Ban sparks panic among refugees awaiting urgent medical care in U.S.

[webfact]

Ban sparks panic among refugees awaiting urgent medical care in U.S.

By Yasmeen Abutaleb, Kristina Cooke and Mica Rosenberg

REUTERS

 

Syrian Refugee Jihad Alkhaled speaks to a reporter beside his son Mohammad, who suffers from Ewing Sarcoma and would need expensive chemotherapy sessions, in their home in Amman, Jordan, January 29, 2017. REUTERS Video News

 

SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, (Reuters) - Al Ameen, a 33-year-old Iraqi refugee with hemophilia A, a genetic disorder that prevents proper blood clotting, has been living in Jordan awaiting medical care in the United States for two years. His condition is so advanced, his doctors have told him, that only a handful of facilities in the world can treat him.

 

Already worried that his application would not be approved in time to get the treatment he needs, the United States' four-month halt of the resettlement of refugees has convinced him he will never be accepted.

 

"I'm going to die here by myself," Al Ameen said in a phone interview on Sunday. "Where do people expect all the refugees to go? We have nowhere to go."

 

President Donald Trump's executive order last Friday has sowed panic and uncertainty among refugees who need urgent medical care, some of whom had prioritised applications, according to aid workers.

 

Al Ameen, who asked that his last name not be disclosed because he fears attacks on his relatives still in Iraq, said his condition has deteriorated in recent months. He lives in Jordan alone, is barely able to move and is covered by bruises.

 

The four-month U.S. ban on accepting refugees could mean as many as 800 people needing medical treatment will be denied entry, said Karen Monken of HIAS, a Maryland-based refugee assistance organisation formerly known as Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. Before the halt, about 200 refugees with significant medical issues were being resettled in the United States each month on average, she said.

 

Trump administration officials say the 120-day ban is temporary and needed so that a new vetting system can be put in place, which they say will prevent terrorist attacks. The order singles out Syrian refugees and suspends their admission until "sufficient changes have been made" to the refugee programme. The executive order allows exemptions on a case-by-case basis.

 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on refugees in need of urgent medical care.

    

DOCTORS' APPOINTMENTS MADE

 

Under the system in place before the temporary halt, after refugees register with the United Nations and undergo initial assessment and interviews, the strongest candidates are referred for resettlement, aid workers and U.N. officials said. Those referred to the United States tend to be the most vulnerable - including single mothers, children and people with medical conditions that require sophisticated treatment.

 

U.S. State Department guidelines provide that refugees with serious life-threatening medical conditions can move to the front of the line for expedited processing. The fast-track process from referral to arrival in the United States typically takes around eight to ten weeks or several months.

 

The normal processing time for refugees is between 18 to 24 months, according to the State Department. Lawyers say individual refugee cases, though, can often drag on for years longer.

 

HIAS' Monken said her organisation had been expecting the arrival of several refugees with medical conditions to the United States in the coming weeks who had already started planning their doctors' appointments and finding apartments.

 

One Syrian woman in her 20s, who is deaf and mute, was supposed to arrive in New York in early February and her case is now on indefinite hold, Monken said. An Iraqi family with a 5-year-old son who has congenital heart disease was also due to arrive in Michigan in coming months.

 

"We see intense medical needs, especially from Syrians, because their trauma is so fresh, including recent shrapnel wounds and lost limbs," said Monken.

 

Officials at the United Nations agency that handles refugees, UNHCR, are still trying to understand the breadth and implications of the executive order. The UNHCR said it could not provide a specific number of how many refugees with medical needs would be affected by the U.S. ban.

 

UNHCR's Larry Yungk, a senior resettlement officer in Washington, said they are speaking with State Department officials and trying to learn which cases might be exempt from the ban.

 

"There are still a lot of unknowns," said Yungk.  

 

Since the halt was announced on Friday U.N. officials and attorneys for refugees have also worked to identify emergency cases that could be sent to other countries. But the prospects are not promising.

 

Canada and several European nations where U.N. officials would normally reroute cases, including Sweden, Norway and Germany, have already taken record numbers of refugees in recent years. The Minister’s Office for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in Canada did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

"We've informed (the State Department) that there's limited capacity to resettle these other cases," said Yungk, the UNHCR official. "There's no way to compensate for all the U.S. placements."

