
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.'
Challenging the ban could be 'an uphill battle'
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.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Donbas: Why Russia is desperate to capture eastern Ukraine's industrial heartland
The future of Ukraine's industrial heartland in the east is likely to play a key role in talks between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump as they prepare to meet in Alaska on Friday. The Russian leader has demanded that Ukrainian forces withdraw from Donetsk as part of any any ceasefire deal, according to Volodymyr Zelensky. The Ukrainian president has said that Putin wants the remaining 30 per cent of the eastern region, which has seen some of the fiercest battles in the three-and-a-half year long war. But losing Donetsk would give Russia control of almost all of the Donbas, the collective name for Ukraine's eastern industrial heartland which has been long coveted by Putin. Earlier this week, Zelensky vowed Ukraine would 'never leave' the Donbas and warned that Putin could use it as a spring board for a future invasion. As Kyiv fights to keep Donbas from Trump's so-called 'land swap' deal, here's all you need to know about the region. Where is the Donbas? Far along Ukraine's eastern border, Donbas is a portmanteau name from 'Donets Basin', a further abbreviation of 'Donets Coal Basin', in reference to the coal basin along the Donets Ridge and river. Donbas stretches across the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, two large regions of Ukraine that have formed a significant part of the frontline in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. How long has it been occupied? The Donbas has been partially occupied by Russia since 2014. At around the same time, Putin decided to annexe Crimea, a peninsula which lies just off the south of Ukraine towards the Black Sea. Russian-backed separatists broke away from the Ukrainian government to proclaim themselves independent 'people's republics' and, as a result, Moscow captured over a third of Ukraine's eastern territory. Russia classes the Republic of Crimea, Sevastopol, the Luhansk People's Republic, the Donetsk People's Republic, and the regions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson as subjects of the Russian Federation. Ukraine says these territories are part of Ukraine and they are not recognised by the United Nations. Now, it is believed around 88 per cent of the Donbas region is under Russian control. This includes almost all of the Luhansk region and 75 per cent of the Donetsk region, according to Reuters. Approximately 6,600 square km is still controlled by Ukraine, but Russia has been focusing most of its energy along the front in Donetsk, pushing towards the last remaining major cities such as Pokrovsk. A key strategic region in the war The hyper-industrialised Donbas economy is dominated by coal mining and metallurgy. The region has one of the largest coal reserves in Ukraine, even when extraction of coal decreased elsewhere. When conflict broke out in the area in 2014, Ukraine's coal mining enterprises saw a 22.4 per cent decline in the production of raw coal from 2013, as reported by Kyiv Post, showing the country's reliance on Donbas as an energy power house. But as well as its economic significance, Donbas has been described as a 'fortress belt' by The Institute for the Study of War in terms of its strategic value in the war. Donetsk forms the main fortified defensive line across the frontline, stretching through Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, and Kostiantynivka. Elina Beketova, a fellow for CEPA, said: 'Ukraine is holding a key defensive line across Donetsk,' describing a 'fortified zone build up over years because the war began 11 years ago.' She added that Russia hasn't been able to break through since 2014 and they have lost many people there. The entire region is heavily mined and Ukrainian troops have been preparing it for years. 'It's not just trenches, it's a deep, layered defence with bunkers, anti-tank ditches, minefields, and industrial areas built into the terrain. The area includes dominant heights, rivers, and urban zones that make it extremely hard to capture.' Ms Beketova said losing this fortified line would have 'catastrophic consequences' as it holds back Russia's advancement into central and western parts of Ukraine. 'The front would shift approximately 80km west, and Russia would gain open ground - flat steppe with no natural barriers - giving them direct paths toward Kharkiv, Poltava, and Dnipro.' What Zelensky has said about the Donbas Zelensky has repeatedly rejected calls from Russia to give up the Donbas. In response to Putin's request that Ukraine withdraws from eastern Donetsk, he vowed Ukraine would 'never leave' the Donbas and warned Putin's troops could use it as a spring board for a future invasion. "We will not leave Donbas. We cannot do this. Everyone forgets the first part - our territories are illegally occupied. Donbas for the Russians is a springboard for a future new offensive,' he said.


