Marwan Naamani/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images
Syrian refugees at al-Fares camp in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, November 2020
Joe Biden’s election as president was initially met with relief among many activists and advocates for refugees and asylum seekers. In contrast to Trump’s harshly anti-refugee stance, Biden repeatedly promised during his campaign to raise the refugee resettlement cap, remove the bans on refugees from Muslim countries, and reform America’s broken and unwieldy asylum and resettlement vetting bureaucracy. Biden himself was a co-sponsor of the Refugee Act of 1980, which institutionalized the modern U.S. resettlement system. Just days after assuming office, Biden signaled a commitment to the 125,000 resettlement cap for Fiscal Year 2022, which starts in October 2021, and increasing resettlement to 62,500 for the current fiscal year ending September 30th.
Yet on April 16, the administration announced that it would keep in place the historically low resettlement cap of 15,000 for the current fiscal year. No clear explanation was initially given. Press Secretary Jen Psaki later cited the decimated refugee resettlement infrastructure and capacity concerns, despite the fact that approximately 35,000 refugees have already been cleared for resettlement. The administration’s announcement was met with immediate backlash by refugee advocates and many elected officials, prompting a press release stating that a final resettlement cap would be set by May 15.
If the Biden administration fails to restore refugee resettlement, the global refugee assistance regime will continue to crumble.
Increasing the resettlement cap to even 62,500 may seem to do little to address the root causes of displacement. Global displacement is at the highest level recorded in modern history. In 2019, 26 million people were refugees outside of their countries, and 45.7 million were internally displaced. Resettling 62,500 refugees would represent only about 0.3 percent of the over 22 million refugees in developing countries, where already dire socioeconomic conditions are worsening with the pandemic. Refugee resettlement seems like putting a Band-Aid over a bullet hole.
Even so, increasing refugee resettlement is of crucial importance. Resettlement is part of a three-pillar international refugee support system including local integration and safe and voluntary repatriation that requires participation from all countries. Yet the U.S. and Europe have adopted increasingly restrictionist policies in recent years. The result: a steep decline of refugee and asylum seeker rights worldwide. If the Biden administration fails to restore refugee resettlement, the global refugee assistance regime will continue to crumble.
The U.N. has long defined three primary solutions to addressing refugee displacement. Voluntary refugee return remains the centerpiece of international strategies. Yet 78 percent of refugees have been displaced at least five years. Many will likely never be able to go home due to persecution and conflict. As a result, two other solutions are key to addressing refugee displacement: local integration and resettlement. Local integration, or refugees achieving social and economic rights in a country where they have declared asylum, is in practice complex. Developing countries hosting the majority of refugees that have been the focus of international integrationist efforts have demonstrated vastly different policies toward refugees, and some (such as Ethiopia and Lebanon) are themselves facing conflict and insecurity. While approximately 1.1 million refugees have received citizenship in their host countries, many more are living in dire conditions. Resettlement is therefore a vital third pillar of developing sustainable solutions for refugees.
Resettlement is the transfer of refugees from a country where they have sought asylum to another country that has agreed to accept them. It originated primarily as a means to transfer refugees from European countries, with strong support from the U.S. Relatively few countries currently participate in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) resettlement program, and resettlement practices vary widely by country.
The United States has long been a leader in resettlement globally. It relies on referrals from the UNHCR and extensive vetting by government agencies to determine who is eligible and prioritized for resettlement. In the United States, refugee resettlement has also served to recruit highly qualified professionals, reunify families, and resettle individuals who have assisted the U.S. government or military, such as Iraqis. Yet resettlement shrank to its lowest level in modern history under Trump, and sank even lower under the Biden administration. This decline in resettlement has been mirrored by other countries. Less than 5 percent of the 1.4 million refugees identified as in immediate need of resettlement by UNHCR in 2019 were resettled. During COVID-19, resettlement reached the lowest level in decades.
Resettlement shrank to its lowest level in modern history under Trump, and sank even lower under the Biden administration.
How the U.S. treats refugee resettlement has echoes throughout the world. By not raising the cap, Biden may indirectly validate other countries’ policies toward refugees and asylum seekers. One only has to look to the broken promises of European refugee resettlement to understand the danger of this trend. After initially committing to a massive expansion of resettlement in exchange for increased border enforcement and improved refugee rights in Turkey, European countries have only resettled 28,000 Syrian refugees from Turkey since 2016. Denmark has even begun deporting Syrian refugees, despite the U.N. deeming Syria unsafe for refugee return. In the meantime, the EU has entered highly controversial agreements with countries such as Libya, where migrants and asylum seekers are kidnapped and killed, to avoid more refugees.
Biden understands as refugee advocates do that resettlement policy is as important a signal as the actual practice of resettling refugees. In justifying the decision to restore refugee resettlement as a key pillar of U.S. policy, the Biden campaign’s immigration plan noted that “We cannot mobilize other countries to meet their humanitarian obligations if we are not ourselves upholding our cherished democratic values.”
The growing global forced migration demands a significant rethink. The Biden team must find ways to promote safe conditions for refugees in displacement. More conflict and the specter of climate change loom. There must be active efforts to prepare for future displacement.
Increasing resettlement is a crucial part of this strategy. In 2016, 138 different refugee relief and advocacy organizations pushed the Obama administration to raise the resettlement cap to 200,000 refugees. They failed.
The advocates cited the historically unprecedented figure of 65 million displaced worldwide and the Syrian civil war. Over 13 million Syrians are still displaced—more than half of the country’s population. Yet Biden’s current proposal would only allow 1,500 refugees to be resettled from the Middle East and South Asia combined. In the meantime, Europe and the U.S. continue to turn asylum seekers away to die at sea or face violence in “safe” third countries. Reducing both refugee resettlement and asylum protections will only push individuals to seek increasingly deadly routes to safety.
The United States has an opportunity now to help reverse the global decline of refugee protection. The Biden administration should follow through on its promise and increase the resettlement cap to 62,500 on May 15.
