SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
White House senior adviser Stephen Miller walks behind President Donald Trump as he talks to reporters before they depart the White House June 8, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
'Catastrophic,' 'Beyond Shameful,' and 'Xenophobia-Fueled' Trump Admin. Panned Over Proposal to Slash Refugee Cap to Zero
"An admissions goal of zero would be another low in a global race to the bottom"
Jul 19, 2019
Human rights advocates said the Trump administration would be making a "catastrophic" and "grave error" if it followed through on a newly-reported proposal to slash refugee admissions to zero next year.
"It is beyond shameful and a new low, even for this administration, to even consider accepting no refugees to the U.S.," said Ryan Mace, grassroots advocacy and refugee specialist for Amnesty International USA.
Politico first reported on the recommendation late Thursday, citing three unnamed sources familiar with the proposal.
According to the news outlet,
During a key meeting of security officials on refugee admissions last week, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] representative who is closely aligned with White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller suggested setting a cap at zero, the people said. Homeland Security Department officials at the meeting later floated making the level anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000, according to one of the people.
Even the highest figure would be a fraction of the record-low 30,000 limit on refugees the Trump administration set for 2019, a decision that also drew sharp condemnation.
Among the roughly 20 individuals at last week's meeting, Politico reported, were USCIS official John Zadrozny and Andrew Vepre, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. The presence of the two during the meeting, the reporting continued, "speaks to the influence of Miller over the Trump administration's immigration agenda. Both are viewed as proxies for the president's hard-line adviser."
News of the potentially dramatic slashing came the same week as the administration--in a move blasted as "deliberate cruelty"--issued a new policy targeting asylum-seekers. Already the subject of a lawsuit, the rule bans people who travel through another country before reaching the U.S.-Mexico from being eligible for asylum, which some viewed as an effective ban on asylum-seekers.
Scott Roehm, director of the Center for Victims of Torture's Washington, D.C., office, referenced both developments in a statement on Thursday.
"The president and some of his senior advisers simply don't want refugees to come to the United States, whether through the resettlement program or as asylum-seekers," he said. "This is not about safety, or security, or economics; it's xenophobia-fueled politics. Closing our doors to some of the world's most vulnerable people, many of them torture survivors, is as un-American as it is appalling."
News of the potential zero cap on refugees in 2020 also came under fire from the International Rescue Committee (IRC).
"If confirmed," said Hans Van de Weerd, vice president for resettlement, asylum, and integration at IRC, "this decision is catastrophic."
"An admissions goal of zero would be another low in a global race to the bottom led by an administration that has introduced travel bans, illegal asylum procedures, family separations, child detention, and is now proposing to abandon a rich American tradition of providing safety and opportunity," Van de Weerd said. "These policies have caused unspeakable suffering for people most in need of protection."
"It is imperative that the United States avoids this grave error," he added.
To make that happen, Amnesty's Mace called on lawmakers and constituents alike to take action.
"We call on every member of Congress and their community to speak out for those seeking safety," he said, "and welcome refugees into their neighborhoods, schools, houses of worship, and homes."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
amnesty internationalhuman rightsimmigrationrefugeesstephen millerus department of homeland security
Human rights advocates said the Trump administration would be making a "catastrophic" and "grave error" if it followed through on a newly-reported proposal to slash refugee admissions to zero next year.
"It is beyond shameful and a new low, even for this administration, to even consider accepting no refugees to the U.S.," said Ryan Mace, grassroots advocacy and refugee specialist for Amnesty International USA.
Politico first reported on the recommendation late Thursday, citing three unnamed sources familiar with the proposal.
According to the news outlet,
During a key meeting of security officials on refugee admissions last week, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] representative who is closely aligned with White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller suggested setting a cap at zero, the people said. Homeland Security Department officials at the meeting later floated making the level anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000, according to one of the people.
Even the highest figure would be a fraction of the record-low 30,000 limit on refugees the Trump administration set for 2019, a decision that also drew sharp condemnation.
Among the roughly 20 individuals at last week's meeting, Politico reported, were USCIS official John Zadrozny and Andrew Vepre, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. The presence of the two during the meeting, the reporting continued, "speaks to the influence of Miller over the Trump administration's immigration agenda. Both are viewed as proxies for the president's hard-line adviser."