The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump cuts to science research threaten his administration's own AI action plan
The Trump administration released 'America's AI Action Plan' last month with the goal of expanding US dominance when it comes to AI in order to maintain a global edge, especially over China. But Donald Trump's cuts to scientific research funding through federal agencies – including the National Intitute Health, the National Science Foundation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Nasa – will undermine that goal and threaten the research environment that fostered the foundations of AI, experts in the field said. Mark Histed, chief of neural computation and behavior at NIH, said that while the effects of funding cuts on AI might not be obvious in the next year or two, they threaten 'the whole ecosystem that we have built around AI, that has been created by federal support'. 'What I see is an ecosystem, right? I see multiple different disciplines contributing different aspects to this process. I see academia playing a key role and industry playing a key role. And so as we look forward and we think about trying to advance AI, we need to be supporting that entire ecosystem,' Rebecca Willett, a computer science professor at the University of Chicago and faculty director of AI at the Data Science Institute, explained, echoing Histed. Histed and Willett both believe that AI simply would not exist in its current form without federally funded research, and offered a variety of AI technologies and companies that owe their development to federal funding. For example, self-driving cars rely on computer vision technology – federal funding has supported its development since the 1980s. Computer vision is the foundation for the vast majority of face and image recognition technologies. AlphaFold, which uses AI to help discover new medications, and Anthropic, which improves AI safety, including for the US Department of Defense, also exists thanks to federal support. AI research often takes cues from other realms of science, which in turn can help foster AI, so cuts to other disciplines will affect the intelligence's development. Histed points to the overlap between his field of neuroscience and AI. 'We're just at the beginning of understanding how networks of connected neurons create functions like memory and cognition. And if you look at a machine learning network or an AI network, that is also the case,' he said. Histed pointed out that federally funded research that brings these disciplines together has led to Nobel prize-winning work. Geoffrey Hinton and John Hopfield won the 2024 Nobel prize in physics for their work at the intersection of neuroscience and AI, and received support from the NSF. Trump's plan could also pose a threat to AI safety, which is essential to ensuring that AI is not only effective but that it operates within the boundaries of the law. The plan includes provisions to revise guidelines at the National Institute of Standards and Technology 'to eliminate references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change'. These are three of the most controversial aspects of AI, which has been demonstrated to show gender and racial bias in a variety of applications, including face recognition technology and popular applications like ChatGPT. A recent study found that ChatGPT advises women to ask for less money than men when prompted for advice about salary expectations. Histed says that the field of AI safety is also closely linked with neuroscience, because understanding how human neural networks create bias can also help us understand how AI networks create bias. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Trump's plan also calls for less red tape when it comes to building AI datacentres that can suck up huge amounts of energy. Willett said it was true that large-scale machine learning systems 'come at an enormous cost. It's a huge amount of energy, a huge amount of cooling.' But, she added, AI companies themselves should still want to reduce those costs regardless of what Trump's plan says. 'Not only do they have environmental impacts, but it's expensive for the companies that are running these systems. And so I think across the AI community, people are invested in trying to make these systems more efficient,' Willett said. Willett and Histed both say that the AI community will be under threat in the coming years if the federal government no longer funds their training at universities. Histed noted that the federally funded 'talent pipeline' is 'incredibly important', adding 'we train lots and lots and lots of people in neuroscience and related fields that are going directly to these tech companies. There's tons of overlap. All the people who are leading the technical side of the AI revolution have had contact with the academic world that trained them and is supported by US federal funding. 'One of the big ways in which tech companies benefit from universities is that we train students, right?' Willett said. 'And so they walk into these companies with cutting-edge skills that these companies need. And so right off the bat, I think universities are playing an essential role that's important to industry.'


