Latest news with #InternationalRefugeeAssistanceProject
The Herald Scotland
10 hours ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's travel ban: Countries singled out in 2017 and 2025
It was the first travel ban issued by Trump in his second presidential term. Trump ordered three travel bans against predominantly Muslim nations during his first administration. Those were contested in federal district and appeals courts. The Supreme Court upheld Trump's third travel ban in June 2018. Trump later expanded that ban by adding six nations in January 2020. A review of the 12 nations banned Wednesday shows half have been targeted in previous bans. Here's what USA TODAY found. Which nations did Trump ban or restrict? Can't view our graphics? Click here to see them. Lower courts overturned the first two bans for apparent religious or racial motivations, before the Supreme Court upheld the third ban in 2018. President Joe Biden repealed the ban in 2021. Which nation have been targeted in current and previous travel bans? Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen have been specified in past travel bans. Wednesday's ban included Eritrea, which Trump included in his expanded list of targeted nations in 2020. Afghanistan, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Myanmar, and the Republic of Congo have not been singled out in previous bans. Countries subject to US travel restrictions on multiple occasions Travel restrictions do not apply to those: Possessing visas that have already been granted. Lawful permanent residents. Certain athletes. Immediate family members of current visa holders. Other classes of individuals for whom the administration granted exceptions. The International Refugee Assistance Project, a group that sued Trump in 2017, criticized the new ban as arbitrary for making exceptions for athletes traveling to the U.S. for sporting events such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, "while closing the door to ordinary people who've gone through extensive legal processes to enter the United States," USA TODAY reported. CONTRIBUTING Joey Garrison, Francesca Chambers, and Kinsey Crowley SOURCE USA TODAY Network reporting and research; Reuters
USA Today
19 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump's travel ban is his fourth attempt. See how list compares to 2017
Trump's travel ban is his fourth attempt. See how list compares to 2017 President Donald Trump ordered a travel ban on June 4, barring residents of 12 countries, mostly in Africa and the Middle East, from entering the United States as a risk to national security. The ban takes effect on June 9. Partial restrictions were imposed against citizens of seven other nations. It was the first travel ban issued by Trump in his second presidential term. Trump ordered three travel bans against predominantly Muslim nations during his first administration. Those bans were contested in federal district and appeals courts. The Supreme Court upheld Trump's third travel ban in June 2018. Trump later expanded that ban by adding six nations in January 2020. A review of the 12 nations banned on June 4 shows half have been targeted in previous bans. Here's what USA TODAY found: Which nations did Trump ban or restrict? Can't view our graphics? Click here to see them. Lower courts overturned the first two bans for apparent religious or racial motivations, before the Supreme Court upheld the third ban in 2018. Then-President Joe Biden repealed the ban in 2021. More: Trump issues new travel ban affecting nearly 20 countries: What travelers need to know Which nations have been targeted in current and previous travel bans? Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen have been specified in past travel bans. The ban on June 4 included Eritrea, which Trump included in his expanded list of targeted nations in 2020. Afghanistan, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Myanmar, and the Republic of Congo have not been singled out in previous bans. Countries subject to US travel restrictions on multiple occasions Travel restrictions do not apply to those: Possessing visas that have already been granted. Lawful permanent residents. Certain athletes. Immediate family members of current visa holders. Other classes of individuals for whom the administration granted exceptions. The International Refugee Assistance Project, a group that sued Trump in 2017, criticized the new ban as arbitrary for making exceptions for athletes traveling to the U.S. for sporting events such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, "while closing the door to ordinary people who've gone through extensive legal processes to enter the United States," USA TODAY reported. CONTRIBUTING Joey Garrison, Francesca Chambers, and Kinsey Crowley SOURCE USA TODAY Network reporting and research; Reuters
Axios
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Axios
What to know about Trump's new travel bans
