logo
NJ families in a 'state of desperation' as Trump suspends refugee admissions

NJ families in a 'state of desperation' as Trump suspends refugee admissions

Yahoo26-01-2025
Fahima rushed her daughter to a hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan, after she suffered crippling seizures. But the day she was discharged, chaos reigned as the Taliban stormed and captured the capital city and the U.S. hastily arranged evacuation flights.
She could not find her husband, who worked in security for a U.S. contractor, or her sons at home. Nearly trampled at the airport, she and her daughter boarded a U.S. flight hoping they would reunite later on.
Three and a half years later, Fahima is still waiting. The woman, who lives in Paterson with her disabled daughter and son, has worked with lawyers and filed paperwork to bring her family, who fled to Iran, to the United States.
'I've been in a state of desperation at the thought of my husband and children stuck in Iran in poor conditions,' said Fahima, adding that they are destitute and that it's too dangerous in Afghanistan, where he could be targeted because he worked for Americans.
She fears what will happen now that President Donald Trump has halted the refugee resettlement program in one of his first executive orders in office, she said.
'I've had sleepless nights since Jan. 20 and am tired of the constant worry for my family,' said Fahima, who asked that her last name be withheld to protect her family.
Trump signed the executive order, titled Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program, on his first day in office, prompting the State Department to cancel flights even for those already cleared for admission. At 90-day intervals, the president will review reports and determine whether continuing resettlement 'is in the interests of the United States.' In the only exception to the ban, the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security can decide jointly to admit refugees on a case-by-case basis.
Advocates worry about the future of a decades-old program that has served as a lifeline for refugees displaced by war and political persecution.'It is an evolving situation, but so far we have heard about four families getting their travel canceled,' said Courtney Madsen, regional director for Church World Service, a refugee resettlement agency.
The agency's Jersey City Office has settled 66 refugees since the fiscal year began on Oct. 1, Madsen said. It was expecting to receive 134 more people this year.
'As far as impact on families,' Madsen added, 'this is devastating because the suspension is indefinite, so we have no idea when these families will be able to come to New Jersey. In most of these cases they are reuniting with people who are already here, so we are already seeing family separation in action by this administration.'
Freshta Taeb, co-lead for the New Jersey Coalition for Afghan Refugees, said she had gotten over 60 calls in two days from nervous families.
'People are panicking and there's a lot of misinformation that is going around,' she said.
Many of the refugees expected this year are from Afghanistan, including 1,600 people whose flights were canceled by the State Department. They include children waiting to be reunited with their families and men and women at risk of retribution for cooperating with the former U.S.-backed government.
'We don't want folks to think just because flights are canceled that they will never have chance to come,' Taeb said. 'Things are being paused and reassessed. Let's remain calm and steadfast and see what happens.'
Others worry about their status in the United States as recipients of humanitarian parole, a temporary admission granted for urgent humanitarian reasons. Congress failed to pass legislation that would have made Afghan parolees eligible for permanent residency, despite support from military groups and veterans. They worry their asylum cases will go unheard.
On Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo saying Immigration and Customs Enforcement can strip parole status from migrants who have been in the United States for less than two years. The memo came after Trump suspended parole programs created during the Biden administration for people from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, arguing they were an abuse of the law. The memo did not specify countries of origin or whether it would apply to Afghans and Ukrainians brought in under separate parole programs.
Taeb advised people to talk to an attorney.
'We are advising folks to remain calm and steadfast and make sure you fact-check everything with somebody who is knowledgeable about the executive orders,' she said.
Sofia Wahdat, program manager at Global Emergency Response and Assistance, a North Jersey-based organization that aids refugees, has also heard from families who were hoping to reunite with loves ones and are 'waiting in limbo.'
'These families have fought through so much insecurity and trauma and lot of doubt on what will happen,' Wahdat said.
The United States, which has long been a destination for refugees, formalized the process for admissions in 1980. Since then, the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program has welcomed about 3 million refugees. The president, in consultation with Congress, sets an admissions target each year.
While it once held bipartisan support, the program became politicized when Trump entered his first term and deemed it a security threat. Admissions reached a low of 11,411 in 2021 with Trump in office, according to government data.
Refugees: Thousands of Syrians fled to the US. Ten years later, their lives tell stories of resilience
Over the next three years, admissions grew annually, reaching 100,034 last year from counties including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Syria and Venezuela.
Trump's executive order states that the United States 'lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees.' The order mentions the availability of resources for Americans, safety and security, and assimilation of refugees.
Those who work with refugees say it's misguided. They point out that refugees are the most thoroughly vetted group to enter the United States. They apply from overseas, and the UN screens and refers them to the resettlement program. U.S. agencies then carry out multiple background checks, interviews and medical exams before they can be admitted in a process that can take years.
They also fill critical labor shortages and support local businesses, they said. One federal study found that over a 15-year period, refugees contributed $123 billion more than they have cost in governmental expenditures.
The Rev. Seth Kaper-Dale, CEO of Interfaith-Rise, a nonprofit aiding refugees and asylees, has seen the impact firsthand. The Highland Park-based agency has placed clients in jobs with companies including Walmart, Europastry, Trenton Corrugated Products and Powerspec, which makes electronic parts.
Business owners and managers tell him that the addition of workers has helped them to grow and flourish, Kaper-Dale said. Refugees have also gone on to open their own businesses including Paterson's Iraqi-owned Al Mazaq Restaurant and Syrian-owned Nour Al-Sham and Reem Al Sham.
The refugee program also underscores longstanding American values of generosity and compassion and a commitment to human rights, say advocates.
'New Jersey has welcomed those seeking safety and a better life for centuries,' Madsen said, 'and this new refugee ban flies in the face of who we are and what we value.'
This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: Refugee resettlement frozen: NJ families worry about Trump order
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