   

'LOST HOPE' FOR DAUGHTER

 

One Syrian mother, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution against her family, said in a telephone interview on Sunday that she had completed interviews with UNHCR and hoped her 15-year-old daughter would be accepted for resettlement and surgery in the United States.

 

She said the girl, who was also born with a birth defect, was imprisoned in Syria by government forces with other children four years ago. The girl was tortured, leaving her with severe injuries to her hands and jaw, according to her mother.

 

She was hospitalized in Jordan and received hand surgery there but the surgery made her condition worse, her mother said. The girl lost much of the movement in her hand and now needs a more complex operation.

 

"I've lost hope that I'll be able to get treatment for my daughter," said her mother.

 

Another refugee needing urgent U.S. medical care is Mohammad Alkhaled, a six-year-old Syrian boy living in Jordan, according to Jayne Fleming, a New York-based lawyer who works with refugees. Fleming said she was working on getting the boy expedited resettlement in the United States before the halt.  

 

In October, Alkhaled was diagnosed with Ewing Sarcoma, a type of cancer that forms in bone or soft tissue. Earlier this month, Fleming contacted David Tishler, a pediatric oncologist at Children's Hospital Los Angeles and asked him to review scanned copies of Alkhaled's medical records.

 

"Where he is they have very little experience treating cancer, they don't have the resources," said Tishler. He said that particular strain of cancer requires a year of intensive chemotherapy in addition to surgery and radiation, which is extremely expensive.

 

In cases where the disease is localized, patients with the full course of treatment have a 70 to 75 percent chance of being alive in five years and many survive for much longer, said Tishler.

 

"Without getting additional therapy, he is going to die," Tishler said.

 

(Additional reporting by Bushra Shakhshir in Amman; Editing By David Rohde and Mary Milliken)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-31

[thai3]

cry me a river, if Muslims had not caused so much devastation over the past few years no ban would have been needed. 

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, thai3 said:

cry me a river, if Muslims had not caused so much devastation over the past few years no ban would have been needed. 

Circumstances of life constantly change. Hope you never receive any compassion in the future due to your never ending vilification of those less fortunate than you.

[WaywardWind]

14 minutes ago, thai3 said:

cry me a river, if Muslims had not caused so much devastation over the past few years no ban would have been needed. 

Not one single refugee from any of the seven countries caused ANY harm, let alone "devastation."

 

It must be difficult to go through life with a hard stone for a heart.

[edwinchester]

2 hours ago, thai3 said:

cry me a river, if Muslims had not caused so much devastation over the past few years no ban would have been needed. 

What ever happened in your own life to make you so unsympathetic to people so desperately ill?

[sagittarius6999]

Its people like the the bleeding hearts who are so "compassionate " that we have all these problems with Muslims and refugees in the world.. Why should anyone feel the have a right to anywhere in the world. Donald is spot on with refusing entry , pity the UK does not adopt a similar strategy. I know I will get them all on complaining about my attitude. They always think they speak for the majority  but they dont, they are in the minority its just that bleeding hearts always want to get online and talk, makes them feel goog

[Ulic]

I hate to be an <deleted>, but who pays for all these treatments. The UN, the US government?  Where would they have gotten these treatments if there was no war in Syria so they could not claim refugee status in the US. The article says that some of these  treatments are available in a handful of hospitals around the world. I guess they will have to re-file there applications for Europe.  

[jcsmith]

The word deplorable comes to mind while reading these comments.

[lovelomsak]

20 hours ago, WaywardWind said:

Not one single refugee from any of the seven countries caused ANY harm, let alone "devastation."

 

It must be difficult to go through life with a hard stone for a heart.

must be difficult to go through life in such high denial and  no concept of reality reality 

[Scott]

21 minutes ago, Ulic said:

I hate to be an <deleted>, but who pays for all these treatments. The UN, the US government?  Where would they have gotten these treatments if there was no war in Syria so they could not claim refugee status in the US. The article says that some of these  treatments are available in a handful of hospitals around the world. I guess they will have to re-file there applications for Europe.  

The humanitarian parole program which has run in the past allowed people to enter the US who might not otherwise be eligible to enter or who may not meet some of the criteria.   Obviously, with medical cases, they would not have passed the medical exam for entry.  