President Trump is again prioritizing travel bans, furthering his administration's crackdown on unauthorized immigration. The big picture: Trump's first term travel bans caused immediate confusion, humanitarian concern and were slammed as discriminatory. The bans, announced Wednesday, go into effect on Monday, contrasting with his first administration when they started with minimal notice. What they're saying: "The restrictions in this proclamation are country specific and include places that lack proper vetting, exhibit high visa overstay rates, or fail to share identity and threat information," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. The recent attack in Boulder, Colorado, underscored "dangers" of immigrants who overstay visas, Jackson added. Egypt, where suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman is from, was not on the travel ban list. State of play: Trump fully restricted and limited entry from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. He also partially restricted and limited entry from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. "Today's proclamation weaponizes and distorts immigration laws to target people that the president dislikes and disagrees with – and it does so based primarily on racial and religious animus," Stephanie Gee, senior director of U.S. legal services at the International Refugee Assistance Project, said in a statement. Zoom in: Syria, Iraq, North Korea and Nigeria were included in Trump's first-term travel bans, but excluded so far from this administration's. Many of Trump's first-term targets were countries with predominantly Muslim populations. Several on the new list are also Muslim-majority nations, but the administration said this term's bans are based on visa overstay rates. Yes, but: Trump's list captures some of the most egregious overstay offenders, but omits others, AP reported. Trump's first-term travel bans Trump enacted four iterations of travel bans during his first term: In January 2017, Trump banned travel to the U.S. for 90 days for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. He also suspended the resettlement of all Syrian refugees. In March 2017, he rescinded the original ban, taking Iraq off the ban list and lifting the indefinite suspension for Syrian refugees. In September 2017, the third iteration replaced the second one, removing Sudan from the list and barring certain nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen and Somalia. Travel restrictions on Chad were removed the following year. In January 2020, Trump expanded the third ban to include Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania. The Supreme Court in June 2018 ruled 5-4 to allow a third version of the executive order to go into force. It expanded the list of barred travelers to include some Venezuelan and North Korean nationals. Between the lines: "The travel bans of the Trump administration's first term never demonstrated any meaningful value as a national security tool," Jeremy Robbins, executive director of the American Immigration Council, said.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Trump v. Hawaii: Explaining case cited in new US travel ban order affecting Cuba and Haiti
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation imposing travel restrictions on 19 countries, including a complete ban on nationals from 12 countries. The affected nations include Cuba and Haiti. The White House cited the Trump vs Hawaii (2018) as a legal precedent in its latest press release. The proclamation, enacted under Executive Order 14161, fully bans entry from 12 nations and partially restricts seven, including Cuba (partial) and Haiti (full), to combat terrorism and national security risks. Trump v. Hawaii upheld the president's authority to restrict entry, a ruling central to the new ban's justification. Trump v. Hawaii (585 US 667) challenged Proclamation No. 9645, Trump's third travel ban, issued on September 24, 2017. It restricted entry from eight countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen), citing deficient vetting and security risks. Hawaii, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and others sued, alleging the ban violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by targeting Muslims. The case centered on whether the president's authority under INA Section 212(f) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f))—allowing suspension of entry for foreigners deemed 'detrimental' to US interests—was lawful and whether the ban was motivated by anti-Muslim bias. On June 26, 2018, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court upheld the ban. The majority ruled: Presidential Authority: Section 212(f) grants the president broad discretion to suspend entry when national security is at stake, supported by a worldwide review of vetting processes. No Religious Discrimination: The ban was facially neutral, based on security concerns, not anti-Muslim animus, despite Trump's campaign statements. The Court applied rational basis review, finding the ban had a 'legitimate purpose." Dissent: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented, arguing the ban was rooted in anti-Muslim rhetoric, violating the Establishment Clause, and drawing parallels to Korematsu v. United States (1944). The 2025 proclamation relies on Trump v. Haiti to justify restrictions under Section 212(f), citing the same authority upheld in 2018. The new ban targets countries like Haiti (31.38% B1/B2 visa overstay rate) and Cuba (state sponsor of terrorism) for inadequate vetting and security risks.
