Tuesday 21 May 2019
News ID: 54960
Publish Date: 10 July 2018 - 21:42
Muslims Least Accepted:
WASHINGON (Middle East Eye) -- The U.S. has taken in the lowest number of refugees since the adoption of the 1980 U.S. Refugee Act – the program that made the country the largest host for resettled refugees worldwide.
According to a Pew Research Center study based on new data by the UN refugee organization, the U.S. took in approximately 33,000 refugees in 2017, while the rest of the world opened its doors to 69,000.
The 2017 figure represented the lowest number since the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. when refugee admissions were temporarily suspended. It also marks a steep drop from the 97,000 refugees resettled in 2016.
This revelation comes despite the U.S. having historically led the world in taking in refugees; three out of more than four million refugees resettled worldwide have been taken in by the U.S. since 1980.
"U.S. refugee resettlement is on pace to remain at historically low levels in 2018,” said Phillip Connor and Jens Manuel Krogstad who co-authored Pew's analysis of UNHCR's data. However, no single country has surpassed the U.S. in the number of refugees it admitted.
"The U.S. has admitted more than 16,000 refugees with about three months remaining in the current fiscal year, according to U.S. State Department data,” Connor and Krogstad explained. "The number of Muslim refugees admitted to the U.S. has dropped more than other religious groups.”

Muslim Refugees
While it is part of an overall drop in admissions of refugees from all religious backgrounds, State Department numbers showed that only about 1,800 Muslim refugees resettled in the U.S. in the first half of fiscal 2018. They accounted for 17% of the refugees admitted during that time compared to 63% of Christians.
Fewer than 50 Syrians, for example, have been admitted to the U.S. as of May 31 of fiscal year 2018, according to the State Department.
Proposals to ban all refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries have been challenged repeatedly by lower courts until the Supreme Court weighed in recently and allowed travel restrictions that have collectively become known as the "Muslim ban” to go forward.
Critics believe that the ban – which also includes North Korea and Venezuela – is designed to discriminate against immigrants from certain countries based on religion.
"That the decline in refugee admission disproportionately affects Muslim refugees is no coincidence, as Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his anti-Muslim animus, from campaign rhetoric to travel ban policy,” said Omar Baddar, deputy director of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.
"Despite the body of proof of the benefits refugees bring to the American economy and society-at-large, the administration is implementing policies that both deny a safe-haven and a better life to the world’s most vulnerable and negatively impact American prosperity moving forward,” said David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee.
The lower numbers have come to reflect changes carried out by the Trump administration in recent months that have directly impacted refugees. The administration lowered the refugee ceiling for fiscal 2018 to 45,000 refugees – the lowest since the modern resettlement plan was adopted in 1980.
The White House also ordered additional vetting procedures in October and January, calling them a necessary step to ensure applicants are not a threat to national security.
A recent survey showed that Americans are divided over whether their country has a responsibility to accept refugees. The poll taken in April and May showed that while about half of Americans – notably Republicans – believed the U.S. had a responsibility to admit refugees, 43% said it did not.
"After the tremendous progress we made as a diverse and inclusive society over the decades, it is a shame to see our country’s top leadership undermine this progress in real and damaging ways,” Baddar said. "It’s going to take a serious effort from all people of conscience in our country to push back on this regressive trend.”

* Comment: