Life in limbo for refugees as Trump closes US borders
Eleven suitcases, stuffed with puffer jackets and winter boots, stood ready outside Somali refugee Hassan's corrugated iron home in Kenya's sweltering Dadaab camp.
His dream of a new life in Seattle was finally within reach.
The 24-year-old and his family of 10 were due to fly to the United States on February 10, ending a wait of more than 15 years and filling Hassan with hope for a fresh start on the US Pacific coast.
That was until US President Donald Trump suspended refugee admissions as one of his first acts in office on January 20.
"When I found out our flight was cancelled, it was very bad news for us," Hassan told the Thomson Reuters Foundation by phone from Dadaab in eastern Kenya's Garissa county.
"My father sold everything, even his sheep. I was born here in Dadaab and thought I was finally leaving this place, but maybe God has other plans," added Hassan, whose name has been changed to protect his identity.
From Somalia to Afghanistan, thousands of refugees who fled conflict, disaster or persecution, and were approved for resettlement in the United States, have been left stranded after Trump halted the country's refugee programme. The suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme (USRAP) was to ensure public safety and national security, Trump said in an executive order. It will be reviewed in three months to determine if it sufficiently benefits Americans, the order said.
This is not the first time that Trump has placed restrictions on refugees.
In his first term, he banned arrivals from some Muslim-majority nations, temporarily halted the resettlements and slashed the country's admissions cap to a record low.
But refugee rights groups said the new suspension of USRAP was unprecedented.
Erol Kekic, a senior vice-president at the Church World Service — a charity that screens refugees for US resettlement —said it was "devastating" and "heart-breaking".
"We have never seen anything like this at this level before, despite the changes that have taken place during the first Trump administration," Kekic told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
"Refugee resettlement is one of those proud traditions in the United States that has been practised for such a long time, and we're hoping to try to find a way to continue to do it."
No opportunities
According to the United Nations, nearly 38 million people worldwide are refugees — and 65 per cent of them come from just four countries: Syria, Venezuela, Ukraine and Afghanistan.
Many refugees live in poverty in countries such as Iran, Turkey, Uganda, Pakistan and Kenya, and face a barrage of challenges. Often banned from working, they live in decrepit housing and usually lack the most basic of services.
Kenya is home to more than 820,000 refugees, most of whom fled neighbouring Somalia after it descended into civil war in 1991. Over the years, more refugees have streamed in, uprooted by drought, famine and persistent insecurity.
Many are housed in sprawling refugee camps like Dadaab — a settlement spread over 50sqkm of semi-arid desert that is home to more than 415,000 people.
Residents have few ways to earn a living other than rearing goats, manual labour and running kiosks sewing clothes, selling camel meat or charging cell phones from solar panels.
Kenya forbids refugees from leaving the camp to seek work.
As a result, people are poor and bereft of options.
They live in tarpaulin tents or shacks made of corrugated iron and branches, and rely on rations of cooking oil, milk powder, rice and sugar sent by foreign donors.
Many Somali refugees have lived in Dadaab for decades; some were born in the camp and have never seen life outside.
With most unable to return home to Somalia, tens of thousands have sought a better life whole continents away.
While the United States is often a prized destination, US policy on refugee resettlement is complex.
Vetting and screening — X-rays, vaccinations and a host of other medical examinations — can take more than a decade.
Refugee upon refugee recounts the same tale of years lost to process and procedure, interviews, screenings and then — finally — approval granted only to see their long-awaited escape flights suspended until further notice, no explanation given.
During Trump's first term, the fear of languishing in camps for years saw young men lured by people smugglers into risky, illegal routes to Europe or to the United States via Mexico.
"These people smugglers are smart. They target young men who are desperate after having their flights cancelled and promise to take them through another route," said Abdirahim, 29, who had his flight cancelled in Trump's first term and now again in his second term.
"But many boys just go missing. Or their families here in Dadaab get calls from smugglers in Libya who have kidnapped them and demand thousands of dollars in ransom," added Abdirahim, whose name has been changed to protect his identity.
'We are not bad people'
As well as refugees, thousands of Afghan and Iraqi nationals — people who had worked with the US government and been granted Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) to resettle in the United States — have also been left in limbo.
In Afghanistan, many people have been forced into hiding fearing reprisals after the Taliban returned to power in 2021.
Subhan Safi, 28, worked with US troops as a plumber for three years. In December 2023, he was granted an SIV and more than one year on, was still awaiting evacuation from Kabul.
"I have been waiting to get on a flight ... but now I am facing an uncertain future and do not know what will happen next," he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in Kabul.
