Students have voiced thoughts concerning new refugee screening procedures that follow the end of President Donald Trump’s four month travel ban, which occurred Oct. 23.
New Vetting Procedures
The end of the ban, via an executive order signed by President Trump, comes with new screening procedures. These procedures affect 11 countries: Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan and The Republic of South Sudan, according to the Associated Press. The more thorough procedures will require applicants to provide the United States their phone numbers, addresses and email addresses going back 10 years, as well as those of family members. The executive order also halts the “following-to-join” program, which granted spouses and children of refugees to come to the U.S.
Some students see the travel ban ending as good, however, the issue of stringent refugee vetting does not better the situation. Sophomore biblical studies major Jonathan Yu does not think the executive order will change the situation for refugees immigrating to America.
“Even though the ban has ended, it would not bring relief to refugees,” Yu said. “The effect of the refugee ban still continues… it will certainly not be easy for refugees to come to this nation.”
Freshman biological studies major Melissa Vicente opposes the president’s choice, finding it too strict for those needing to find refuge.
“I think Trump is wrong,” Vicente said. “I know he’s trying to do the right things, but I feel like he’s making it worse… [he’s] making it harder for people to come [to the U.S.]”
A Call to Care
Junior communication studies major Jennifer Smith believes keeping a Christian perspective regarding immigration of refugees remains important as well as acknowledging the conflict between vetting certain refugees and the Christian’s calling to help those in need.
“I do not believe keeping people out is the answer… my Christian worldview says to bring in the foreigner and care for those who need help,” Smith said. “I do not like the ‘extreme vetting’ process which limits people’s ability to enter the U.S. when their homes can be places of war or extreme poverty, or both. I think we have a responsibility to take care of those who need it, and targeting Muslims… or excluding ‘those people’ is wrong.”
