The White House has enacted a temporary halt on the removal of asylum seekers and other individuals to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), a decision prompted by the escalating Ebola outbreak gripping the nation. Yet, this pause, intended to curb disease transmission, paradoxically leaves vulnerable individuals like Adriana Zapata stranded, raising serious questions among legal experts and public health officials about its true intent and efficacy.
Adriana Zapata, a 55-year-old Colombian national, embodies the tragic complexities of this evolving policy. Despite a US judge’s explicit order for her return, she remains marooned in Kinshasa, the DRC capital, a city where she was initially deported against expert medical advice. Officials now cite the very travel ban they instituted as the reason for her inability to re-enter the US, directly contradicting a judicial decree. “I don’t want her to die before we can get her back here,” expressed Lauren O’Neal, Zapata’s lawyer, to the Gothamist, her concern palpable.
The Disputed Logic of Ebola Outbreak Policies
Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International and a former top Ebola response official, sharply criticized the administration’s stance. “By the government’s own logic, if it is not safe for people to come from there to here, it is equally unsafe to send people there,” he asserted, highlighting a glaring inconsistency in prohibiting entry while continuing deportations. Independent journalist Gillian Brockell, who meticulously tracks such third-country removals, suspects the travel ban might merely serve as a convenient pretext for officials to avoid complying with judicial orders, especially given the established precedent of the US evacuating individuals from areas with an active Ebola outbreak.
The ripple effects of this policy extend beyond individual cases. Critics warn that deporting individuals to regions experiencing an Ebola outbreak, even if currently unaffected, could inadvertently facilitate the virus’s spread to new, unprepared territories like South and Central America, should detainees become infected and subsequently repatriated. In response, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has implemented stringent screening protocols, diverting all passengers from the DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan to Washington-Dulles International Airport. Satish Pillai, the CDC’s Ebola response lead, affirmed these “layered public health approach” measures aim to mitigate risk and safeguard global public health.
While public health experts like Alexandra Phelan from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health acknowledge the unlikelihood of travelers importing the virus, she advocates for Zapata’s return under the same rigorous health protocols applied to returning US citizens. Yael Schacher of Refugees International urges a more comprehensive approach: restoring health-related humanitarian funding across Africa, designating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, and South Sudan, and halting all deportation flights to the region – including those involving Latin Americans and other third-country nationals. This, she argues, is the genuine way for the administration to demonstrate its commitment to confronting infectious disease crises.
About the Author
