U.S. expects to resume refugee admissions on Monday

rooster59 · February 5, 2017

U.S. expects to resume refugee admissions on Monday

By Julia Edwards Ainsley

Demonstrators in support of the immigration rules implemented by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, rally at Los Angeles international airport in Los Angeles, California, U.S., February 4, 2017. REUTERS/Ringo Chiu

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On the long and winding road to resettling as a refugee in the United States, the last eight days have brought their share of frustration, hope, relief and uncertainty.

After a federal judge late on Friday temporarily lifted the ban barring the entry of refugees for 120 days and Syrian refugees indefinitely, the U.S. State Department said on Saturday that officials "expect some refugees to arrive Monday."

Refugees do not usually enter on weekends, an official said, as the department hews to a strict set of rules on how their admissions are processed.

Other travelers from seven Muslim majority countries affected by President Donald Trump's week-old curb on immigration can rework their flights after the judge's order, as long as they have valid visas.

Refugees fleeing war, hunger and persecution have less autonomy. Advocates working on their behalf urged the government to move quickly on admitting them.

International Refugee Assistance Project Director Becca Heller called for "the instant resumption of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to immediately take the most vulnerable refugees out of harm's way."

During the week of the ban, the government admitted 843 refugees - but no Syrian refugees, government figures show. Officials previously told Reuters that they were "in transit" and had already been cleared for resettlement before the ban took effect.

The New York Times reported on Saturday that Lawrence Bartlett, the State Department’s director of refugee resettlement, wrote in a department email that officials were working to rebook travel for refugees who had previously been scheduled to leave for the United States over a three-week period ending Feb. 17.

A United Nations spokesman, Leonard Doyle, told the newspaper about 2,000 refugees were ready to travel.

For refugee families, they are trying to keep expectations in check and hope they do not end up back where they started.

Ayham Oubeid, a Syrian living in Cleveland, has been waiting for over a year for his brother George's family to come to the United States as refugees. His brother, who has health issues, is living in Dubai on a work visa that covers him, his six-year-old daughter and five-months pregnant wife.

George left his job and moved the family out of their apartment when he was told they would be resettled in the United States on Feb. 13. But the family's plane tickets were canceled when Trump announced the temporary ban. Without George’s job, the family could lose the work visa and be sent back to Syria in the midst of its deadly civil war.

Upon hearing of the judge's ruling from Friday, Oubeid called George. He was careful not to be too hopeful, knowing the judge's order could be overturned.

"I don’t want to get excited. I don’t want my brother to get excited. Because it was hard for him when he lost everything and was told he couldn't come," Oubeid said.

Ulysses G. · February 5, 2017

Not for long. The U.S. Justice Department has filed a formal notice of appeal.

Feb. 4, 2017, 4:41 p.m.

Trump administration files formal notice of appeal on court order suspending immigration ban

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-administration-files-formal-1486254439-htmlstory.html

thesetat2013 · February 5, 2017

I hope the order is overturned. I still fail to see how a judge can override presidential order on an immigration problem. The country needs a crackdown and more control over who is allowed to enter and stay in the country. It has become increasingly risky with ISIS group and other terrorists.

craigt3365 · February 5, 2017

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

Not for long. The U.S. Justice Department has filed a formal notice of appeal.

Feb. 4, 2017, 4:41 p.m.

Trump administration files formal notice of appeal on court order suspending immigration ban

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-administration-files-formal-1486254439-htmlstory.html

Good luck with that. These judges are probably not Trump supporters! LOL

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/doj-appeals-travel-ban-ruling/index.html

Quote

The three judges who will likely hear the appeal -- assuming no one has to step aside over any conflicts -- are: Judge William Canby, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter; Richard Clifton, who was appointed by Bush; and Michelle Friedland, a President Barack Obama appointee.

.......

But Robart disagreed and concluded that the states "have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the executive order."

He went on to explain the order adversely affects residents in areas of education, employment, education and freedom to travel.

lovelomsak · February 5, 2017

17 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Good luck with that. These judges are probably not Trump supporters! LOL

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/doj-appeals-travel-ban-ruling/index.html

Theses type of statements just reinforce to me that many Americans have agendas that are against what is good for the country when the party or person doing it is not to their liking If these judges do as you seem to feel they will. I feel they are putting party alliance or personal feelings before the welfare and safety of American citizens. These kind of acts do the harm not what Trump does

But that is American politics huh

Edited February 5, 2017 by lovelomsak

craigt3365 · February 5, 2017

16 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

Theses type of statements just reinforce to me that many Americans have agendas that are against what is good for the country when the party or person doing it is not to their liking If these judges do as you seem to feel they will. I feel they are putting party alliance or personal feelings before the welfare and safety of American citizens. These kind of acts do the harm not what Trump does

If you researched this a bit, you'd see citizens from these countries have not killed an American on US soil, for at least the last 40 years. So no, this ban is not good. Did you read where doctors were being turned away? Engineers? Teachers? Some fell that every person coming from these countries is a terrorist. Which is 100% not the case.

People from Syria and Iran are wonderful people. For the most part. Just like your country and mine. Most are good, some are bad.

Now if Trump would deal with the national debt, the failed heath care system, reform the schools, deal with illegal immigration at the border, we'd all be cheering him on. Sadly, he's not focusing on these much tougher issues. And wasting his time with this.

WaywardWind · February 5, 2017

22 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

Theses type of statements just reinforce to me that many Americans have agendas that are against what is good for the country when the party or person doing it is not to their liking If these judges do as you seem to feel they will. I feel they are putting party alliance or personal feelings before the welfare and safety of American citizens. These kind of acts do the harm not what Trump does

But that is American politics huh

Let me guess...what is good for the country just happens to match your beliefs exactly...what a coincidence....

lovelomsak · February 5, 2017

16 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

If you researched this a bit, you'd see citizens from these countries have not killed an American on US soil, for at least the last 40 years. So no, this ban is not good. Did you read where doctors were being turned away? Engineers? Teachers? Some fell that every person coming from these countries is a terrorist. Which is 100% not the case.

People from Syria and Iran are wonderful people. For the most part. Just like your country and mine. Most are good, some are bad.

Now if Trump would deal with the national debt, the failed heath care system, reform the schools, deal with illegal immigration at the border, we'd all be cheering him on. Sadly, he's not focusing on these much tougher issues. And wasting his time with this.

Same crappy arquement it is sounding like broken record. Let the man do his job or is a job well done by someone you donot like not of any worth and respect

craigt3365 · February 5, 2017

6 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

Same crappy arquement it is sounding like broken record. Let the man do his job or is a job well done by someone you donot like not of any worth and respect

Calm down. Jeez. There are mass protests globally due to Trumps erratic actions. It's not just me. LOL Obviously, all these people see something as being wrong.

mtls2005 · February 5, 2017

All will be explained in the Super Sunday interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News; should be a doozey (deucie?).

craigt3365 · February 5, 2017

4 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

All will be explained in the Super Sunday interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News; should be a doozey (deucie?).

As usual, looks to be a lot of deflection.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/04/preview-bill-oreilly-donald-trump-super-bowl-interview

Dagnabbit · February 5, 2017

If you researched this a bit, you'd see citizens from these countries have not killed an American on US soil, for at least the last 40 years. So no, this ban is not good. Did you read where doctors were being turned away? Engineers? Teachers? Some fell that every person coming from these countries is a terrorist. Which is 100% not the case.

People from Syria and Iran are wonderful people. For the most part. Just like your country and mine. Most are good, some are bad.

Now if Trump would deal with the national debt, the failed heath care system, reform the schools, deal with illegal immigration at the border, we'd all be cheering him on. Sadly, he's not focusing on these much tougher issues. And wasting his time with this.

How many ISIS insurgents in thise countries after the disastrous regime change policies over the past 8 years?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JHolmesJr · February 5, 2017

well, if the judges want to screw with mr trump, he will just have to ratchet up the extreme vetting to super super super extreme vetting.

he will get his way one way or another.

craigt3365 · February 5, 2017

23 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

How many ISIS insurgents in thise countries after the disastrous regime change policies over the past 8 years?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No Idea. But I doubt they'd be given a visa. LOL Which is what this topic is about.

craigt3365 · February 5, 2017

21 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

well, if the judges want to screw with mr trump, he will just have to ratchet up the extreme vetting to super super super extreme vetting.

he will get his way one way or another.

