US President Donald Trump is preparing to sign an executive order that would suspend refugee resettlement to the United States for the next four months, block entry of Syrian nationals entirely until further notice, and reduce the country’s total refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017 by more than half.
The actions of the new US administration represent a serious setback for efforts by the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR – along with major international NGOs – to push wealthier states to take in more refugees at a time of record levels of global displacement.
UNHCR estimates that at least 1.2 million refugees are in need of resettlement. This means they’ve exhausted all other options – these people cannot return home for the foreseeable future and have no prospect of integrating in the country hosting them. But the number of refugees currently resettled to third countries represents a tiny fraction of that need. In 2015, 107,000 refugees departed for resettlement countries, the most important of which by far is the United States.
Last year, former UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon urged states to take in at least 10 percent of the total refugee population (equivalent to about two million people) through resettlement or other legal channels. But the 10-percent target didn’t make it into the final text of a declaration adopted by member states at a September summit in New York, and the executive order Trump is expected to sign this week is likely to result in a downward trend in global resettlement numbers.
Currently, around two thirds of the refugees referred for resettlement by UNHCR every year end up in the United States. In the 2016 fiscal year, the country resettled nearly 85,000 refugees and former president Barack Obama had recommended raising that figure to 110,000 in 2017.
According to Trump’s draft executive order, entitled “Protecting the nation from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals”, refugee resettlement to the United States this year will be capped at 50,000, around the same level as 10 years ago, when the demand was significantly lower.
Doris Meissner, who heads the US immigration programme at Washington DC-based think tank, the Migration Policy Institute, said the 50,000 figure was established by the Refugee Act of 1980 as a benchmark for admissions. The act authorises the president to exceed that figure based on humanitarian need. In fact, in that same year, the US admitted over 200,000 refugees, mostly from Vietnam, and there was another spike in numbers during the early 1990s as a result of the conflict in the Balkans.
Meissner described the executive order as a “radical” departure from the long-standing US record on refugee admissions and “a system of values that looks to protect people who are in deep need”.
The 120-day suspension of the programme is intended to allow the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to review current application and screening procedures to determine if they are sufficient to ensure that those approved for resettlement “do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States”. If deemed necessary, additional screening procedures may be introduced.
The process of applying for resettlement and being screened for admission to the US already takes up to two years. The suspension means that even those refugees who had been approved and were close to boarding a plane will have to sit tight until the review has been completed.
For Syrian refugees, the wait is likely to be even longer. The draft executive order states that processing of Syrian nationals is to cease entirely, until “sufficient changes have been made to [the US Refugee Admissions Programme] to ensure its alignment with the national interest”.
Syrians made up nearly 16 percent of refugee admissions to the United States in 2016 and have been the top nationality submitted by UNHCR for resettlement in recent years.
Meissner commented that the vetting of refugees being processed for resettlement, particularly of Syrians, is already “the most intense of any group that comes to the US”.
“These are ultimately the real victims of terrorism,” she added.
The executive order will also suspend for at least 30 days the issuing of visas to nationals from “countries of particular concern”. Those countries are derived from Division O of the 2016 Appropriations Act, which singled out Syrians and Iraqis as nationals that could be barred from qualifying for the visa waiver programme for security reasons. It is expected that several other countries will be affected by the visa ban, including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
Ibrahim al-Assil, a Syrian activist and political analyst who now lives in Washington DC and is seeking asylum in the United States, told IRIN that the visa ban will have negative impacts on members of Syrian civil society trying to work with policymakers in the US.
“It's already been very difficult to get visas for Syrian activists, and that created a gap between the policymakers in the US and Syrian civil society,” he wrote in an email.
“Also, we have students and professionals who will lose the opportunity to continue their studies or conduct their work, and that will be bad for the future of Syria. Without education or work, there will not be anyone who is capable of rebuilding the country.”
Silver lining for some?
The executive order could be good news for one group of refugees. After the suspension is lifted, those fleeing religious persecution could be prioritised, “provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality”.
Meissner described the minority religion clause as “a way of getting around the Muslim ban”. On the campaign trail, Trump called for a ban on admitting all Muslims to the country, but immigration and security officials pointed out that implementing a ban based on religious affiliation would be practically impossible.
None of the actions outlined in the executive order are unexpected. Trump alluded to all of them during his presidential campaign. In fact, there were fears he might end refugee resettlement to the United States entirely. Meissner noted that the review into the refugee admissions programme over the next four months will likely reveal that it’s already “thorough and rigorous and targeted at [allowing in only] those who don’t represent a danger”.
“If this processing has been taking place in ways many of us believe it has… then this creates a pathway for resuming the programme,” she told IRIN.
Refugee rights advocates can also take heart from the fact that the Obama administration managed to bring more than 25,000 refugees into the country between the start of the fiscal year in October last year and Trump’s inauguration on 20 January. Another 25,000 refugees could be admitted by this October, following the lifting of the suspension.
But while the programme is likely to continue in some form, it will not be the example it has been for the last 40 years to other countries still lagging behind on refugee resettlement.
“It’s not only about numbers but moral leadership,” said Meissner. “That has been the role the US has played in the international protection system.”
It was The New Humanitarian’s investigation with the Thomson Reuters Foundation that uncovered sexual abuse by aid workers during the Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo and led the World Health Organization to launch an independent review and reform its practices.
This demonstrates the important impact that our journalism can have.
But this won’t be the last case of aid worker sex abuse. This also won’t be the last time the aid sector has to ask itself difficult questions about why justice for victims of sexual abuse and exploitation has been sorely lacking.
We’re already working on our next investigation, but reporting like this takes months, sometimes years, and can’t be done alone.
The support of our readers and donors helps keep our journalism free and accessible for all. Donations mean we can keep holding power in the aid sector accountable, and shine a light on similar abuses.