Category World News

For the fiscal year 2026, US President Donald Trump has announced that he will only accept 7,500 refugees.

This is a record low since the 1980 Refugee Act when a cap on refugees entering the country was set at 50, 000 per year, but could be changed. The US refugee resettlement program was launched that year. Former President Joe Biden’s set cap is currently 125, 000.

Furthermore, the Trump administration said priority will be given to white South Africans.

The US has used highly restrictive and frequently racist immigration policies throughout its history, despite the new cap, which represents a significant decrease in the number of refugees it has admitted in recent years.

Who will be able to enter the United States starting in 2026?

No more than 7, 500 people will be granted refugee status and these must undergo very tough checks before they can enter. The secretary of state and homeland security will need to approve it.

Trump also reaffirmed his signing of a proclamation in June that said foreigners can still be denied entry if letting them enter would harm the nation’s interests.

Why is Trump prioritising white South Africans?

Trump asserts that White Afrikanians face a “genocide” in South Africa. He signed Executive Order 14204, which read “Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa,” in February of this year. The order was made in response to South Africa’s Expropriation Act 13 of 2024, which allows for land to be seized and redistributed.

The order criticized South Africa for seizing land held by “ethnic minority” white South Africans. If the government continues with this, the US threatened to withhold aid from South Africa. In May, 59 white South Africans arrived in the US as part of a special refugee programme Trump established for them.

During a White House visit the same month, Trump ambushed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, only to have him ambushed by a video of people singing “Kill the Boer” in South Africa and making claims that a “white genocide” was occurring.

“People are fleeing South Africa for their own safety,” he said. Their land is being confiscated, and in many cases, they’re being killed”, Trump said during the meeting with Ramaphosa in May.

Are white Afrikaans eligible for refugee status?

Not really, according to experts.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Act to right apartheid-era wrongs. However, the law permits the government to seize privately held land from anyone for public purposes without compensation, or in some cases without compensation.

The Act replaces a 1975 law that had received mixed reviews for its lack of clarity regarding compensation.

During apartheid, white South Africans, who are mainly Afrikaans-speaking descendants of Dutch settlers and English-speaking descendants of British colonists, held control, and often violently sidelined the Black majority.

While the apartheid era ended in 1994, about 7% of the population still lives in poverty, making up more than 70% of the land.

Ramaphosa told Trump at his White House meeting that violent crime was being committed against all South Africans, not just against white people, despite the country’s current problems.

Experts have also dismissed Trump’s claims of a white genocide.

South African historian Saul Dubow, a professor of Commonwealth history at the University of Cambridge, told Al Jazeera in May that “Trump’s fantasy claims of white genocide have no basis.”

“South Africa is one of the most unequal societies in the world in terms of economic terms and a violent nation. The violence is criminal rather than political, though racial injustice inevitably forms part of the context”.

Dubow suggested that Trump may be more enraged by Israel’s genocide case, which was filed in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in December 2023 in relation to the Gaza war.

Is this the most stringent refugee cap ever implemented by the US?

This is the lowest cap on refugees in recent history. It falls short of the original 50, 000 cap established by the 1980 Act in addition to being lower than the previous 17, 400-cape that the Act intended to replace.

The president consults with the US Congress each year to determine how many refugees are allowed into the country. For the fiscal years 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025, a maximum of 125, 000 refugees were allowed into the US.

The US refugee resettlement program was established in 1980 to assist the US in identifying, settling, and settling refugees who were escaping conflict or persecution around the world.

However, the United States did not accept large numbers of refugees before 1980 and had a history of strict laws that forbid people from obtaining citizenship in particular nations.

A history of prohibitive immigration policy in the US

Here is a list of important US immigration and citizenship laws that have affected people of a particular racial or ethnic background.

Naturalization Act of 1790

The Naturalisation Act defined limits on who could become a naturalised citizen of the US.

In accordance with this act, free white people who had resided in the US for two years and had shown good moral character could only be naturalized.

Native Americans, people who were enslaved, and non-white people were excluded.

1875: The Page Act

The Page Act, the first immigration law in the US, was signed by President Ulysses S. Grant in March 1875.

The law targeted Asian women particularly. It decreed that the US government must determine that “the immigration of any subject of China, Japan, or any Oriental country, to the United States, is free and voluntary”.

Because it forbade bringing women into the US for forced labor or sex work, the Act was written as if it were protecting vulnerable immigrants. Anyone found to have ejected and fined for entering the US without giving their permission an immigrant from an Asian nation.

However, critics have pointed out that, in practice, the Act was racist and sexist. It was made possible because many Chinese people were looking for employment in the US because of poverty and famine in China. Chinese women specifically emigrated to the US in the 1850s as workers.

According to an article published by the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), San Francisco officials started making efforts to deport Chinese women of “ill fame” from the 1860s. The article added that “all Chinese women were most likely stereotyped as prostitutes” at the time.

The Page Act’s stigmatization of Asian women is one of its enduring effects, according to the article. Beyond facing racial discrimination, Asian women were fetishised and sexualised culturally.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882

The Chinese Exclusion Act, which was signed in May 1882, made it illegal for all Chinese workers to work in the US for ten years.

It also prevented Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalised citizens of the US.

The Geary Act of 1892 extended the scope of the Act until 1943 when it was overturned.

The Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907

This was not a formal law – it was, rather, an agreement between the US and Japan.

The Japanese government was ordered to halt the immigration of Japanese laborers to the US by President Theodore Roosevelt’s negotiation.

Japanese students would still be able to enroll in integrated schools in exchange for this.

The agreement was drawn up in response to public anger about the rising number of Japanese labourers and agricultural workers who had migrated to fill the gap left by Chinese workers.

The Asiatic Barred Zone Act was passed in 1917.

Most of Asia’s nations were covered by this law, which established a “barred zone” between the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

Nationals of these countries were restricted from entering the US.

The Johnson-Reed Act from 1924

The number of people from other nations who could immigrate to the US each year was strictly dictated by this immigration law.

It stipulated a “national origins” quota, which decreed that only 2 percent of the number of people of any nationality living in the US in 1890 could enter the country each year.

Additionally, the law made it completely illegal for Asian nationals to immigrate to the US.

Trump’s own “muslim ban” in 2017

During his first term, Trump enacted a travel ban dubbed the “Muslim ban”.

Trump signed an executive order enforcing a 90-day ban on entry to the US for citizens of seven Muslim-majority nations, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Additionally, the US refugee program was permanently barred for Syrian refugees under the order.

Trump’s travel ban went through subsequent rounds of revisions. Courts initially rejected the original version because it constituted discrimination.

Venezuela and North Korea were also affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in the final version, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.

In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order reversing the travel ban.

Trump’s travel ban in 2025

Trump signed a proclamation in June this year that imposed a total ban on citizens of 12 nations from entering the US, despite not regaining it during his second term. Many of them are African nations.

They include Yemen, Ethiopia, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan, Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, and Ethiopia.

Citizens from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela are subject to some restrictions under this proclamation.

This is the second of a two-part series. Here, you can read the first part, which details how public relations firms have aided Israel. &nbsp,

The newly launched Christian marketing firm Faith Through Works’ filings reflect Israel’s new focus on public relations.

Faith Through Works, one of at least three PR firms contracted by Israel to “improve its image in the United States,” states in a document (PDF) that it has been hired to “Combat low American Evangelical Christian approval of the Nation of Israel.

Polls indicate that Israel is losing ground in comparison to the US evangelical base. According to surveys from the University of Maryland and others, wide-spread protests in US cities and colleges have indicated that Israel is losing support among Gen Z, its allies in mainstream US politics, and among its evangelical righties.

And, according to analysts, that poses a serious problem for Israel.

Israel has enlisted the assistance of Bridges Partners to raise awareness of Israel in the US by using Faith Through Works and obtaining funding from an undisclosed group of online influencers. In an effort to improve its online reputation, it has also contracted another newly established US company, Clock Tower, to reshape the way Israeli-Israeli military discussions are framed using artificial intelligence (AI).

The University of Maryland’s Shibley Telhami said, “The war for American public opinion is existential.” The gloves are off because this is a serious game for them, they say.

Israelis have been dependent on the US for the past two years, according to the report. That is to say, almost everyone in their country was aware of their dependence on the US prior to the war, but not in what ways. He explains how Israelis have watched their nation’s dependence on the US increase with each new front their government has launched against regional allies like Lebanon and Iran.

Before you even consider the US’s “simple diplomatic power,” he said, “which has been extremely helpful in keeping Israel safe throughout the war, and the potential loss of that is terrifying to them.”

losing support

The US public has largely suported Israel’s economic, military, and reputational costs. However, cracks are emerging in US support for Israel amid the scenes of unrelenting carnage that Israel continues to unleash on Gaza, which many Israelis fear could eventually develop.

Israel’s support in the US has not recently been bolstered. Foreign journalists are prohibited from entering Gaza to capture the full extent of the barbaric acts committed against the enclave, but there are also concerted efforts to turn the online discussion in Israel’s favor.

A coordinated effort was made in May to influence how social media users were describing Israel’s occupation of Gaza, according to a survey conducted by the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stressed the importance of social media in his conversation with US influencers in September.

Netanyahu referred to social media as the “weapon” of the modern era, saying that TikTok is the most significant purchase currently being made. One hundred and one. And I hope it succeeds because it has potential.”

“And the other one,” you ask? X. We need to speak with owner of X, Elon Musk. He is a friend, not an adversary. He needs to speak with us. Now, if we can get those two things, we can get a lot. We must now engage in combative action to guide both our non-Jewish friends and the Jewish people.

I had the honor of posing a query to Bibi Netanyahu about the possible loss of evangelical support for the state of Israel following Charlie Kirk’s murder. pic. https://twitter.com/XP2faZQa0N

According to Dov Waxman, professor of Israel studies at the University of California, “there was less support for Israel and greater sympathy for Palestinians among younger Americans, including young evangelical Christians.” “These important groups have significantly lost faith in Israel because of Israel’s actions during the conflict in Gaza,” the statement reads.

This is confirmed by Telhami’s polls.

A University of Maryland survey (PDF) of the party’s support for Palestinians revealed that older Democrats now have more influence over the party’s support for Israel, and that older Republicans now have a bigger influence over their party’s support for Israel. A separate poll (PDF) conducted over the same time that revealed growing opposition to Israel’s war on Gaza among young evangelicals, one of Israel’s most trusted supporters, poses a potential greater threat to Israeli policymakers and aids in explaining the contracting of Faith Through Works.

In MAGA, there is a shift.

The mainstream politics in the US are starting to suffer as a result of this split, and especially President Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. One of the loudest voices in that movement, Marjorie Taylor Greene, fought back in July in opposition to a bill that would have awarded Israel $500 million over the course of the following year.

Greene wrote on the social media platform X that “Nuclear-armed Israel’s national debt is under $400 billion in comparison to our crippling national debt of $ 37 trillion.” According to the statement, “The American taxpayers shouldn’t be required to pay the American taxpayers for another $500 million in our U.S. defense bill because Nuclear-armed Israel appears to have their defense and debt under control.”

There’s only one story going on, and it’s Israel, according to Tucker Carlson, a well-known MAGA figure who in October described Christian Zionists as “heretics” on his YouTube channel the same month. “We are spending our time, our money, and we’re taking enormous risks on behalf of a country that is not politically significant at all,” Carlson said.

I don’t think American taxpayers should be responsible for funding Israel’s wars or any other nation’s wars, which is what I’ve done.
I’m not going to change my mind.
What will you do next, then, I’m left wondering.
The entire world is watching. https://t.co/q2MHv7rKHl

There is a strong trend in MAGA’s “America First” contingent, he said, citing Carlson and right-wing influencer Candace Owens as examples. “The US Republican leadership is still solidly behind Israel, and that’s not likely to change in this Trump administration,” said HA Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute.

He praised Israel’s prospects for future support from the US right, noting that it will not fundamentally change policy in this administration.

Telhami remarked that there is being “a significant generational shift.” The Gaza generation, which views Israel as a genocidal villain, is now the same as the Pearl Harbor generation and the Vietnam generation.

Yamen Samed Hamed, 15, was killed on Thursday in an Israeli-occupied West Bank town called Silwad, and is now mourned by Palestinians. According to reports, Israeli forces initially prevented the boy who had been injured in the assault, which included live rounds, tear gas, and stun grenades, from getting to an ambulance.

Democrats are overwhelmingly in the mayoral election in New York City, a sign of the city’s deeply liberal bent. However, a Republican could change the outcome of the election.

Prior to the November 4 election, candidate Curtis Sliwa has refrained from appealing to some top conservatives, which should increase the chances for former governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after being defeated in the Democratic primary in June.

Some political observers believe that Zohran Mamdani’s departure will give Cuomo the best chance to defeat him in the Democratic Socialist party’s frontrunner race.

According to Rusat Ramgopal, Sliwa’s deputy campaign manager, “New Yorkers are tired of Andrew Cuomo, but Andrew Cuomo doesn’t seem to understand when “no” means “no,” making a sharp reference to the sexual misconduct allegations that forced Cuomo to step down as governor of New York State in 2021.

Sliwa has also struck both of his rivals.

During the final mayoral debate on October 22, he said, “Zohran, your resume could fit on a cocktail napkin, and Andrew, your failures could fill a public school library in New York City.”

Sliwa falsely claimed during the final debate that the leading candidate supports “global jihad,” using the same Islamophobic tropes that Mamdani’s critics have perpetuated.

Local performer or subway hero?

Curtis Sliwa, then, who is he? Sliwa has been plagued by this question ever since he became well-known as the leader of the Guardian Angels, a volunteer crime-fighting organization known for its patrols of the New York City subway system.

Supporters have endorsed the group’s do-it-yourself ethos, which Sliwa started in 1979 as a 24-year-old night manager at a McDonald’s in the Bronx. He is still regarded as the epitome of New Yorkers taking action when the city’s administration fails, insisted by many.

People “think about public safety and subway safety when they see that red beret.” They are aware of his contributions to the city, Ramgopal said.

He is a larger-than-life figure who has, to this point, contributed greatly to New York life.

Others have accused the Guardian Angels of fortifying a dangerous style of vigilantism, saying they don’t carry weapons. Additionally, the organization has been criticized for allegedly demonizing immigrants, falsely accusing people of crimes, and racial profiling.

Sliwa has frequently condemned “migrant” crime on the campaign trail.

Sliwa admitted in 1992 that he had fabricated some crimes to gain publicity, but the authenticity of the group’s exploits has been scrutinized.

Sliwa has previously served as a radio host, media personality, and candidate for local politics.

What platforms does he use?

Unsurprisingly, Sliwa’s campaign focuses on public safety, particularly in the transit system. Sliwa argued that the city is “facing a crisis of crime, lawlessness, and failed leadership” despite the drop in crime.

According to his website, he has pledged to “enhance proactive and intrusive policing strategies to target illegal firearm carriers, repeat offenders, and violent criminals before crimes occur,” along with 7, 000 new New York Police Department (NYPD) officers, re-up controversial police units, and re-up controversial ones.

Critics claim that these tactics have historically resulted in more racial profiling, over-policing of minority communities, and civil liberties violations.

He has also pushed for affordability, a problem that has been a hot topic this election cycle, and pledged to reform the city’s current system to better coordinate with programs for affordable housing.

Sliwa, who owns several cats, has also made animal protection a crucial component of his campaign.

What qualities does he possess that his supporters admire?

Sliwa, who is the only right-wing candidate in the race, enjoys strong support from registered Republicans, who make up 11% of New York’s 4 7 million electors.

He continues to woo new supporters despite having gained popularity decades ago.

Shan Singh, a 30-year-old cab driver from Richmond Hill, Queens, told Al Jazeera, “His work with the Guardian Angels has resonated a lot with me.”

In the presidential election of 2024, Singh, who had previously supported Democrats, switched to Republican Party and US President Donald Trump. He thinks that the recent protests in the city are risky.

He added that Sliwa’s polls-related defeat does not make him lose his vote.

Despite the statistics, Curtis “smears to me as the person who seems most real,” he said.

Before the first mayoral debate in midtown Manhattan, Brooklyn resident Russell, 28, made a request that his last name be kept private.

He claimed that both Cuomo and Mamdani were too anti-crime, and that their support for bail reform initiatives, which aim to end low-level criminal justice cases and prevent widespread incarceration, was unfair.

Because there are no repercussions for it, Russell said, “it encourages criminals to keep committing crimes.”

Has he a chance of winning?

Sliwa lacks a genuine path to victory, lacking a miracle. He received 14% of likely voters, according to the most recent Quinnipiac University poll. That outperformed the 43 percent and 33 percent support provided by Mamdani and Cuomo.

Cuomo has worked so hard to get out of the race because of this. A vote for Sliwa is essentially a vote for Mamdani, according to the former governor, who has made numerous phone calls to conservative voters.

If Sliwa were to leave, Cuomo even left the door open for him to take over the presidency.

The appeals have so far been unsuccessful. How many of Sliwa’s steadfast supporters would be willing to cross party lines, also, is a mystery.