The White House’s curbing of immigration to the U.S. in response to the COVID-19 pandemic “was in large part repurposed from old draft executive orders and policy discussions that have taken place repeatedly since Mr. Trump took office and have now gained new legitimacy,” the New York Times reported on May 3.

The story puts Miller’s efforts in a disturbing historical context. “The idea that immigrants carry infections into the country echoes a racist notion with a long history in the United States that associates minorities with disease.”

Refugees fleeing the effects of the climate crisis “cannot be forced to return home by their adoptive countries, a United Nations panel has ruled, in a landmark decision that could open the door to a flood of legal claims by displaced people around the world,” CNN reported on Jan. 20.

The UN Human Rights Committee’s decision centers around Ioane Teitiota, whose asylum application in New Zealand was denied in 2015. He was then deported with his wife and children to his home country of Kiribati. He filed a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee, arguing that by deporting him, New Zealand had violated his right to life.

The Committee noted that Teitiota argued that the rise in sea level and other effects of climate change had rendered Kiribati uninhabitable for all its residents. Violent land disputes occurred because habitable land was becoming increasingly scarce. Environmental degradation made subsistence farming difficult, and the freshwater supply was contaminated by salt water.

The Committee determined that in Teitiota’s specific case, New Zealand’s courts did not violate his right to life at the time of the facts, because the thorough and careful evaluation of his testimony and other available information led to the determination that, despite the serious situation in Kiribati, sufficient protection measures were put in place.

“Nevertheless,” said Committee expert Yuval Shany, “this ruling sets forth new standards that could facilitate the success of future climate change-related asylum claims.”

The Committee also clarified that individuals seeking asylum status are not required to prove that they would face imminent harm if returned to their countries. The Committee reasoned that climate change-induced harm can occur both through sudden-onset events (such as intense storms and flooding), and slow-onset processes (such as sea level rise, salinization and land degradation). Both sudden-onset events and slow-onset processes can prompt individuals to cross borders to seek protection from climate change-related harm.

The ruling is available here.

U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte recently “blocked a directive by President Donald Trump that would allow states and local governments to reject the resettlement of refugees in their communities” (CBS News, Jan. 15).

Messitte said the executive order “does not appear to serve the overall public interest,” NPR reported.

The judge’s ruling followed a hearing on January 8, during which plaintiffs’ attorneys, lawyers at the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), argued that the order violated federal law and is causing irreparable harm to the resettlement agencies and the refugees they have been tasked with assisting in rebuilding their lives in the United States, refugee advocacy group HIAS noted in a news release.

Prior to the ruling, governors from several states said that they would continue to accept refugees. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott proved to be the exception, saying his state would not accept new refugees in 2020.

Messitte’s opinion is available here.

A number of states are saying that they welcome the settlement of refugees in their states in response to an executive order signed by President Trump that gives states the right to refuse to allow refugees by January 21, 2020.

Republican governors “in several predominantly red states announced this week that they plan to continue to accept refugees,” Axios reported.

“While Republicans widely support Trump’s restrictive immigration policies, local and state officials have been unwilling to push out those who have been forced from their homes and gone thorough stringent vetting processes required to become a U.S. refugee,” wrote Rashaan Ayesh and Stef W. Kight.

The U.S. State Department has posted a list of state and localities that have agreed to accept refugees.

HIAS, Church World Service and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service recently took President Trump to court over his executive order giving state and local officials authority to block refugee resettlement in their jurisdictions.

The three groups are suing the administration “because it is attempting to enact a state-by-state, city-by-city refugee ban,” HIAS noted in a blog post.

In late September, Trump issued the executive order at issue in the lawsuit, CNN reported. The order directed states and localities to provide written consent to resettle refugees in their jurisdictions.

“Refugee resettlement agencies, which are charged with placing refugees in communities across the country, pushed back on the order, arguing that the order had the potential of limiting the places where refugees could eventually be resettled,” CNN reported.

A link to the lawsuit is available here.

President Donald Trump “has signed off on a plan that continues a dramatic drop in the number of refugees taken in by the U.S. to no more than 18,000 in fiscal year 2020,” the Associated Press reported.

