides more than a billion dollars annually to states for victims compensation programs and grants that fund victims assistance organizations. VOCA funding comes entirely from fines and penalties in federal court cases, not from tax dollars. Every state and territory has a victims compensation program that follows federal guidelines, but largely is set up under state law to provide financial help to crime victims, including medical expense reimbursement, paying for crime scene cleanup, counseling or helping with funeral costs for homicide victims. VOCA covers the cost of about 75% of state compensation program awards. The funds are also used to pay for other services, including testing rape kits, funding grants to domestic violence recovery organizations, trauma recovery centers and more. Advocates and others argue that the system needs to protect victims regardless of their immigration status and ensure that reporting a crime does not lead to deportation threats. They also say that marginalized communities, such as newly arrived immigrants, are more likely to be crime targets. 'The federal government is attempting to use crime victim funds as a bargaining chip to force states into doing its bidding on immigration enforcement,' New York Attorney General Letitia James, who also joined the lawsuit, said in a statement Monday. 'These grants were created to help survivors heal and recover, and we will fight to ensure they continue to serve that purpose … We will not be bullied into abandoning any of our residents.' The Associated Press left a message seeking comment from a DOJ spokesperson Monday afternoon. President Donald Trump's administration has sought to withhold or pull back other federal funding or grant funding midstream, saying awardees and programs no longer agree with its priorities. In April, it cancelled about $800 million in DOJ grants, some of which were awarded to victims service and survivor organizations. And in June, states filed a lawsuit over added requirements in Violence Against Women Act funding that mandated applicants agree not to promote 'gender ideology,' or run diversity, equity and inclusion programs or prioritize people in the country illegally. Several attorneys general said the VOCA conditions appear to be another way the administration is targeting so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, though there is no clear definition of what a sanctuary state or city is. The Trump administration earlier this month released an updated list of states, cities and counties it considers sanctuary jurisdictions. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in the August announcement that the department would 'continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.' As of Monday afternoon attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin — all Democrats — had signed on to the lawsuit.
Toronto Star
34 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Mississippi becomes fourth state to send National Guard troops to DC in expanding federal crackdown
WASHINGTON (AP) — Joining forces from three other Republican-led states, the Mississippi National Guard will deploy 200 troops to Washington as part of the Trump administration's ongoing federal policing and immigration overhaul in the nation's capital. Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves said in a statement Monday that he has approved the deployment of approximately 200 Mississippi National Guard Soldiers to Washington, D.C.
Winnipeg Free Press
34 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What to know about redistricting fights as Texas Democrats return and California starts work
Republicans can move ahead with redrawing Texas' congressional districts now that Democratic lawmakers have returned to the state. Efforts to thwart President Donald Trump's push to tilt the political map for next year's midterm elections in his favor shifted to California. Dozens of Texas Democrats ended a two-week walkout Monday after Democrats in California heeded Gov. Gavin Newsom's call to counter the GOP effort in Texas. In California, the Democratic-supermajority Legislature faces right deadlines, and a plan would have to be approved by voters in November. Republicans have more options for mid-decade redistricting than Democrats because they control more statehouses, and they've talked about redrawing districts in Florida, Indiana and Missouri. Here's what to know. Trump is trying avoid a congressional check on him Both Trump and the Democrats are looking ahead to the 2026 midterms knowing that they often go against the president's party, as they did during Trump's first term in 2018. Republicans currently have a seven-seat majority in the 435-member House. State legislatures draw the lines after each U.S. census in most states — including Texas — and only a few dozen House districts are competitive. In Texas, Republicans hold 25 of 38 seats, and they're trying to increase that to 30. In California, Democrats have 43 of the 52 seats, and they're trying to boost that to 48, to wipe out the advantage the GOP would gain from redrawing lines in Texas. California is more complicated for Democrats In some ways, the nation's most-populous state, California, is a reverse-mirror image of the nation's second most-populous state, Texas. Democrats are even more firmly in control of state government there than Republicans are in Texas, with Democratic supermajorities in both California legislative chambers. But California's districts were drawn by an independent commission created by a statewide vote in 2008 after years of intense partisan battles over redistricting. Democrats are trying to avoid legal challenges to a new map by asking voters to approve it as an exception to the normal process, which would require a special election in November. Texas has no such commission, so its Legislature doesn't have to seek voters' approval for its maps. California lawmakers were returning Monday to the state capital from a summer break. They are scheduled to remain in session through Sept. 12. Why a walkout stalled Republicans in Texas Republicans have solid majorities in both chambers of the Texas Legislature, and a Democrat hasn't won statewide office there since 1994. But Texas is among a handful of states where two-thirds of each chamber must be present to conduct business, and the GOP majorities are not that large. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott already had called a special legislative session when Trump began pushing for a new congressional map, but GOP lawmakers could not conduct business after most Democratic lawmakers left for blue states, including California, Illinois and Massachusetts. But there were pressures on Democrats against holding out longer. They were away from their families and nonlegislative jobs, and their walkout also prevented lawmakers from providing relief to the Texas Hill Country ravaged by deadly flash flooding in July. They also faced fines of $500 per day, as well as efforts to oust some of them from office.
