Department of Homeland Security reports drop in admissions after inauguration with Syria and Somalia, subject to ban, among most-represented countries
The number of refugees admitted to the US has fallen by almost half under Donald Trump when compared with the final months of Barack Obamas presidency, according to statistics released by the Department of Homeland Security( DHS ).
As the supreme court prepares to consider a White House appeal regarding the presidents ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries, a DHS report published under Friday rendered new insight into the government of legal immigration under the Trump administration.
The statistics, first reported by the Los Angeles Times, showed at least 13,000 refugee admissions to the US in the past three months. In Obamas last three months, that number tipped just more than 25,000.
The report pointed to an escalation of refugee intake by the Obama administration around Trumps win in the presidential election. Compared with the previous fiscal year, the period under Obama indicated an 86% year-over-year increase. Under Trump, there has been a 12% year-over-year drop-off.
Approximately two-thirds of refugees admitted to the US in the past three months were from five countries: Syria and Somalia, both included in the travel proscription; Iraq, which was included in the first version of the ban; the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and Burma. The US accepts far fewer Syrian refugees than other western countries.
A week after taking office in January, Trump signed an executive ordering suspending all refugee admissions to the US for 120 periods and barring entry for 90 periods to immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The ordering prompted nationwide protests amidst scenes of chaos and confusion at many major airports.
The order was blocked in federal tribunal. In March, a revised order removed Iraq from the listing and sought to moderate language apparently directed at Muslims. A magistrate likewise ruled against that order.
The supreme court is expected to rule this week, in its last sitting before a summer-long hiatus. Lawyers representing the Trump administration presented their closing pitching on Wednesday, insisting the travel forbid was a counterterrorism measure, within the presidents authority to protect national security. Lawyers for the country of Hawaii and individual plaintiffs in Maryland filed paperwork on Tuesday.
Federal magistrates who blocked the prohibitions quoth harsh rhetoric employed by Trump on the campaign trail, specifically a pledge to ban all Muslims from entering the US and support for giving priority to Christian refugees, as being reflective of the intent behind his travelling ban.
Judges also said both the administration and its supporters often hired speech while protecting the prohibitions that suggested a more nefarious motive than fear for national security. Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who was a top campaign surrogate for Trump, told Fox News that Trump called him after the election to ask how he could ordering a Muslim ban that would pass legal muster.
Ill tell you the whole history of it: when he first announced it, he told Muslim ban, Giuliani mentioned. He called me up, he told, Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.
In February, an internal DHS report leaked to media outlets undermined the administrations rationale by finding that citizens from the countries identified in Trumps travel ban is seldom implicated in US-based terrorism.
Trump had been relatively quiet about the prohibitions in recent months, merely to return to the issue in the wake of the 3 June terrorist attack in London. Attacking Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim mayor of a major western capital city, Trump tweeted: Thats right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries , not some politically correct term that wont help us protect our people.
The tweet undermined once more the concerned authorities insistence before the courts that the executive heads order is not a prohibition but an implementation of a policy of extreme vetting. The White House has scolded the media for by calling the ordering a forbid, even though the characterization stemmed from Trump himself.