Obama already had enhanced vetting. Not sure how much further you can go! LOL

I thought one of his campaign promises was to put "Crooked Hillary" in jail. What's happened with that one? LOL Doesn't look like he'll get his way there.

Edited February 5, 2017 by craigt3365

DoctorB · February 5, 2017

One of the most oft quoted cliches about American politics is to describe the President as, "The most powerful man on Earth"

Yet one of the the very first of his actions has been struck down by a left-leaning judge from a Democrat state, despite figuring prominently in his election rhetoric.

One begins to suspect that in actual fact the President of The United States has about as much actual power as the British Monarchy. And even if he defeats this challenge there will no doubt be an endless string of "virtue signallers" besieging the courts with their challenges.

lovelomsak · February 5, 2017

17 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Now if Trump would deal with the national debt, the failed heath care system, reform the schools, deal with illegal immigration at the border, we'd all be cheering him on. Sadly, he's not focusing on these much tougher issues. And wasting his time with this

All these things he inherited from past government. Perhaps past governments had the wrong priorites when dealing with these problems. Trump is only human deals with one thing at a time. I like that,fix one thing then move on to next. Who gives others the right to priortize for him.People are quick to judge. Wait and see what he does. Only a very irrational person would step into office and feel they have immediate cures for the ailments of America.He is starting where he sees a need. I can see his rational. It appears he wants Americans first and foremost in America.When he tackles the other problems it will be to assist Americans. Illegal immigrants and terrorists would have been dealt with and all their issues and problems are no longer Americas problems.

May be he has his priorities in place unlike past governments that gave him this mess to clean up.Not only did he inherit a mess he gets conflict from people who cannot accept Democratic elections. and refuse to let him do his job.

WaywardWind · February 5, 2017

12 minutes ago, DoctorB said:

One of the most oft quoted cliches about American politics is to describe the President as, "The most powerful man on Earth"

Yet one of the the very first of his actions has been struck down by a left-leaning judge from a Democrat state, despite figuring prominently in his election rhetoric.

One begins to suspect that in actual fact the President of The United States has about as much actual power as the British Monarchy. And even if he defeats this challenge there will no doubt be an endless string of "virtue signallers" besieging the courts with their challenges.

Two points:

First the judge is a Federal Judge, not a Washington state judge, so the politics of the state mean nearly nothing.

Second, the judge has been described by those who know him as a strong conservative who is fair minded in everything he does - he was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by a unanimous vote in the Senate - so there goes the "left leaning" argument.

sujoop · February 5, 2017

Just a few points:

-As pointed out here, Judge Robart (the 'ridiculous - so called Judge' as Trump tweeted) is a conservative, appointed by George W Bush.

'If the 9th Circuit declines to step in and block Robart's order, the Justice Department could seek a stay from the Supreme Court.That raises the prospect that the high court could deadlock, which would leave any 9th Circuit ruling in force.'

-So, could still go either way depending on 9th Circuit decision. Might come down to does the Justice Dept have legit legal grounds under the constitution? (Trump must get a majority appointed to his & Bannon's new Ministry of Truth /er, Supreme Court, raos raos...;) So what is the Trump controlled Fed's constitutional argument?

'The federal government's motion rejects the states' argument that Trump's order violates the Constitution by discriminating against Muslims. "It does not favor Christian refugees at the expense of Muslims, but rather is neutral with respect to religion," Justice Department lawyers insist.'
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-appeal-immigration-travel-ban-234655

-Okay but, er, wait a sec:

Trump took to Twitter defending his order as necessary to protect Christian refugees from the Middle East.
http://www.vox.com/2017/1/29/14429844/trump-christians-refugee-ban

-Meanwhile, what is the ban designed for according to Trump?

'Donald Trump, who claims the policy is intended to keep out terrorists, said in a speech on Friday that “we don’t want them here”.

-Okay, so keeping out terrorists, all good. So what have past immigrants from the 7 banned areas been up to in the US?

'Pew’s analysis also shows that many immigrants from the region now work in management (11%), healthcare (11%) or education (8%) – only 1% were unemployed as of 2012. Some have been able to become US citizens; only half of all US immigrants were naturalized as of 2012.'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/datablog/2017/jan/28/us-immigrants-syria-iraq-iran-sudan-libya-somalia-yemen

-How many deadly terrorist attacks have been carried out by Muslim folks from the 7 banned areas?

'zero attacks were carried out by immigrants from the seven Muslim-majority countries targeted by the ban

-Uh, okay but Trump's also targeting folks from the countries who HAVE attacked us, right?

'From 9-11, of the 19 hijackers, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.'
http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-refugee-muslim-ban-terrorist-attack-us-statistics/

Oops, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc were somehow missed on Trump's ban list...

Edited February 5, 2017 by sujoop

craigt3365 · February 5, 2017

46 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

All these things he inherited from past government. Perhaps past governments had the wrong priorites when dealing with these problems. Trump is only human deals with one thing at a time. I like that,fix one thing then move on to next. Who gives others the right to priortize for him.People are quick to judge. Wait and see what he does. Only a very irrational person would step into office and feel they have immediate cures for the ailments of America.He is starting where he sees a need. I can see his rational. It appears he wants Americans first and foremost in America.When he tackles the other problems it will be to assist Americans. Illegal immigrants and terrorists would have been dealt with and all their issues and problems are no longer Americas problems.

May be he has his priorities in place unlike past governments that gave him this mess to clean up.Not only did he inherit a mess he gets conflict from people who cannot accept Democratic elections. and refuse to let him do his job.

Agreed! Amd Obama inherited the worst recession in recent memory. Which he focused on and saved the US from a potentially worst fate. He wasn't worried about banning Muslims. Especially from countries that have not killed a US citizen in the US. Not worth his time.

I'm waiting. And will give him time. But so far, it's not looking good. His approval rating proves that.

Maybe he could stop with tweets like this? Absolutely insane.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/04/opinions/donald-trumps-most-bone-chilling-tweet-obeidallah-opinion/index.html

Donald Trump's most bone-chilling tweet

Quote

Here is Trump's truly jaw-dropping tweet from Saturday morning: "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"

Why is this so concerning? It's OK to argue about whether the judge should or shouldn't have issued this order. But Trump is apparently attempting to delegitimize our federal judiciary by calling Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush-appointed judge, a "so-called" judge while arguing that his decision is "ridiculous."

........

Trump's concerted attacks to delegitimize our media, our intelligence community and now our federal judiciary would have no doubt alarmed them. And it should be terrifying to every American who truly believes in our Constitution and in the promise of America.

craigt3365 · February 5, 2017

1 hour ago, DoctorB said:

One of the most oft quoted cliches about American politics is to describe the President as, "The most powerful man on Earth"

Yet one of the the very first of his actions has been struck down by a left-leaning judge from a Democrat state, despite figuring prominently in his election rhetoric.

One begins to suspect that in actual fact the President of The United States has about as much actual power as the British Monarchy. And even if he defeats this challenge there will no doubt be an endless string of "virtue signallers" besieging the courts with their challenges.

You are right, the US has a great system of checks and balances. The founding fathers had just come from a monarchy and didn't want the US to turn into another one. Sadly, it looks like Trump is trying to do this.

jesimps · February 5, 2017

1 hour ago, WaywardWind said:

Two points:

First the judge is a Federal Judge, not a Washington state judge, so the politics of the state mean nearly nothing.

Second, the judge has been described by those who know him as a strong conservative who is fair minded in everything he does - he was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by a unanimous vote in the Senate - so there goes the "left leaning" argument.

Soon as I saw the beard I understood. Bet he was wearing sandals too.

If a federal judge can overide the POTUS then they may as well let the judges run the country.

lovelomsak · February 5, 2017

16 hours ago, jesimps said:

Soon as I saw the beard I understood. Bet he was wearing sandals too.

If a federal judge can overide the POTUS then they may as well let the judges run the country.

My feelings also.A judge is a judge not an elected president It really is the tail wagging the dog.

WaywardWind · February 5, 2017

1 hour ago, jesimps said:

Soon as I saw the beard I understood. Bet he was wearing sandals too.

If a federal judge can overide the POTUS then they may as well let the judges run the country.

That's the whole point - Federal judges answer only to the US Constitution, and if the president or any other government official oversteps their bounds, the judge is duty bound to prevent them.

