After hurling his way into power using “build a wall” rhetoric, President Trump reduced the cap on national refugee admissions from 110,000 to 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year. Despite this, 53,716 refugees were admitted. The following year, Trump decreased the cap to 45,000, seemingly to rectify this over-acceptance. Only 22,491 refugees gained entry. For reference, the global refugee population is over twenty million, larger than the entire state of New York.
After regulating refugee admissions, the administration started limiting how many asylum seekers—would-be refugees whose status had not been confirmed—could enter the country each day, ordering the rest to wait in Mexico. This regulation slowed the processing pace and slashed the number of asylum seekers admitted, keeping them in danger. Within a year of the policy’s implementation, the non-profit Human Rights First reported more than eight hundred cases of asylum seekers being murdered, tortured, raped, or kidnapped while waiting in Mexico. The policy also contributed to high kidnapping rates in Mexican border cities, with high risks of abduction in refugee camps and on the walk from the border.
Trump also attacked Temporary Protected Status (TPS), under which citizens of ten war- or disaster-torn nations can live and work in the US for six to eighteen months. The president initially restricted TPS for six countries encompassing 98 percent of holders, with statuses expiring in 2019 or early 2020 depending on the country.
It didn’t take long for a lawsuit, Ramos v. Nielsen, to yield an injunction against the elimination of TPS for nationals from Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, and El Salvador. Bhattarai v. Nielsen extended a similar reprieve to nationals from Nepal and Honduras. Under the extension the government issued in response to the court rulings, TPS holders from all six countries can retain their status at least until January 4, 2021. After that, the program’s status is in the hands of the Ninth Circuit, which will hear the government’s appeal in Ramos. Until Ramos is resolved, these refugees will live in fear of losing their status.
Refugees have the right to seek asylum under Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the most universal resolution on the topic. They also contribute heavily to the US economy, as they are more likely to be skilled workers than non-refugees or the foreign-born. While refugees do use costly social services at a disproportionately high rate after arriving, they compensate for it. On average, adult refugees pay $21,000 more in taxes than they receive in welfare benefits over their lifetimes.
In 2015, 13 percent of refugees were entrepreneurs, “compared to just 11.5 percent of non-refugee immigrants and 9.0 percent of the U.S.-born population.” These refugee-owned ventures generated $4.6 billion in business income. Furthermore, the Department of Health and Human Services notes that refugees boosted government revenue by $63 billion from 2005 to 2014.
More than two thousand miles from the Mexican border, Massachusetts deals with the negative consequences of Trump’s refugee policies. These guidelines affect the state’s documented and undocumented immigrants, native-born residents, and economy.
During Trump’s first year in office, national refugee admissions declined by 37 percent from the previous year. In Massachusetts, it decreased by nearly 60 percent. The number of refugees in the state plummeted from 1,734 in 2016 to 240 in 2019. Given the economic benefit refugees provide on a national level, this sharp decline could harm the Massachusetts economy. The state’s refugee population paid $196.6 million in state taxes and wielded $1.8 billion in spending power in 2015. Through entrepreneurship and market participation, refugees fuel economic growth, improve their own lives, and help fund state and local governments.
Throughout the courts and legislative halls of Massachusetts, local organizations are encouraging policymakers to respond to Trump’s new immigration rules with progressive legislation. When the administration ended medically deferred action—which allows non-citizens to stay in the US for health treatments—the Massachusetts American Civil Liberties Union gathered thirty-three families representing nineteen cases and sued. The lawsuit achieved minimal yet important success, as the administration will now review all pending cases filed before the policy change. Nevertheless, the efforts of state and local organizations to combat this policy indicate the power of local collective action in enacting positive change.
Other local organizations, including the Massachusetts Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, are lobbying for progressive state-level immigation reform by promoting the Safe Communities Act. This bill would protect the civil liberties of immigrants and refugees by limiting the police’s ability to ask detainees about their immigration status and restricting local authorities’ ability to report information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In 2017, Governor Charlie Baker sent a letter to the acting Homeland Security secretary in support of extending TPS. He also issued an executive order affirming the state’s continued acceptance of refugees and immigrants.
Boston-based lawmakers and organizations have also indicated their support for refugees and migrants. In 2019, the city passed the New Trust Act, which forbids the Boston Police Department from using funds or personnel to question, detain, or arrest a person solely for immigration-related offenses. It also bars the city from providing personal information such as names, addresses, and physical descriptions to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for non-criminal investigations. The act provides more stability for undocumented refugees and ensures that law enforcement resources are effectively used for criminal offenses.
The Trump administration’s refugee policy harms individuals seeking a better life. In 2019, the president further restricted the cap on refugees to eighteen thousand; he also required that states and municipalities provide explicit written permission to the federal government before resettling refugees.
Fluctuations in refugee law deny vulnerable people a secure status and hinder their integration into local economies. The emotional stability that stems from economic security encourages people to take emotional and intellectual risks, promoting economic growth in high-demand industries. Refugee restrictions also fail to consider the long-term benefits of refugees. Investing in refugees through education, housing, food stamps, and other forms of public assistance stimulates economic development.
While federal immigration policy ignores these negative implications, Massachusetts is playing the progressive underdog, enacting small, yet meaningful reforms within existing law to improve immigrant lives and communities.
