AMERICA'S OPENNESS TO refugees has been a distinct feature of our country from its foundation. Our nation was established by communities facing discrimination elsewhere for their religious practices. In the periods when the country was not open to refugees and asylum seekers, such as during the Holocaust, it later became clear that we were on the wrong side of history.
The Trump administration announced this fall an annual admissions ceiling of 18,000 refugees for the next fiscal year, its third straight year of drastic reductions and a historic low. By comparison, almost 85,000 refugees were admitted in President Obama’s last year in office. Trump’s actions come at a time when the number of people fleeing conflict around the world is the highest since World War II.
Faith-based organizations in the United States have been at the forefront of refugee resettlement. The Trump administration decision threatens the already precarious structures around resettlement, which are largely religiously based. For many, the scriptural obligation to care for the stranger is a core religious belief. By having this capacity for service undercut, in many ways the faithful—across the spectrum from conservative to progressive—are unable to fulfill their religious obligations for care. The administration’s refusal to engage the many faith-based leaders and organizations who called for more, not less, openness to welcoming refugees decries its alleged commitment to religious freedom.
The actions of the Trump administration directly contradict many of civil society’s interfaith engagement strategies. Inclusive policies that serve a range of faith communities are a key to demonstrate that religious freedom is valued in this society. Banning citizens from nations with one dominant religious faith becomes an example that can be used by other countries seeking to justify exclusive policies. Civil society gatherings that are interfaith in nature or symbolic in their function will not be enough to induce inclusive policies in international partnerships in the face of restrictive actions such as this fall’s refugee limit.
I am a naturalized U.S. citizen. I did not come to this country as a refugee, but I—like many others who were religious minorities in their home nations and faced structural biases—viewed the U.S.’s more inclusive policies as necessary for my survival.
For the Trump administration to tout religious freedom as a priority for this country in international settings while holding back the avenue for escaping torture and persecution based on religious identity seems hypocritical at best and immoral at worst. It is not an effective strategy, and it undermines U.S. credibility in the area of religious freedom.
What message are we sending about religious freedom if our core policies defy the basic principle of supporting those who face serious persecution based on their faith?
Najeeba Syeed has been recognized for her work in interfaith peacebuilding, restorative justice, and religious leadership in Muslim contexts. She is co-editor of a forthcoming volume on interreligious learning and theological education.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!