And Now It's The Wall Street Journal's Turn To Tango With Trump
And Now It's The Wall Street Journal's Turn To Tango With Trump

Newsweek

time16 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

And Now It's The Wall Street Journal's Turn To Tango With Trump

When, oh when, will Americans realize we are descending into dictatorship? President Donald Trump has already silenced ABC, CBS, and Facebook, extorting millions of dollars from them for offending him. The job was done using bogus lawsuits and the power of the presidency. And now it's the turn of The Wall Street Journal. Trump is suing the newspaper owned by his sometime supporter Rupert Murdoch. The Wall Street Journal had the effrontery to publish a piece painful to Trump—painful because the truth hurts. The truth works like water on a witch. People have been pouring it over Trump for years, but tragically he is still president. This truth though may be different. It involves Jeffrey Epstein, the hyperfixation of Trump's hardcore adherents. The Journal reported on a gutsy and grotesque birthday greeting it claims Trump sent to Epstein showing his signature on the part of a woman's body that Trump in the past boasted he could grab any time he liked. President Donald Trump answers questions while departing the White House with first lady Melania Trump on July 11, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump answers questions while departing the White House with first lady Melania Trump on July 11, 2025, in Washington, is suing the Journal for $10 billion. He claims the card is just fake news and that the venerable conservative newspaper is a worthless rag. Will his supporters stomach this too? More important, will the Journal fall by the wayside with the rest of them and payoff Trump? That depends. The two things are linked. So long as Trump has an army of angry supporters to unleash on the media and Congress, he has a lot of leverage. Trump can threaten members of Congress with campaigns to oust them from office. Trump can threaten the media by denying them things they need from the government. Some of them, like PBS, get money. Trump has now punished it by cutting its federal funding. Others need permission to do things. That's how Trump got at CBS, holding FCC approval of a license transfer over its head until it coughed up $16 million. CBS even sweetened it by conveniently timing the cancellation of the most popular but unprofitable star in late night TV—Stephen Colbert. So, what does Rupert Murdoch have that Trump could threaten? Fox News perhaps? Not so simple. Unlike ABC, CBS, NBC, and others, Fox News does not broadcast its programs over the air. It distributes its content solely over a cable network. This means it doesn't need a license from the FCC. No leverage there. And he can hardly tell his adherents to stop watching Fox News. It's being absurdly slavish. While other traditional news outlets and MAGA podcasters have lashed Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for not releasing the Epstein files, Fox hasn't. When it wasn't publishing stories about savage attacks by immigrants and squirrels, Fox was announcing that Trump was ordering Bondi to seek court permission to release the "pertinent" grand jury files from the Epstein prosecution. Fox didn't dwell on the fact that the grand jury files only reflect what the Justice Department submitted to the grand jury rather than the documents the Justice Department has in its possession. It didn't make anything either of the slippery use of the word "pertinent." Once again, Trump and his minions are obviously camouflaging the real files by talking solely about "incriminating" client lists and "pertinent" grand jury records. Fortunately for Trump, Fox doesn't care. So what else is there? Maybe those who listen slavishly to Trump and read The Wall Street Journal will stop—all 12 of them. Or maybe Trump will use or threaten to use the Justice Department to investigate Murdoch's business dealings for potential crimes. This one's a real possibility. As Stalin stooge Lavrentiy Beria famously said: "Show me the man, and I will show you the crime." Stalin, by the way was a real dictator. He could shut anybody up and wasn't shy about it. He used the gulag or the garrote. Trump is using the government against others, and he can use it against Fox. Clearly, he hasn't been shy about it. Consider, for instance, the Justice Department investigation of New York Attorney General Letitia James for supposedly lying on a mortgage application. So, Murdoch will probably join the others in kowtowing to the commander-in-chief. His only hope—and ours—is that Americans will now recover their spines and demand that it stops. Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Epstein Files: True Scandal or Wild Conspiracy Theory? Newsweek Contributors Debate
Epstein Files: True Scandal or Wild Conspiracy Theory? Newsweek Contributors Debate

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

Epstein Files: True Scandal or Wild Conspiracy Theory? Newsweek Contributors Debate

