en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en
My medically fragile wife just got a travel ban waiver after a year of struggle. Countless others weren't so lucky. The Supreme Court will decide their fates.
I’m a doctor who has spent every day working to save American lives for the past five years, serving communities across the United States, from Pennsylvania to Arkansas to Washington state. But my own wife’s life has been in the hands of the Trump administration and our court system ever since the president announced his Muslim travel ban.
Rasha has two serious heart conditions. We fought desperately for more than a year to bring her to the USA from our war-torn birth country, Yemen, to get the treatment she needs. She was finally granted a visa last week after our story received attention from the media and members of Congress. But it is no stretch to say President Trump’s Muslim ban could have cost Rasha her life — and if the Supreme Court upholds the ban this month, it will cost others their lives.
After several legal challenges, a third iteration of that ban is in effect, forbidding most people from Yemen, Syria, Iran, Somalia, Libya, North Korea, Chad and Venezuela from coming here.
According to the administration, there is a waiver system in a place for nationals from these countries who pose no threat to America and would experience “undue hardship” if denied entry. But Rasha, like countless others who meet these criteria, was denied a visa twice — and no one in the federal government could tell us why.
More:Is it really possible to train implicit bias out of someone?
More:Trump-Sessions immigration policies rip children from parents, shred our values
When Rasha and I got married in July 2016, it was truly a dream come true. For years, I had been devoting my life to caring for my patients and working hard to achieve my American dream. I became a U.S. citizen in 2013. By then, my family in Yemen was worrying about me being alone, so they introduced me to Rasha. We got know each other long distance over conversations on Skype, WhatsApp and Facebook, and we fell in love. After our wedding, for which I traveled back to Yemen, we applied for a visa for Rasha to immigrate to the USA as my wife.
In December, her visa was approved by the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti — the country where she landed after fleeing Yemen and its ongoing civil war. But our lives were shattered when the Supreme Court allowed the third version of Trump’s travel ban to take effect Dec. 8, and the embassy rescinded her visa.
While people like Rasha are ostensibly eligible for waivers, the Trump administration has failed to create a transparent, organized system to administer them. There is no hotline to call with questions. There’s no government agency or official with clear responsibility for the waiver process. There’s not even a form to fill out to apply.
During last month’s arguments, even Solicitor General Noel Francisco, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, couldn’t clearly explain the process. “I don’t know how well publicized (the waiver process) is, but I suspect that people understand how to get it,” he told Justice Stephen Breyer.
In the absence of a formal waiver application process, Rasha applied for humanitarian parole based on her medical conditions, which leave her at serious risk of heart failure, cardiac arrhythmia and death. She requires regular medication, care and treatment to monitor and maintain her health; she could very well require lifesaving surgery at any time. The consistent medical treatment she needs is inaccessible in Yemen, and supply of her medication is limited and unpredictable. What little medication she is able to obtain often turns out to be expired or unusable due to lack of refrigeration.
Not only did her application include documentation of her condition, but we also submitted both a letter from my employer at the time, the University of Arkansas — which promised to provide her free medical care — and documentation to prove my salary was enough to support us. Her application was denied in April.
We were devastated, but I worked to keep drawing attention to our case. Earlier this month, we received notice that Rasha would receive a visa. She is now in the United States with me.
More:Japanese American internment is a cautionary tale for Trump travel ban
POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media
Travel ban defenders point to the waiver system to fend off accusations that it is inhumane, not to mention unconstitutional. But Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has called it "a farce designed to hide President Trump’s true purpose.”
The truth is we have no idea what process the government used to waive the ban and grant Rasha's visa. We received no formal explanation. We do know Rasha was one of the lucky few. Statistics in April suggest that fewer than 2% of visa applicants from countries included in the ban receive waivers.
While I’m grateful that our story has a happy ending, no one should think that our reunification proves that the waiver system is working, or that the Muslim ban is being applied with compassion. We got lucky that our story caught the attention of national news outlets and members of Congress. Other Muslim Americans with family members in banned countries cannot count on having the same luck. Their happy ending is now up to the Supreme Court.
Dr. Mohammed Alawadhi is an internal medicine specialist at Tacoma (Wash.) General Hospital.
Careers Staff Directory Accessibility Site Map Legals Our Ethical Principles Terms of Service Privacy Policy Your California Privacy Rights / Privacy PolicyDo Not Sell My Info / Cookie Policy
Contact Us Support Local Business Advertise Your Business Advertising Terms and Conditions Licensing & Reprints Help Center Subscriber Guide My Account Give Feedback