News of the potentially dramatic slashing came the same week as the administration--in a move blasted as "deliberate cruelty"--issued a new policy targeting asylum-seekers. Already the subject of a lawsuit, the rule bans people who travel through another country before reaching the U.S.-Mexico from being eligible for asylum, which some viewed as an effective ban on asylum-seekers.
Scott Roehm, director of the Center for Victims of Torture's Washington, D.C., office, referenced both developments in a statement on Thursday.
"The president and some of his senior advisers simply don't want refugees to come to the United States, whether through the resettlement program or as asylum-seekers," he said. "This is not about safety, or security, or economics; it's xenophobia-fueled politics. Closing our doors to some of the world's most vulnerable people, many of them torture survivors, is as un-American as it is appalling."
News of the potential zero cap on refugees in 2020 also came under fire from the International Rescue Committee (IRC).
"If confirmed," said Hans Van de Weerd, vice president for resettlement, asylum, and integration at IRC, "this decision is catastrophic."
"An admissions goal of zero would be another low in a global race to the bottom led by an administration that has introduced travel bans, illegal asylum procedures, family separations, child detention, and is now proposing to abandon a rich American tradition of providing safety and opportunity," Van de Weerd said. "These policies have caused unspeakable suffering for people most in need of protection."
"It is imperative that the United States avoids this grave error," he added.
To make that happen, Amnesty's Mace called on lawmakers and constituents alike to take action.
"We call on every member of Congress and their community to speak out for those seeking safety," he said, "and welcome refugees into their neighborhoods, schools, houses of worship, and homes."
Human rights advocates said the Trump administration would be making a "catastrophic" and "grave error" if it followed through on a newly-reported proposal to slash refugee admissions to zero next year.
"It is beyond shameful and a new low, even for this administration, to even consider accepting no refugees to the U.S.," said Ryan Mace, grassroots advocacy and refugee specialist for Amnesty International USA.
Politico first reported on the recommendation late Thursday, citing three unnamed sources familiar with the proposal.
According to the news outlet,
During a key meeting of security officials on refugee admissions last week, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] representative who is closely aligned with White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller suggested setting a cap at zero, the people said. Homeland Security Department officials at the meeting later floated making the level anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000, according to one of the people.
Even the highest figure would be a fraction of the record-low 30,000 limit on refugees the Trump administration set for 2019, a decision that also drew sharp condemnation.
Among the roughly 20 individuals at last week's meeting, Politico reported, were USCIS official John Zadrozny and Andrew Vepre, who serves as deputy assistant secretary for the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. The presence of the two during the meeting, the reporting continued, "speaks to the influence of Miller over the Trump administration's immigration agenda. Both are viewed as proxies for the president's hard-line adviser."
News of the potentially dramatic slashing came the same week as the administration--in a move blasted as "deliberate cruelty"--issued a new policy targeting asylum-seekers. Already the subject of a lawsuit, the rule bans people who travel through another country before reaching the U.S.-Mexico from being eligible for asylum, which some viewed as an effective ban on asylum-seekers.
Scott Roehm, director of the Center for Victims of Torture's Washington, D.C., office, referenced both developments in a statement on Thursday.
"The president and some of his senior advisers simply don't want refugees to come to the United States, whether through the resettlement program or as asylum-seekers," he said. "This is not about safety, or security, or economics; it's xenophobia-fueled politics. Closing our doors to some of the world's most vulnerable people, many of them torture survivors, is as un-American as it is appalling."
News of the potential zero cap on refugees in 2020 also came under fire from the International Rescue Committee (IRC).
"If confirmed," said Hans Van de Weerd, vice president for resettlement, asylum, and integration at IRC, "this decision is catastrophic."
"An admissions goal of zero would be another low in a global race to the bottom led by an administration that has introduced travel bans, illegal asylum procedures, family separations, child detention, and is now proposing to abandon a rich American tradition of providing safety and opportunity," Van de Weerd said. "These policies have caused unspeakable suffering for people most in need of protection."
"It is imperative that the United States avoids this grave error," he added.
To make that happen, Amnesty's Mace called on lawmakers and constituents alike to take action.
"We call on every member of Congress and their community to speak out for those seeking safety," he said, "and welcome refugees into their neighborhoods, schools, houses of worship, and homes."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.