Revelations about President Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and demands that the Justice Department release further documentation about the Epstein case, have sent shockwaves through the MAGA movement. What should Americans make of the Trump-Epstein scandal? Are calls to "release the Epstein files" about justice for victims, or scoring political points? Should Trump release the files—or is there nothing to release? Newsweek contributors Nina Turner and Peter Roff debate: Nina Turner: President Trump has painted himself into a corner. He made a promise to release the Epstein Files, but he also made an appeal to Americans who want to protect children and felt anxiety over the economy. If he doesn't release the files, it'll look as though he leveraged abuse against children and people's inability to afford groceries to gain power. All Americans should be concerned about this issue, not just MAGA. We should center the victims and not politicians, including the president. This is a moral issue—are we a society that allows harm to children, simply because the abusers are potentially wealthy and powerful? Peter Roff: Some decades ago, a prominent political scientist penned an essay about the paranoid strain in American politics. The matter of the so-called "Epstein files" brings all his warnings to life. Through three successive campaigns, Trump exploited fears on the Right and Left that some organized externality was shaping, even directing, global events. Those chickens have come home to roost, and not in ways that are to the president's advantage. He wasn't the first to raise Epstein as a macro-political issue, but he'll have to answer for it, nonetheless. Calls for the release of the files is part of that, even though there will always be some people who believe "real proof" is still being withheld from the public. Turner: I agree, Peter, that Trump's chickens have come home to roost. The Jeffery Epistein scandal, however, is much bigger than President Trump and the "exploitation of fears" on the Left or Right. Usually, where there is smoke, there is fire and the stench of the burn is coming for us all. The cover-up by the elites must be exposed and justice had for the victims. Roff: But the Epstein business now has nothing to do with actual sex trafficking or its victims. People want to know who among the rich and powerful engaged in illicit activities because of how it's been hyped, not because of a desire for justice. Did Bill Clinton participate? Ex-senator Robert Menendez? Trump himself? It's a game of "gotcha" gone horribly off the rails because of the political implications. The victims don't matter—and never did. Turner: Politicians have an opportunity and obligation to respond to this scandal differently than in the past. This should not be about chasing a "gotcha" moment and political gamesmanship. The issues at stake are moral and political, but should not be partisan. There are little girls who deserve justice and the political and financial elites who victimized them must not be allowed to hide. Photo Illustration by Newsweek/Getty Roff: There were too many "juicy bits" associated with the Epstein story for it not to become a partisan circus. But if Trump really had been involved, why did his opponents bother drumming up other scandals, like Russiagate? Epstein revelations alone would have done him in. Next will come allegations of a cover-up that can't be disproven. Some people don't know when to let go. Turner: There are three victims in this abomination—three reasons we can't just "let go": the girls and women, our justice system, and our national security. The truth must be vigorously sought with, at minimum, a full-fledged investigation. The American people should continue to make this demand. Anything less would be a betrayal and shatter the facade of being a "Christian nation" once again. Roff: I doubt much good would come from further investigation. Trump's call for the grand jury records to be unsealed may lead to the destruction of a few more reputations—and perhaps deservedly so. It may also provide more fodder for attention-seeking podcasters looking to fan the flames and expand their audience. If the Epstein business tells us anything, it's that reliance on citizen journalists and uncurated copy as a source for news is of dubious benefit to the democratic process. Turner: The callous indifference some people have about this scandal, and total dismissal of the pain of victims, is outrageous. If this were just about the solo actions of Jeffrey Epstein it would be bad enough, but this much bigger than him. There are also other powerful men involved. This situation is a cruel reminder that this country has a two-tier legal system—one for the poor and one for the ultra-wealthy. If this cover-up does not end with people in prison for their crimes against young girls and women, it is yet another reminder we have a government of, by and for billionaires and powerful deep states here and abroad. I predict President Donald Trump will continue to evade by political distraction, while pretending he is doing all he can. Parts of MAGA will splinter, but most won't pull their support for the president. Another "major" issue will come along and it will be business as usual—the pain of the powerless matters little as long as the powerful stay comfortable. Roff: The scandal should have died with Epstein, and probably would have if the cameras in the Manhattan jail had worked. Instead, it got a whole new life. It won't die, let alone quietly. Too many people have too much invested in it for that to happen. Trump will take some hits, but he'll also punch back at Democrats who try to keep it going with allegations he's hiding things to protect himself. The whole thing has been hyped to Hollywood proportions. As a limited-run series on streaming, it would probably do well. All the elements are there, complete with potential cliff-hanger endings for each episode. Real life, alas, is rarely as interesting. A name or two currently redacted in the already public documents might get exposed, but whoever covered things up so far has managed to keep it going. You don't need proof to say that, either. Nina Turner is a former Ohio state senator, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at the New School, and the founder of We Are Somebody. Newsweek Contributing Editor Peter Roff is a veteran journalist who appears regularly on U.S. and international media platforms. He can be reached at roffcolumns@ and followed on social media @TheRoffDraft. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.

A judge blocked a rule to drop medical debt from credit reports. What now?
A judge blocked a rule to drop medical debt from credit reports. What now?

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

A judge blocked a rule to drop medical debt from credit reports. What now?