The 18,000 figure “is the lowest level on record since the program began more than three decades ago,” the Hill newspaper noted.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert recently wrote a letter to Trump asking that more refugees be sent to Utah to resettle, “saying there is plenty of room and resources for those in need,” the Salt Lake Tribune reported on Nov. 1.

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration in October admitted zero refugees for resettlement.

“Reducing the inflow of refugees to a trickle offends on a different level,” writes Scott Martelle, Editorial Writer for the Los Angeles Times.

“It contradicts the fundamental American story, that we are a nation of immigrants and their descendants, many of whom arrived here in flight from violence and deprivation (and yes, many in chains and against their will) in hopes of building a new life,” wrote Martelle in a recent opinion piece.

“An unintended consequence — or maybe it was intended — of the precipitous drop in refugee arrivals is that the nine nonprofit agencies most responsible for resettling new arrivals have seen their budgets collapse, leading to layoffs, closed offices and canceled services,” Martelle notes.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert wrote a letter to President Donald Trump asking that more refugees be sent to Utah to resettle, “saying there is plenty of room and resources for those in need,” the Salt Lake Tribune reported on Nov. 1.

The story notes that the Oct. 24 letter “comes after the Trump administration cut the number of refugees the United States would accept over the next year to 18,000, and as the number of displaced people across the world has reached more than 70 million, according to the United Nations refugee agency.”

A copy of the letter to Trump is available here.

The Trump Administration is considering letting in a sum total of zero refugees next year, with a few specific exceptions.

While Trump has cited security concerns for his refugee admission policy, “zeroing out refugee admissions won’t make Americans safer. The opposite is true,” notes David Kampf in Foreign Policy.

Meanwhile, Democrats on Capitol Hill are taking action on possible refugee cap reductions by Trump.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., the respective chairs of the House Judiciary Committee and Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee “demanded that the Trump Administration administration consult with Congress before determining the number of refugee admissions to the country for the coming fiscal year,” writes Tal Axelrod in the Hill.

Axelrod reports that in a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, Nadler and Lofgren “pointed to a law mandating the administration discuss the refugee admissions with Congress, noting that fiscal year 2020 is 17 days away.”

Supreme Court ruling could change equation for refugee admissions

Acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli recently suggested “that contemplated reductions in refugee admissions might be scaled back following a Supreme Court asylum ruling Wednesday evening,” reports Ted Hesson in Politico.

The Supreme Court “is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States,” the AP reported.

“With a reduction in asylum cases, Cuccinelli suggested, resources might be redirected to processing refugee claims. Asylum applies to migrants who seek refuge at the border or inside the U.S.,” Hesson wrote.

This recent New York Times article about Bosnian refugees in St. Louis caught my eye.

The story details how the refugees who fled the wars of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s helped create a vibrant neighborhood in Bevo Mill, but are now starting to move out to the suburbs of St. Louis.

“Today, St. Louis, like some other Midwestern cities, is battling a new round of contraction, with a stagnant economy, challenged schools and one of the highest murder rates in the country,” writes Melinda Delkic.

“And over the past few years, the people who fled brutal violence and concentration camps in their homeland and created Little Bosnia have been fleeing again, to the suburbs.”

Delkic notes that immigrant communities in other parts of the U.S. have spread to the suburbs. “Many Chinese immigrants have moved to the San Gabriel Valley from the Chinatown neighborhood of Los Angeles, and Korean immigrants in the New York area have moved to the northern New Jersey suburbs and to Long Island,” the story notes. “But the urban neighborhoods they were leaving behind were generally healthy or rejuvenating.”

On balance, people around the world “are more accepting of refugees fleeing violence and war than they are of immigrants moving to their country, according to a new analysis of public opinion data from 18 nations surveyed by Pew Research Center in spring 2018,” Pew Research reports.

Across the 18 countries surveyed, a median of 71% of adults said they support taking in refugees fleeing violence and war. By contrast, a median of 50% said they support “more” or “about the same” number of immigrants moving to their country, a 21 percentage point difference.