NAFSA Statement on SCOTUS Travel Ban Decision

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Rebecca Morgan, 202.495.2553
Kolbie Blume, 202.495.2528

Washington, June 26, 2017 — Today, the Supreme Court narrowed the injunction prohibiting implementation of President Trump’s travel ban and agreed to review cases challenging the ban in the fall. The high court’s order continues to inject uncertainty into the scope of the travel ban and has added a new distinction between those who have ties to the United States and those who have none. The following is a statement by Dr. Esther D. Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

“International educators are relieved to be able to tell our international students and scholars that they should not be afraid to come to our campuses to study, work and exchange ideas. We are pleased the court acknowledged that students and scholars and others with connections to the United States could not be barred from our country simply because of their nationality or religion, at least while the underlying litigation continues.

“Unfortunately, individuals from the affected countries with no ties to the United States will be subject to the ban on the grounds that a lack of connection to the United States somehow provides evidence of a national security threat. If that is the case, then we should be making every effort to create connections and ties through robust international exchange and travel, and we call on the administration to make clear in its guidance that prospective students and scholars should not be afraid to seek admission to the United States regardless of their current ties.

“For refugees, however, this requirement of a prior connection to the United States is a devastating and unfair limitation on the very reason that countries provide refuge. Those who need our assistance should be protected irrespective of nationality or creed. The administration must commit to the protection of individuals in need and to clear guidance regarding the application of the Supreme Court’s order while the litigation continues.”