From An American Ideal to Political Rhetoric: How Presidents Have Shaped U.S. Refugee Policy

Abstract

This thesis tracks the evolution of refugee policy in the United States since World War II, with particular emphasis on the unprecedented changes being enacted by the Trump Administration. Since World War II, U.S. presidents have played a key role in refining the United Nations’ definition of ‘refugee’ and leading the development of a comprehensive refugee policy. Using available data on refugee admissions, state budgets, and presidential and state political policies, this thesis assesses the role partisanship plays in U.S. refugee policy. Coinciding with the passage of the 1980 Refugee Act, support for refugee federalism, an ideology that promotes increased state engagement in the development and administration of refugee policy, accelerated. The Refugee Act created a consultative mechanism for the federal government to confer with states and localities over the placement of refugees within a framework for federal, state, local and non-profit coordination through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). The program affords states some degree of flexibility over its administration and enables governors to choose to support or limit state assistance based on their political ideology without threatening the amount of aid provided to refugees from the federal government. Historically, state oversight was limited to state administered or alternative replacement designee based on presidential support for refugee resettlement. Until 2017, bipartisan presidential support for the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program largely insulated refugee policy from the broader immigration debate and the politics surrounding immigration, even during heightened national security periods like post-9/11. However, through the use of executive orders and political rhetoric, the Trump Administration has dramatically reframed refugee policy by conflating immigrant and refugee definitions and linking both to national security and economic threats rather than as humanitarian obligation to those who qualify for admission under the original U.N. definition. A September 2019 Executive Order 13888 issued by President Trump proposed to give states veto power over refugee placement. As a result, the role of state governors moved from being enablers of refugee policy to decision makers. Through policy case studies of New Jersey, Texas and Massachusetts, this thesis will demonstrate how partisanship influenced state responses to Executive Order 13888 in the context of an anti-refugee administration. The paper concludes with broader implications this trend may have for the USRAP in the context of the upcoming presidential election, noting what steps would need to be taken by a more supportive administration to reshape the current trajectory. While the U.S. could resume acting as a guiding model for refugee resettlement, without presidential support, it is difficult to imagine a return to refugee admission levels from as recently as 2016.