Newsweek
4 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
We're Suing the Trump Administration Over Its Refugee Double Standard
In May, the Trump administration admitted dozens of white Afrikaners into the United States as refugees. In just over three months, the administration created a new program, completed processing, and welcomed this group to the United States. The speed and ease of the admission of these Afrikaners—arriving via chartered plane, no less—was unprecedented. But, more remarkably, it happened at a time when the administration is fighting tooth and nail to close the door to all other populations seeking humanitarian protection, including by stripping protections for 500,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans already in the United States, a move endorsed by the Supreme Court via its shadow docket on May 30. This administration launched its attack on humanitarian protection in its very first hours. On January 20, President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending the refugee admissions program and barring the entry of refugees from all over the world, including more than 12,000 people who were booked for travel shortly after Inauguration Day. Approximately 600,000 refugees had their applications frozen in place, and 130,000 of them had already been approved to resettle. As a result, families were left in dangerous limbo, in refugee camps, in hiding, separated from their loved ones. These actions blatantly violate the Refugee Act of 1980, passed with bipartisan support in Congress to create a consistent, predictable system for assisting displaced people based on humanitarian need, not political or ideological concerns. That system can be painfully slow, but it is a lifeline for those fleeing war and persecution. On behalf of eight individual refugees, several refugee resettlement organizations, and an American citizen preparing to sponsor and welcome refugees into her community, my colleagues and I at the International Refugee Assistance Project filed Pacito v. Trump, a class-action suit, in federal court. We're seeking to restore the system Congress built and to give our clients and thousands of others a fair chance to seek safety in the United States. Over the past few months, we have secured a series of court victories; decisions from federal judges in the Western District of Washington and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have required the administration to process and provide resettlement support to refugees who were approved and had travel scheduled before the suspension. But as a result of the administration's foot-dragging, very few have been able to enter, and those who have were successful only after enormous effort. DULLES, VIRGINIA - MAY 12: Newly arrived white South Africans, also called Afrikaners, are welcomed by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau in a hangar at Atlantic Aviation Dulles near Washington Dulles International Airport... DULLES, VIRGINIA - MAY 12: Newly arrived white South Africans, also called Afrikaners, are welcomed by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau in a hangar at Atlantic Aviation Dulles near Washington Dulles International Airport on May 12, 2025 in Dulles, Virginia. MoreTake our client Josephine, who fled civil war in Congo. Her mother, a refugee living in Idaho, had petitioned to reunite with Josephine eight years ago. Josephine was finally approved to travel in late January 2025. She, too, was living in South Africa while waiting for approval. "Imagine being kept apart from your family for years," she told me. "Then one day a door opens, only to shut again in your face. I wasn't sure if I was ever going to see my mom again." Josephine was joyfully reunited with her mother in March, but unlike her white Afrikaner neighbors, she needed a federal court order to resettle here. Our lead plaintiff, Pacito, also a refugee fleeing civil war in Congo, has not been so lucky. After years of processing, he, along with his wife and toddler daughter, was scheduled for travel on January 22. They sold their belongings and gave up their housing, ready for a new life in Tennessee, only to be told on January 21 that they'd been barred from travel. It's impossible not to see the disparity between the smooth processing of white Afrikaners and the lengthy waits and abrupt halts to which the United States has subjected all other refugees. President Trump has said race was not the motivation for this disparate treatment; he claims he'd admit this group even if they were Black. And yet, his administration's actions have blocked tens of thousands of approved refugees from all over the world, including Black Africans, persecuted Yazidi minorities in Iraq, and Afghan allies in hiding from the Taliban. Congress' refugee program has saved millions of lives over decades. The administration's swift and unlawful attempt to destroy it draws a stark contrast with the equally swift creation of a shadow replacement of it. The arrival of the Afrikaners lays bare the truth: this administration wants to end refugee resettlement for all but a select group. The United States has a mixed record of living up to its promise as a place of refuge. Trump is not the first president to turn away displaced people and to target nonwhite immigrants. But this administration's weaponization of the immigration system to benefit groups it favors and punish those it does not is novel in its scope and rashness. The chaos and cruelty unleashed over the last four months should remind courts, legislatures, and everyday people that the ideals of American refuge and fairness are worth fighting for. Melissa Keaney is a Senior Supervising Attorney, U.S. Litigation, at the International Refugee Assistance Project. She represents individual and organizational plaintiffs in federal litigation challenging President Trump's refugee ban. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