A recent federal court ruling overturned a Biden-era ban on medical debt in credit reports just as access to healthcare and health insurance is becoming more fragile. The decision could thwart the hopes of an estimated 15 million Americans who might have seen some relief ahead of expected hikes to healthcare premiums, the end of enhanced marketplace subsidies, and an anticipated increase in the number of Americans without insurance. 'We're really concerned that with the loss of insurance altogether, or healthcare becoming more expensive, we're just going to see more medical debt,' said Mona Shah, the senior director of policy and strategy at Community Catalyst, a national nonprofit healthcare advocacy organization. 'With this protection removed around credit reporting, it's going to impact people's overall economic well-being and ability to thrive.' A $49 billion reversal Earlier this month, a federal judge blocked a rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which had never taken effect, that would have stopped medical bills from appearing on credit reports and barred lenders from using such data to make lending decisions. The CFPB estimated the change could raise impacted consumers' credit scores by an average of 20 points. Healthcare providers typically don't report missed medical bills directly to credit bureaus, according to Equifax, so medical debt often doesn't wind up on a credit report until it's been reported to a collections agency. However, two trade associations successfully argued that the CFPB had overstepped its authority. Under the Trump administration, the CFPB also asked for the rule to be thrown out. In a July 11 ruling, Judge Sean Jordan of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas agreed with the trade groups. The ruling comes at an especially precarious time in healthcare. The tax bill signed into law by President Trump this month is expected to leave 10 million Americans without health insurance by 2034, largely due to changes in Medicaid. Meanwhile, enhanced premium tax credits that helped make Affordable Care Act marketplace coverage more affordable will expire at the end of this year after they were not extended in the tax bill, a change that will help contribute to the largest premium increases seen in years in 2026. The end of the subsidies is expected to leave an estimated 4.2 million people uninsured. 'Having more people lose Medicaid and become uninsured, and also lower-income adults losing subsidized marketplace coverage and becoming uninsured, is going to significantly increase medical debt,' said Fredric Blavin, a senior fellow and researcher at the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank. Under the Biden administration, the CFPB estimated that removing medical bill information could have wiped $49 billion off the credit reports of about 15 million Americans, noting that medical billing information often contained errors and was a poor predictor of a consumer's creditworthiness. Lower credit scores can damage a person's ability to rent a home, obtain a credit card with a favorable rate, and even impact their job search. In public comments supporting the rule, many Americans shared stories of how medical bills had weighed on their credit, including cancer patients, people who had been in car wrecks, and more. Read more: How are credit scores calculated? Sign up for the Mind Your Money weekly newsletter By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy What should consumers do now? Credit reporting agencies had already voluntarily decided in April 2023 to wipe medical collection debt from consumer credit reports if the balance was below $500. A year earlier, paid medical collection debt was also dropped from credit reports, and consumers were given one year to pay down medical collection debt before it started appearing on their credit reports, rather than six months. Additionally, the CFPB noted that FICO and VantageScore had previously both 'decreased the degree to which medical bills impact a consumer's score.' These combined changes dropped medical debt in collections from most consumers' credit reports, the Urban Institute found, leaving about 4.1% of adults with such data on their records in August 2024, down from 12.6% in February 2022. Additionally, 14 states have provisions in place to remove medical collection debt from credit reports. 'We expect more states to take the same initiative moving forward,' said Breno Braga, a senior fellow and researcher at the Urban Institute. Still, consumers are left with the onerous job of keeping up with these changes and staying on top of their credit as they face mounting bills — along with the resumption of delinquent student loans hitting credit scores. Consumers should regularly check their mail and email for information concerning their credit, while also carefully examining the bills to determine what they owe and what they might be able to contest. When it comes to unaffordable medical care, consumers can ask healthcare providers about financial assistance options. Read more: How to check your credit score for free 'It's really just vigilance and trying to understand what's available in terms of assistance,' said Sarah Chenven, the CEO of Working Credit, a nonprofit organization that helps people build good credit. Consumers should also be cautious about signing up for medical credit cards with a 'deferred interest', said Shah with Community Catalyst, which may subject them to high, retroactive interest charges if they don't pay their bill in a certain promotional period. 'When patients are now faced with these difficult decisions of not being able to pay off these bills right away — worried about how it's going to impact their credit scores, losing their insurance, still needing healthcare — they may be lured into signing up for one of these payment products,' said Shah. Emma Ockerman is a reporter covering the economy and labor for Yahoo Finance. You can reach her at Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store