"I'm still hopeful that the US president's decision will change, and that people like me, who are at risk, will be allowed entry. I'm very eager to start a new and better life," added Safi, whose name has been changed to protect his identity.
The US State Department would not say how many people were awaiting resettlement, but confirmed admissions were on hold.
"Consistent with President Trump's Executive Order ... the Department of State is coordinating with implementing partners to suspend refugee arrivals and case processing activities," it said in a statement to the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
The UN refugee agency (UNHCR) said it was analysing the order, and was ready to work with Trump to find solutions.
"Refugee resettlement is a life-saving measure for those most at risk, including survivors of violence or torture, women and children at risk, and individuals with legal or physical protection needs," said a UNHCR spokesperson.
Dadaab refugees said they had no choice but to hope that Trump would lift his suspension after the three-month review.
Some even said they didn't blame him.
"I agree with President Trump. Illegal people should not be in his country. I think once he has deported all the illegal people, he will let the refugees come and do their jobs," said Abdi, 24, who has been waiting 16 years for resettlement.
"We are not bad people. We want go to the US but we want to go properly and legally," added Abdi, whose name has been changed to protect his identity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
3 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Trump betrayed the diplomatic effort, says Iranian FM
Tehran: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has dismissed US President Donald Trump's declaration that their countries would re-engage in nuclear negotiations in the coming week. 'If our interests require a return to negotiations, we will consider it. But at this time, no agreement or promise has been made, and no talks have taken place.' Araghchi made the point that they were negotiating when Israel launched its June 13th unprovoked attack on Iran. Trump followed up last weekend by striking three Iranian nuclear sites with bunker buster bombs with the intention of finishing off Iran's nuclear programme. Araghchi accused Trump of betraying the diplomatic effort to resolve differences. While Trump claimed the US had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi said the sites had been seriously damaged but suggested that Iran should be able to enrich uranium "in a matter of months." According to CNN, the Trump administration could encourage Iran to resume talks by offering $20-30 billion to establish a civilian nuclear energy programme without Iranian enrichment of its own nuclear fuel. The finance, it is said, could be provided by the Gulf countries, naturally not the US. The administration would also ease sanctions and unfreeze Iranian assets in foreign banks. While such a speculative deal has been deliberately leaked and widely reported, it is unlikely to materialise. It looks like "pie in the sky," as the saying goes. Tehran is unlikely to reject a return to talks, but Iran is still assessing its military, political, and diplomatic losses from Israel's 12-day war and US strikes on its nuclear sites. Iran has to lay down its own conditions and decide when the atmosphere is propitious before re-engaging. Iran has laid down two red lines: low level uranium enrichment must continue on Iranian soil and Iran will not discuss its ballistic missile programme which Iran argues is essential for self-defence. Trump seeks to cross these red lines by eliminating both domestic enrichment and missiles. Trust has not characterised Iranian-US relations since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini over-threw Washington's ally Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in early 1979 and, radical "students" seized control of the US embassy in Tehran and held staff for 444 days. They were not freed until Ronald Regan had taken over the US presidency from Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, this gesture did not clear the way for the restoration of relations due to US rejectionism. The blow of losing the Shah, compounded by the humiliation of the embassy occupation made the US, particularly Congress, testy and unforgiving and easily influenced by domestic and Israeli anti-Iran hawks. Iranian popular trust in the US was undermined during the decades-long the rule of the shah who developed Iran's economy and carried out modernising social reforms but ruled with an iron fist. His tool was his intelligence agency Savak which allied with the US Central Intelligence Agency and Israel's Mossad. The shah put Iran firmly in the Western camp during the Cold War with the Soviet Union and adopted pro-Israel policies. Iranian resentment continues over the 1953 US-British coup against popularly elected Prime Minister Mossadegh who nationalised the Anglo-Iranian oil company. Resentment intensified when in 1954, the shah reached a deal giving Western countries control of Iran's oil industry. He also allowed US companies to play a dominant role in trade and Iran's domestic markets. This was exploited by the Iranian opposition, especially Khomeini who mounted his "revolution" from exile in France. He returned to Tehran in early 1979 after the shah had fled to the US. After several years of turmoil, Khomeini installed the cleric-dominated model of governance A decade after the fall of Shah, Iran's President Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-1997) tried and failed to reconcile with the US and the West. He was followed by Mohammed Khatami (1997-2005) who in 1999 launched his "Dialogue of Civilisations" which he hoped would achieve this end. One effort in this campaign was a Cyprus conference attended by US scholars, policy makers, influential Iranians, and foreign correspondents. While Khatami's call for dialogue failed to change Washington, one result of this conference was the creation of the website Gulf 2000 which