WaywardWind · February 5, 2017

1 hour ago, lovelomsak said:

My feelings also.A judge is a judge not an elected president It really is the tail wagging the dog.

Federal judges do not answer to the president or any other government official - only to the US Constitution....

Scott · February 5, 2017

I don't think Trump has a grasp of the complexity of the programs operated through the Department of State and how they work. There is no good reason to implement a ban as he has done. He is splitting up families, including one in which a young child is here receiving urgent medical care for burns and the parents who cannot now travel to be with him. There are thousands of situations, including spouses being separated from one another, students who cannot return to school. Families have sold or left property in preparation for a permanent move.

During the time I worked in Refugee/immigrant matters, it was not uncommon for programs to be terminated or scaled back. In general there was several months notice. It was not made public, but it did provide the Embassies/consulates the time to process urgent cases. It also made certain that families were not split up. Usually feedback was given as to the number of pending cases to the Department of State so that resources could be allocated to get done what was deemed necessary. On the cut off-date, the program ended. No demonstrations, no fanfare, no problem.

Ulysses G. · February 5, 2017

19 minutes ago, Scott said:

I don't think Trump has a grasp of the complexity of the programs operated through the Department of State and how they work. There is no good reason to implement a ban as he has done. He is splitting up families, including one in which a young child is here receiving urgent medical care for burns and the parents who cannot now travel to be with him. There are thousands of situations, including spouses being separated from one another, students who cannot return to school. Families have sold or left property in preparation for a permanent move.

During the time I worked in Refugee/immigrant matters, it was not uncommon for programs to be terminated or scaled back. In general there was several months notice. It was not made public, but it did provide the Embassies/consulates the time to process urgent cases. It also made certain that families were not split up. Usually feedback was given as to the number of pending cases to the Department of State so that resources could be allocated to get done what was deemed necessary. On the cut off-date, the program ended. No demonstrations, no fanfare, no problem.

I agree that is should have been done differently. It really is unfair to many and provides lots of ammunition to his haters/enemies. I do not have a problem with the executive order. Itself, but with how it has been rolled out.

I am positive it will be ruled constitutional, but it may take time and make things difficult for some people who don't deserve it. Unfortunately, it is too late to go back and start all over again.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Ulysses G.

jerojero · February 5, 2017

You are right, the US has a great system of checks and balances. The founding fathers had just come from a monarchy and didn't want the US to turn into another one. Sadly, it looks like Trump is trying to do this.

Another one? Nope, just a mere dictatorship.

craigt3365 · February 6, 2017

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

I agree that is should have been done differently. It really is unfair to many and provides lots of ammunition to his haters/enemies. I do not have a problem with the executive order. Itself, but with how it has been rolled out.

I am positive it will be ruled constitutional, but it may take time and make things difficult for some people who don't deserve it. Unfortunately, it is too late to go back and start all over again.

I read a report where the majority of the refugees from these 7 countries are women and children, trying to escape violence. Definitely terrorists then! LOL

Great thing Trumps doing. Keeping those out who need help the most. Terrible thing to do.

Scott · February 6, 2017

Refugees that are generally first in the queue for resettlement are vulnerable persons (such as unaccompanied minors and victims of violence, rape, etc), families, followed by single parents with minor children and then single women at risk. This is not always the case, but that's a rough idea of how it is done.

Vulnerable persons are usually accepted only by countries in limited numbers because they require specialized services -- foster care, medical or psychiatric care. Sweden and Switzerland used to be very good with taking these cases. I suspect Sweden for sure is less likely to do so now. I think they have all the special cases they can handle.

If refugees have relatives in a country, then the UN presents them to that country first, so as to not internationalize families. The next consideration is that if a person has ties with a particular country, they are presented to that country for resettlement. This includes people who have worked for a particular country (interpreters, support personnel etc.).

This is a long, drawn out process and when a country does what Trump has done it throws a major spanner in the works. It's a little like trying to get water to run upstream.

Again, If there is sufficient notice that a country will cease accepting people, it's not such a big deal. Countries can and do reach their quota and as they get close the process beings to slow down for one country.

Sign In

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

U.S. expects to resume refugee admissions on Monday

Recommended Posts