 

The cost is paid in a variety of ways.   Many times, the hospital, and doctors will donate their time and charitable organizations pay for the cost of the treatment and the stay in the US.  

 

People coming for medical care are not necessarily refugees and a part of the plan may not be permanent resettlement, but sometimes events change that, so the general standard is that they meet the general guidelines for resettlement -- for example, it may not be possible to return them.

 

The US is one of the only first world countries that does not have a program to provide humanitarian assistance.   Even in Asia, people are flown from one country to another for the best care and in many, many cases, visa regulations are either expedited or waived.  

[thai3]

4 hours ago, WaywardWind said:

Not one single refugee from any of the seven countries caused ANY harm, let alone "devastation."

 

It must be difficult to go through life with a hard stone for a heart.

You must have been asleep the last 20 years then

[WaywardWind]

4 minutes ago, thai3 said:

You must have been asleep the last 20 years then

No, actually, I have been paying very close attention and working primarily for the USG abroad, about half the time in predominantly Muslim countries, while you apparently were glued to Fox News and other media of that ilk.

[jcsmith]

11 minutes ago, thai3 said:

You must have been asleep the last 20 years then

He is correct not a single death has resulted from a terrorist attack by a refugee from any of those 7 banned countries in more than 40 years in America. That is a fact.  Since 9/11 there have only been an average of 9 deaths a year due to islamic terrorism, only 2 per year as a result of islamic terrorism caused by an immigrant. After 9/11 the U.S. began a process of strong vetting which has done a very good job there. These recent moves were completely unnecessary and are making the world a more dangerous place, not the other way around.

Edited January 31, 2017 by jcsmith

[lovelomsak]

16 hours ago, jcsmith said:

He is correct not a single death has resulted from a terrorist attack by a refugee from any of those 7 banned countries in more than 40 years in America. That is a fact.  Since 9/11 there have only been an average of 9 deaths a year due to islamic terrorism, only 2 per year as a result of islamic terrorism caused by an immigrant. After 9/11 the U.S. began a process of strong vetting which has done a very good job there. These recent moves were completely unnecessary and are making the world a more dangerous place, not the other way around.

Gee i thought France had people shot by terrorist,s and Sweden was beseiged by roving gangs. Maybe Trump does not want so things to happen in America. And maybe clued in Americans do not want it either

[than]

Why absolutely want to go in USA for urgent medical care ? Medical care are most costly in US. They must to go in France, medical care is free for foreign people due to Aide médicale d'état (Taxpayer money)

[jcsmith]

1 hour ago, lovelomsak said:

Gee i thought France had people shot by terrorist,s and Sweden was beseiged by roving gangs. Maybe Trump does not want so things to happen in America. And maybe clued in Americans do not want it either

Completely different situation than in America. America already has a strict vetting process, and only has two neighbors. I'm not going to comment or insert my opinions into what is happening in Europe as its a very different situation that I know less about. But the American numbers are accurate, and they show how ridiculous this ban is.

Edited January 31, 2017 by jcsmith

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

Just one question why must he go to the US as this treatment can be done in the UK and Europe. Its a replacement treatment that's not rocket science.

 

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, SOUTHERNSTAR said:

Just one question why must he go to the US as this treatment can be done in the UK and Europe. Its a replacement treatment that's not rocket science.

 

 

As Scott mentioned, from time to time, medical specialists provide treatment at no cost, so perhaps in the examples in the OP this scenario applies. I do know that medical specialists have provided treatment at no cost in Oz for disenfranchised people from overseas, again as mentioned by Scott, supported by charitable organisation/s.

 

On the other side of the coin organisations such as MSF courageously provide medical care in conflict zones.

Edited January 31, 2017 by simple1

[LPCustom69]

Treat the condition, and then ship them back?

[Scott]

 

9 hours ago, than said:

Why absolutely want to go in USA for urgent medical care ? Medical care are most costly in US. They must to go in France, medical care is free for foreign people due to Aide médicale d'état (Taxpayer money)

 

2 hours ago, LPCustom69 said:

Treat the condition, and then ship them back?

