Walking toward the arrivals hall at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia on a typically busy evening, the Sadiq family might easily have been lost in the crowd.
However, the emotion that overcame the three women, a mother and her two adult daughters, was apparent as they saw the small crowd assembled to greet them, holding signs that read: “Welcome to America.”
Shaz Sadiq, 42, wept as she embraced an old friend. Her sister, Rahila, 40, doubled over at the symbolic finish line of a long, contentious journey. The pair’s 72-year-old mother, Doris, was wide-eyed as she scanned the terminal from her wheelchair, before offering a kiss to the advocates who waited.
Illustration: Mountain People
Just one week ago, the Sadiq family thought their dreams of building a new life in the US had been dashed, perhaps for good.
A June 26 ruling by the US Supreme Court put into effect elements of US President Donald Trump’s travel ban on refugees and immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries.
Although Pakistan, the Sadiq family’s homeland, was not on the list of banned countries, the controversial policy placed a 120-day hold on all refugee admissions.
“It’s beyond [me] to express or explain what we went through,” said Shaz, who said she was having “mixed feelings” in the moment.
Asked about the affect of not knowing whether the US would still open its doors to her family, she said: “My mother suffered major depression. My younger sister, she started to have panic attacks. It’s difficult for others to understand even that pain — when you are already a stateless person, going through so many insecurities, and then you are uncertain about your future and do not have any control of your own life.”
Hours after the Sadiqs touched down in Virginia, a federal judge in Hawaii rejected a motion seeking to limit the scope of Trump’s executive order. The ruling pointed to a long road ahead for immigration and human rights advocates. The months-long and tumultuous legal battle over Trump’s travel ban has already thrust many families like the Sadiqs into a state of limbo.
For the Sadiqs, the journey began well before Trump was elected.
The Sadiqs are Christian and fled their homeland after their father was killed in a church shooting and death threats became routine. In 2013, the Sadiq sisters moved to Bangkok. They spent four years navigating the grueling process of obtaining refugee status and applying for permanent resettlement in the US, which has one of the most stringent vetting systems in the world.
The US Supreme Court is to take up the travel ban again in the fall. In the meantime, it has instructed that visa applicants from the six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees must prove a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the US “before being approved for travel.”
A restrictive definition of “close family” means only those with a specific set of familial relations are to be allowed into the US.
Those seeking to prove a relationship with an entity must show a “formal, documented” relationship with an institution such as an employer or an educational institute.
Proving a “bona fide relationship” is likely to be particularly tough for refugees, who often have no ties to a country before arriving.
The US Department of State has said a “formal assurance” from a resettlement agency, such as the International Rescue Committee (IRC), would not count alone.
This wording has left some resettlement groups unsure of where they stand.
Because the Sadiqs were processed prior to the US Supreme Court’s ruling, they were not required to prove a “bona fide relationship” in the US. Had they been required to do so, their application might have been rejected.
The family’s only contact in the US was Kristin Kim Bart, senior director of gender equality at the IRC and an old friend for whom Shaz Sadiq had worked as an interpreter, years ago in Pakistan.
It is unlikely that friendship would past muster as a “bona fide relationship,” said Ruben Chandrasekar, executive director of the IRC’s Maryland office, which oversees the resettlement of about 1,300 to 1,400 refugees a year.
“These are people that are fleeing unspeakable things,” Bart said. “We have a responsibility as a country to help others and shelter others who aren’t fortunate to live in peaceful times.”
“They’re regular people, they want a regular life,” she added.
The IRC has vehemently opposed Trump’s travel ban since its first iteration was unveiled, in late January.
“From the very beginning, we have believed that the travel ban makes for bad humanitarian policy and bad foreign policy,” Chandrasekar said. “We’re talking about people who are fleeing terror, fleeing violence and fleeing civil war.”
The term “bona fide relationship” was highly contested and made the already complex work of refugee resettlement groups more difficult, he said.
“The Supreme Court’s guidance, we feel, has been interpreted very narrowly by the administration,” Chandrasekar said, adding that the Trump administration had excluded grandparents from counting as a “bona fide relationship.”
“We hope that the administration will continue to expand its definition of what it means,” he said.
A senior Trump administration spokesman was last week unable to provide examples of what might count as a “bona fide relationship” with a US entity.
A state department spokesman said claims would be assessed on a “case by case basis” and did not offer examples.
The spokesman confirmed that refugees scheduled to travel to the US “on or around” July 12 would still be allowed to enter the US without proving a “bona fide relationship.”
The state department that after tomorrow, the US would have exceeded the 50,000 yearly refugee resettlement limit imposed by Trump’s travel ban.
After this date, any refugee entering the US would have to prove their ties to the US, the spokesman said.
Standing inside the terminal at Dulles, less than 48km from the White House, Shaz Sadiq called for a more humane approach to refugees.
The administration has in the past expressed a preference for members of religious minorities, such as her family.
Refugees should not be vilified, whatever their background, Shaz Sadiq said.
“Your life becomes like hell,” she said. “You are not a criminal, you are a victim. Someone should be there to take care of you.”
It would take a while for the Sadiq family to put their ordeal behind them, she said, but for now she was looking forward to stepping outside without the constant fear of being arrested by immigration authorities.
“We suffered a lot,” she said, pausing for a moment before allowing herself a laugh. “No more traumas.”
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS