Trump’s 7,500 refugee cap; echoing restrictive US immigration history – Al Jazeera

Report on United States Refugee Admittance Ceiling for Fiscal Year 2026

Introduction: Policy Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

The United States has announced a new refugee admittance ceiling of 7,500 for the fiscal year 2026. This policy represents a significant reduction from previous years and raises critical questions regarding its alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The decision challenges global efforts to facilitate orderly, safe, and responsible migration and ensure inclusive societies for all.

Analysis of the Revised Refugee Cap

Quantitative Reduction and Institutional Implications

The proposed cap of 7,500 refugees is the lowest since the implementation of the 1980 Refugee Act, which initially established a ceiling of 50,000. This figure is a stark contrast to the 125,000 cap set for fiscal years 2022 through 2025. The policy mandates stringent vetting processes, requiring approval from the secretaries of state and homeland security. This restrictive approach impacts the capacity of institutions to provide refuge and protection for vulnerable populations, a key component of SDG 16, which aims to build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Prioritization and its Conflict with SDG 10

The administration has stated that priority will be given to white South Africans, citing claims of “genocide” related to South Africa’s land redistribution policies. This selective prioritization based on race and national origin directly contravenes the principles of SDG 10, which calls for reducing inequality within and among countries and ending discriminatory laws and policies.

• The justification is linked to South Africa’s Expropriation Act 13 of 2024, a policy designed to address historical land ownership imbalances stemming from apartheid. This measure itself is an attempt to advance SDG 10 by correcting past injustices.
• Data indicates that while white South Africans constitute approximately 7 percent of the population, they own over 70 percent of the land, while over half of the Black population lives in poverty, a challenge directly related to SDG 1 (No Poverty).
• Experts have widely dismissed the “white genocide” claims, noting that violent crime in South Africa affects all racial groups.

Historical Context: US Immigration Policy and its Relation to the SDGs

A Legacy of Exclusionary Practices

The 2026 refugee policy is consistent with a historical pattern of restrictive and often discriminatory U.S. immigration laws. These past policies have systematically undermined the principles now enshrined in the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those concerning equality, gender, and justice.

1. 1790 Naturalisation Act: Limited naturalization to “free white people,” establishing a foundation of racial exclusion that is antithetical to SDG 10.
2. 1875 Page Act: The first federal immigration law, it targeted Asian immigrants, particularly women, by stereotyping them as prostitutes. This policy represents a clear violation of both SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10.
3. 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act: Barred Chinese laborers and prevented Chinese immigrants from becoming citizens, directly opposing the goals of SDG 10 and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by restricting labor mobility based on nationality.
4. 1917 Asiatic Barred Zone Act: Restricted immigration from most of Asia, institutionalizing discrimination on a broad geographical and racial basis, in direct opposition to SDG 10.
5. 1924 Johnson-Reed Act: Imposed a “national origins” quota system that severely limited immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe and completely barred Asians, further entrenching discriminatory policies that SDG 10 seeks to dismantle.

Contemporary Policies and Global Commitments

Recent Travel Bans and SDG 16

Recent executive actions reflect a continuation of these exclusionary trends, posing challenges to the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies as outlined in SDG 16.

• 2017 Travel Ban: This executive order, often termed the “Muslim ban,” restricted entry for citizens from several Muslim-majority countries and suspended the refugee program. It was criticized for being discriminatory and undermining the principles of SDG 16.
• 2025 Travel Proclamation: A complete travel ban was imposed on nationals from 12 countries, many in Africa, with partial restrictions on others. This policy, targeting specific nationalities, works against the SDG 10 target of facilitating safe and responsible migration through planned and well-managed policies.

The reversal of the 2017 travel ban in 2021 was seen as a step toward realigning U.S. policy with global commitments to non-discrimination. However, the new refugee ceiling and subsequent travel restrictions indicate a renewed divergence from the foundational principles of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article’s content directly connects to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: This goal is central to the article, which extensively discusses policies that create and perpetuate inequality based on race, nationality, and origin. The historical overview of US immigration law and the new refugee policy both highlight discriminatory practices that exclude specific groups, directly contradicting the aim of reducing inequality.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This goal is relevant as it focuses on promoting just, peaceful, and inclusive societies. The article discusses laws and executive orders related to immigration and refugee status. The implementation of discriminatory policies, such as prioritizing one ethnic group for refugee status or banning nationals from certain countries, undermines the principles of justice, non-discrimination, and the rule of law that are core to this SDG.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific targets under the identified SDGs are relevant:

1. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.” The article details numerous policies that do the opposite by actively excluding people based on their origin and race. Examples include the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act which barred Asians, and the 2017 “Muslim ban” targeting citizens of several Muslim-majority countries.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…” The article is a chronicle of discriminatory laws and policies. The new policy prioritizing “white South Africans” for refugee status is a clear example of a practice that contradicts the principle of equal opportunity. The historical timeline provided in the article lists multiple discriminatory laws that the US has enacted over time.
   • Target 10.7: “Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.” The article highlights a move away from this target. The drastic reduction of the refugee cap from 125,000 to 7,500 represents a significant restriction on the mobility of people seeking refuge. The policies described are not aimed at facilitating migration but at severely limiting it based on discriminatory criteria.
2. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.b: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” The article provides direct evidence of the violation of this target. The prioritization of one racial group for refugee status and the travel bans on nationals from specific, mostly African and Muslim-majority, countries are explicit examples of discriminatory policies being enacted and enforced by a state institution.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

While the article does not mention official SDG indicators by their designated codes, it provides clear, measurable data and qualitative evidence that can serve as proxy indicators for the identified targets:

• Indicator for Target 10.7 (and progress away from it): The number of refugees admitted to the country. The article provides specific figures that can be used to measure the restrictiveness of migration policy. It states the new cap is “7,500 for the fiscal year 2026,” a sharp decrease from the current cap of “125,000.” This quantitative data serves as a direct indicator of the country’s policy on refugee mobility.
• Indicator for Targets 10.3 and 16.b: The existence of discriminatory laws, proclamations, and policies. The article explicitly lists these, which can be used as a qualitative indicator of non-compliance with the principle of non-discrimination. Examples include:
  • The proclamation prioritizing “white South Africans.”
  • The 2017 “Muslim ban” affecting citizens from “Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.”
  • The 2025 travel ban on nationals of 12 countries, “Many of them are African nations.”
  • Historical laws like the “1882: The Chinese Exclusion Act” and the “1917: Asiatic Barred Zone Act.”

  The presence and enforcement of these policies are a direct measure of the failure to eliminate discriminatory practices.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: aljazeera.com