 

These situations usually go through a variety of channels and there is a lot of coordination with NGO's and the gov'ts involved.   Once an offer has been made, then that is the direction it goes.   So, whether it is Germany, the UK, or US, it takes a lot of effort to get everything arranged.    To try to change all that requires a lot of time and effort and that is something that people in need of urgent medical care don't have.   France is not going to be inclined to let someone in whose purpose in the visit is for medical treatment.  

 

A lot of families do return to their home country.   I don't know that with Syrians that is possible or feasible.   The treatment may take quite a while and in the case of children, they need to be accompanied.  

[katana]

21 hours ago, WaywardWind said:

Not one single refugee from any of the seven countries caused ANY harm, let alone "devastation."

 

It must be difficult to go through life with a hard stone for a heart.

The seven countries are Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya.
Just looking at the November 2015 Paris attacks, culminating at the Bataclan massacre, it turned out that:
"...At least some, including the alleged leader Abdelhamid Abaaoud, had visited Syria and returned radicalised...
...Syrian and Egyptian passports were found near the bodies of two of the perpetrators at two attack sites..."
Also looking at this video, you can see why maybe Iran was included.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

[simple1]

15 minutes ago, katana said:

The seven countries are Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya.
Just looking at the November 2015 Paris attacks, culminating at the Bataclan massacre, it turned out that:
"...At least some, including the alleged leader Abdelhamid Abaaoud, had visited Syria and returned radicalised...
...Syrian and Egyptian passports were found near the bodies of two of the perpetrators at two attack sites..."
Also looking at this video, you can see why maybe Iran was included.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

Abdelhamid Abaaoud was born in Belgium, ethnic Moroccan family,  so how would Trump's current Executive Order apply to him, or all the others who were all born in the EU. It has since been confirmed the Syrian passport left behind by the Paris killers was fake and an attempt by ISIS to create hatred towards refugees to further assist social disharmony in Europe. So far looks as though ISIS has been very successful in their propaganda efforts.

Edited January 31, 2017 by simple1

[katana]

Yes, I know he was born in Belgium; it's in the link I gave.

The point is I guess that if he was radicalised there, there's obviously a problem.

As for the passports, that was also in the link. I think it was suggested they were fakes, but never 100% proved.

But if people are getting in on fake Syrian passports and posing as refugees from there, that's also something to take note of.

Why are non-Muslim countries expected to welcome such a divided religion with open arms. Why would America want to keep allowing such division to its shores?
Extremists commit atrocities in the name of Allah. They do it according to and in observance of their interpretation of their faith.

Edited January 31, 2017 by katana

[simple1]

37 minutes ago, katana said:

Yes, I know he was born in Belgium; it's in the link I gave.

The point is I guess that if he was radicalised there, there's obviously a problem.

As for the passports, that was also in the link. I think it was suggested they were fakes, but never 100% proved.

But if people are getting in on fake Syrian passports and posing as refugees from there, that's also something to take note of.

Why are non-Muslim countries expected to welcome such a divided religion with open arms. Why would America want to keep allowing such division to its shores?
Extremists commit atrocities in the name of Allah. They do it according to and in observance of their interpretation of their faith.

One assumes US is able to identify false passports, along with vigorous vetting that Scott has outlined, rather than presumedly cursory inspections that previously occurred within the EU. EU governments have also now tightened up their vetting e.g. France taking up to two years, Germany lengthy processing times etc etc

[WaywardWind]

1 hour ago, katana said:

The seven countries are Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya.
Just looking at the November 2015 Paris attacks, culminating at the Bataclan massacre, it turned out that:
"...At least some, including the alleged leader Abdelhamid Abaaoud, had visited Syria and returned radicalised...
...Syrian and Egyptian passports were found near the bodies of two of the perpetrators at two attack sites..."
Also looking at this video, you can see why maybe Iran was included.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

This topic is about banning refugees from entering the United States, not France. Nice try, though..

[kevkev1888]

19 hours ago, jcsmith said:

The word deplorable comes to mind while reading these comments.

So if I get sick, I can just to to the good ole USA and get free treatment? 

Nope. And why should I?

They can't even provide free healthcare for their own citizens.

Edited February 1, 2017 by kevkev1888

[Scott]

2 hours ago, kevkev1888 said:

So if I get sick, I can just to to the good ole USA and get free treatment? 

Nope. And why should I?

They can't even provide free healthcare for their own citizens.

Here's a link to my post that explains how it works: