Emory Still Fighting Trump Administration on Travel Bans
Unsurprisingly, Emory University is opposed to the new Trump travel ban, just as they were opposed to the first one and further considered – but ultimately decided against – becoming a sanctuary campus. That consideration led the Georgia General Assembly to pass a law last month preventing sanctuary campuses from receiving state funding, even though there are no sanctuary campuses in the state, and Emory had announced their decision not to become one two months prior.
Thirty universities have joined Emory in this new amicus brief, filed last Friday, arguing that the immigration order will hinder efforts to attract the best global students:
Because amici seek to educate future world leaders, attract the world’s best scholars, faculty, and students, and work across international borders, they rely on their ability to welcome international students, faculty, and scholars into their communities.
And further:
The Executive Order at issue here, like its predecessor, threatens amici’s ability to continue to attract these individuals and thus to meet their goals of educating tomorrow’s leaders… Although the Order excludes certain visa-holders, it would bar entry of individuals from the six affected countries who seek the categories of visas most commonly relied upon by amici’s international students, faculty, staff, and scholars.
The brief further notes that more than five percent of students at American universities are international students, and though several of the universities included on the brief listed the number of faculty and students who would be affected directly by the travel ban, numbers were not included for Emory. (It is, however, mentioned that five percent of its instruction staff and thirty-four percent of its research staff are nonresident aliens.)
Several themes arise during the brief, with the hits to both the universities’ economic output and reputations on the world stage being of particular concern. The brief also discusses how immigrants who study in America contribute to U.S. society after graduation. To that end, the AJC found that over 200 doctors who practice the state of Georgia would be affected by the travel ban.
The Trump Administration issued the new travel ban on March 6th, preventing the processing of visas from six Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and Libya — for 90 days while the administration “improves screening and vetting protocols.” As to whether that was the actual purpose is up for debate, though the order is currently on hold nationwide due to judicial orders from Maryland and Hawaii. A hearing is scheduled for May 8th.
About Author
Holly Croft
Holly is an archivist at one of Georgia's institutions of higher learning. In a past life, she was a legislative assistant on Capitol Hill. She cares a lot about records management, open records laws, and privacy laws. Political persuasion? It's complicated. What's not complicated is that she's proudly equal parts Bulldog and Tar Heel.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Emory is one of my alma maters. This is disappointing. This, along with the freak-out about Trump’s name chalked on the sidewalk which made Emory the subject of nationwide ridicule, is giving Emory as bad reputation as just another liberal campus full of SJW snowflakes. Georgia deserves better. It’s time for Emory to man up.
Hi, Dan,
I support Emory’s reasoning for joining this amicus brief, as I believe it fits with their mission to promote diverse learning, and past Supreme Court rulings back up universities’ rights to grant admission to students and hire faculty and staff that would provide a “robust exchange of ideas” (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). Many of the schools on the brief can point to specific members of their communities that would be affected by the ban, and if it were to go into affect now, the 90 day period could prevent students and workers slated to come in the fall from arriving before the semester begins.
Further, I still don’t believe there’s any real reason for the ban. If there were an emergency, as the Trump Administration has repeatedly told us, it seems as though they would have moved quickly between versions of the ban to reword the second ban, clearly explained in court why the first ban was necessary in a way that would have convinced even one judge, or created gap measures until the second ban could be enacted. Seeing none of this, I again question the logic of the ban in the first place.
(Full disclosure: I’m a signee of the Academics Against Immigration Executive Order.)