continues to provide platform for information and comment on Iran, the Gulf and the region. Khatami was succeeded by erratic hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-2013). His hostile attitude toward the US and the West gave a boost to the powerful anti-Iran lobby in Washington, which was heavily influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who had tried for three decades to drag the US into a war with Iran. The landmark 2015 agreement limiting Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions was negotiated during the presidency of reformist Hassan Rouhani (2013-2021). Iran carried out its commitments under the Obama administration deal and secured some relief from sanctions which had crippled its economy. At that time, IAEA chief Grossi said Iran's nuclear programme was "primitive." The deal restricted enrichment to 3.67 per cent for civilian power plants, reduced its stockpile, compelled Iran to export enriched uranium above the limit, and compelled Iran to use old model centrifuges for enrichment. Iran was subjected to the most stringent and invasive regime of monitoring and inspections ever imposed on any country. However, in 2018, Trump aborted the deal and proclaimed1,500 sanctions, disrupting the process of reconstituting US-Iran relations. Iran responded in 2019 by enriching uranium to 20 and 60 per cent, amassing a large stockpile, building advanced centrifuges, and curbing IAEA monitoring, Hardliners in the Iranian clerical establishment engineered the 2021 election of Ebrahim Raisi who reverted to an anti-US stance until he died in a helicopter crash in 2024. Iran again swung to the reformist faction by electing Masoud Pezeshkian as president who had pledged to clinch a new nuclear agreement. Having failed to restore relations with the US, which remains Iran's chief antagonist on the global scene, Tehran has cultivated ties within the region. This process was expanded by the 2023 restoration of Saudi Iranian relations and promised the stability Gulf countries require to pursue economic and social advancement. This has been jeopardised by Israel's war on Iran and US military and political intervention.
Gulf Today
3 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Term limits won't fix what's wrong with Congress
David M. Drucker, Tribune News Service Support for imposing term limits on the US Congress is gaining steam, with at least half a dozen state legislatures approving resolutions urging a cap on service in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It stands to reason. Congress' job approval ratings are perennially in the tank, and a fresh Quinnipiac University poll reveals more of the same. In the survey, Republicans, who control both chambers, received positive marks from just 32% of registered voters. Democrats fared even worse, garnering a meager 21% approval rating. Many Americans across the political spectrum believe term limits would invigorate Capitol Hill, forcing older lawmakers to make way for new faces, loosening the stranglehold of politics and donors on lawmaking and enabling policy outcomes more responsive to their priorities. They're wrong — especially on that last part. Rather than making members of the House and Senate more responsive to the voters, term limits would shift power from veteran, experienced lawmakers to unelected staffers, executive branch bureaucrats and K Street lobbyists, none of whom would be subject to term limits. Just ask longtime political operatives in California, who have watched firsthand the impact of term-limits on the state legislature. Early in my career, I was a statehouse reporter in California, covering a legislature that limited assembly members to three, two-year terms and senators to two, four-year terms. Reform was minimal; political jockeying to reach the next elected position was rampant; and the work product generally was mediocre because novice lawmakers who didn't know what they were doing quickly assumed committee chairmanships and political leadership. Rob Stutzman, a veteran Republican operative in Sacramento, describes it as a 'transfer of institutional power' from elected officials to unelected government professionals and lobbyists. The experience was failure enough that in 2012 Californians approved Proposition 28, a voter initiative that overhauled term-limits. To solve the myriad problems created by letting inexperienced lawmakers govern the state with America's largest population and biggest economy, voters agreed to extend the years of service allowed in either chamber of the legislature to a dozen years (six, two-year terms in the assembly and three, four-year terms in the senate). But there was a trade-off. To sell voters on increasing the number of assembly and senate terms politicians can serve, the total years they are permitted to serve in the legislature overall were reduced from 14 to 12. And that means many of the governing pitfalls Proposition 28 aimed to address have lingered. 'Senior committee staff consider themselves members since they feel they know more than these neophyte legislators,' said David Louden, a Republican operative who previously served as chief of staff to four members of the California legislature. These legislative aides 'end up driving the policy of the committee, as opposed to the legislator,' he added. But cautionary tales about the potential downsides of terms limits have failed to dissuade voters from their firm belief that limits on Congressional service are the antidote for what ails the House and Senate. Over 80% of Americans support Congressional term limits. That would require a constitutional amendment. As political writer John Fund reports for National Review, six legislatures — Indiana, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee — have approved resolutions 'calling for an Article V convention to impose term limits on Congress,' with Arizona and Ohio poised to do the same. (A convention would only be triggered if 34 states passed such a resolution.) Meanwhile, there also is support for congressional term limits brewing in Congress. Freshman Senator Dave McCormick and fifth-term Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, both Republicans from Pennsylvania, have jointly proposed amending the Constitution to put a ceiling on congressional service. Their plan would limit senators to two, six-year terms and House members to six, two-year terms, so that no politician could spend more than a dozen years in either chamber. To encourage support for the measure, McCormick and Fitzpatrick would exclude members who were elected before the 2022 midterm elections. 'Our Founding Fathers never imagined that Congress would become an institution filled with career politicians who stay on well past retirement age,' McCormick said in a statement. The senator's point about politicians who stick around beyond the standard retirement age is particularly resonant in a political era with so many elderly political leaders — a development that has left many Democratic, Republican and independent voters hungry for new leadership. On this front, Stutzman pointed out that California's term-limits law has been effective. 'At a time when the US Senate is as old as it's ever been, term limits in California have certainly led to a younger legislature,' he said. 'There were certainly decades-long incumbents that were finally forced to move on once term limits took effect.' My opposition to congressional term-limits notwithstanding, I get the appeal. Roughly a dozen years before I took up political reporting, in the fall of 1990, I voted for Proposition 140, implementing term-limits on the California legislature. Get the career politicians out, I figured. Get imaginative industry professionals with real-world skills in. They would go to Sacramento and focus on good governance and solving problems, I thought, because constitutionally constrained tenures would free them from worrying about reelection. Then, in the winter of 2003, I started covering the statehouse and saw the consequences of my vote up close. It had only made things worse. I can only imagine what would happen in Washington, especially with presidents who take a rather expansive view of their executive powers.
Gulf Today
3 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Musk lashes out at Senate's take on ‘beautiful' megabill
Elon Musk has slammed the Senate version of President Donald Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" as support for the motion to proceed with the legislation in the upper chamber comes down to the wire. "The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!" Musk wrote on X on Saturday afternoon. "Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future." Senate Republicans dropped the final text of the sprawling 940-page bill late on Friday evening. Trump has said he wanted the Senate to pass the legislation — which would include sweeping spending cuts to pay for the tax cuts he signed into law in 2017, increased spending for the military, oil exploration, and immigration enforcement —before the July 4th weekend. Republicans, who have 53 seats, plan to pass the bill using the process of budget reconciliation. That would allow them to sidestep a filibuster from the Democrats as long as the legislation relates to the budget. For the past week, the Senate parliamentarian's office has issued advisories about which parts do not comply with the rules of reconciliation. The biggest sticking point was major changes to Medicaid. Specifically, the legislation would require that Medicaid recipients who are able-bodied and without dependent children would have to work or participate in community service or education for 80 hours a month. In addition, the legislation limits the amount of money states can tax health care providers like hospitals and nursing homes to raise money for Medicaid. But the American Hospital Association said this would devastate rural hospitals that rely on Medicaid dollars. The parliamentarian removed the provider tax provision, but the new version of the bill simply delays when the cap goes into effect. Before the text dropped, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who hails from a state with a large number of rural hospitals and that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act in 2023, said he was a "no" on the motion to proceed because of Medicaid. "It will cause a lot of people to have to be moved off of Medicaid," he told The Independent on Friday evening. "Is just inescapable. The price tag's too high, and the transition protocol, even if you agree with the ultimate target." In addition, the legislation also rolls back some of the renewable energy tax credits implemented in the Inflation Reduction Act, the legislation former President Joe Biden signed that used the same budget reconciliation process. If the bill passes the Senate, it will return to the House of Representatives, which passed it last month. But plenty of conservatives have made objections to the Senate's changes. Trump lobbied senators on Saturday while playing golf with Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Tillis, who's up for re-election in 2028, outlined his opposition to the bill again on Saturday, saying in a statement that "It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities. This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population." Senator Tim Sheehy of Montana wrote on X ahead of the vote on Saturday, "I have just concluded productive discussions with leadership. I will be leading an amendment to strip the sale of public lands from this bill. I will vote yes on the motion to proceed. We must quickly pass the Big Beautiful Bill to advance President Trump's agenda." While, President Donald Trump threatened Senate Republicans who defy him and his 'Big, Beautiful Bill' as the legislation cleared a key test vote in a dramatic night in the upper chamber of Congress. After negotiations dragged on for hours Saturday evening, the Senate voted 51 to 49 to open a debate on the legislation, moving one step closer to landing the bill on Trump's desk by his self-imposed Fourth of July deadline. The Independent