The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Maga star Katie Miller's new podcast reeks of toxic femininity. I listened so you don't have to
Want to hear a cute little story about JD Vance and a Dutch baby? Don't worry, he didn't deport it, he cooked one for breakfast. Then he sat down with Katie Miller to tell her all about his baking skills in the very first episode of her brand-new podcast. Which, by the way, I have heroically listened to all 44 excruciating minutes of so that you don't have to. Miller, for the uninitiated, is a Maga bigwig and married to Stephen Miller, Donald Trump's far-right chief of staff and a man so odious his own uncle once wrote an article calling him a 'hypocrite'. A Trump loyalist, Miller has form when it comes to surrounding herself with odious men: she held top communications jobs during Trump's first term and, earlier this year, became a spokesperson for Elon Musk's pet project, the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge). In May, she absconded to a mysterious role at Musk's private ventures. I imagine that she was attracted to Musk's views on free speech (summed up as: I can say whatever I fancy but you can't) because it's been reported that when Miller was in university she once stole and threw away student newspapers because she didn't like the politician they endorsed. Now, she's launched the Katie Miller Podcast, the first episode of which came out on Monday. Why jump from the highest echelons of government into podcasting? According to Miller, it's because 'as a mom of three young kids, who eats healthy, goes to the gym, works full-time, I know there isn't a podcast for women like myself'. In a promo video, in which she sits cross-legged on an armchair (with shoes on!) in front of a bookshelf with three books on it, including The Great Gatsby and To Kill a Mockingbird, she explains that 'there isn't a place for conservative women to gather online' and she wanted to create a space to have 'real honest conversations' about what matters to women. Apparently what matters to women is the minutiae of vice-president Vance's life: the first 44-minute episode, which I suggest she rename Brief Interviews with Hideous Men, was devoted to fawning over a man who has said professional women 'choose a path to misery' when they prioritize careers over children. Miller, who is not a natural host, awkwardly serves softball questions ('is a hotdog a sandwich?') while Vance drones on about what a great daddy and vice-president he is and how much he loves ice-cream and joking around with Marco Rubio. The closest they get to a controversial topic is Vance talking about all the memes he's inspired and saying that one of his favourites features the pope, Usha Vance and a couch. (There have been online jokes that Vance was intimate with a couch and that he killed the pope.) There is also light mockery of Late Show host Stephen Colbert, whose show recently got cancelled. Other than the memes, the most memorable moment of the episode is when Miller seems to imply that her husband subsists entirely on a diet of mayonnaise, like some sort of anaemic vampire. Stephen Miller also apparently runs around his house with his shoes on, as does JD. Usha, sensibly, takes her shoes off at the front door. All of this is exactly the sort of content I'm sure the busy mums are desperate for. Miller has said she thinks there is a gap in the market for podcasts aimed at conservative women, but the market says otherwise. While young women in the US tend to be progressive, there is a thriving 'womanosphere' of anti-feminist media aimed at conservatives. Some of these outlets don't explicitly cater to young conservative mums in the way that the Katie Miller Podcast says it does, but they're still aiming for the same general demographic. Gen Z commentator Brett Cooper, for example, who has 1.6 million YouTube subscribers, looks at pop culture with a rightwing slant and her show attracts conservative female listeners. In between hot takes on Justin Bieber, Cooper argues that feminism's goal is to 'make men angry and dominate them', a worldview that recently got her a gig at Fox News. Then there's Candace Owens, a conservative conspiracy theorist who recently turned on Maga over the Jeffrey Epstein files fiasco. Owens has 4.57 million subscribers on YouTube and her streams get millions of views. Bari Weiss also has a successful podcast and is currently in talks to sell her 'anti-woke' media startup The Free Press for more than $200m to CBS News. The Financial Times recently reported: 'Weiss has won over [CBS owner David Ellison] partly by taking a pro-Israel stance … as well as her ability to build a younger, digitally savvy audience.' Then, of course, you've got all the trending 'tradwife' content on TikTok, where creators such as Estee Williams and Gwen the Milkmaid glorify traditional gender roles. Beyond tradwives, there's an ecosystem of lifestyle content aimed at young women that camouflages rightwing messages. Think: makeup tutorials with a running commentary about how feminism will make you miserable. Canadian media outlet Global News recently obtained a report prepared by Canada's Integrated Threat Assessment Centre that warns female 'extremist influencers' are using popular online platforms to radicalize and recruit women. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion 'A body of open-source research shows that women in extremist communities are taking on an active role by creating content specifically on image-based platforms with live streaming capabilities,' the report says. 'These women foster a sense of community and create spaces that put their followers at ease, thereby normalizing and mainstreaming extremist rhetoric.' While Miller's podcast may not exactly be revolutionary, it is yet another reminder that Republicans are doing a far better job of spreading their talking points on new media than the Democrats. Sure, the Katie Miller Podcast isn't an 'official' White House podcast, but the humanizing interview with Vance, along with Miller's deep Maga ties, suggest it is very much Trump-approved. In an interview with the Washington Post published on Tuesday, Miller also insinuated that her podcast is a voter recruitment drive for 2028. 'In order to cultivate the future of Maga, we have to talk to women,' she said. As the Republicans stretch their tentacles further into the world of podcasting and TikTok, Democrats are still desperately jumping on cringe memes to appeal to a younger audience while flailing around writing long policy documents about how they can spend millions of dollars manufacturing a 'Joe Rogan of the left'. The Katie Miller Podcast may not end up being a hit, but it's just one small part of a very effective Republican messaging strategy. Of course, the really important issue here – the question I'm sure you're pondering right now – is whether the veep thinks a hotdog is a sandwich? The answer is: definitely not. Which, coincidentally, is also my answer to the question: will you ever voluntarily listen to the Katie Miller Podcast again?