Enhancing State and Local Involvement in Refugee Resettlement

Background

Before its revocation, Executive Order 13888 had a profound impact on the refugee resettlement process in the United States by requiring explicit consent from both state and local governments prior to the settling of refugees in their jurisdictions. This order effectively shifted some decision-making power from federal authorities to state and local entities, granting them the ability to veto refugee placements. Subsequently, several governors and local leaders were placed in critical positions to determine whether refugees could be allowed in their communities, which in turn affected local law, regulation, and social policies related to immigrant integration and social services.

This shift was particularly significant because it allowed jurisdictions with anti-immigrant leanings to legally bar refugees, thus altering the landscape of resettlement. The operational adjustments included the Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services developing new procedures to obtain and assess the consent of local jurisdictions. These protocols did not require formal rulemaking but involved changes to how refugees were distributed across the United States. In many parts of the country, this resulted in a temporary stalling of refugee arrivals as local governments deliberated their positions. States known for welcoming refugees faced smoother transitions, but those with political resistance saw their refugee arrivals dwindle.

A social policy impact was the variances in refugee support networks depending on local consent, which potentially affected refugees' paths to self-sufficiency. For instance, areas that had previously invested in strong refugee support infrastructure were positioned to extend their roles; however, they first needed local government officials to signal cooperation. Alternately, anti-immigrant sentiments in some areas translated into direct policy shifts that limited refugee assistance, heightening the divide between welcoming and non-welcoming states. Thus, this executive order's legacy included a patchwork of resettlement environments across the nation, contingent upon the regional political climate.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation by President Biden on February 4, 2021, was emblematic of a broader ideological shift from the previous administration's more restrictive immigration policies toward a more inclusive, federal-centric approach. The Biden administration prioritized restoring the United States' reputation as a haven for refugees and instating policies that reflected humanitarian commitments. This philosophy denoted an emphasis on centralizing the refugee resettlement process to eliminate inconsistencies and ensure refugee placements were made based on need, not local political considerations.

Underpinning this shift was a belief in the inherent value of diversity and the economic and social contributions that refugees bring to communities. The Biden administration viewed refugee resettlement as a federal responsibility and a core aspect of America's global humanitarian leadership. By rescinding this order, the administration sought to streamline and standardize the process across different jurisdictions, aiming to prevent individual states or cities from blocking refugee resettlement due to political motivations or administrative burdens.

The administration's decision was also influenced by the adverse impacts of the order on America's international reputation. Allies and asylum partners had voiced concerns about the capricious nature of refugee placements under the state and local consent model, emphasizing the need for a federal approach that could be relied upon for consistent support. The revocation thereby signaled a return to predictable partnerships internationally.

Furthermore, the revocation of the order was in line with broader immigration reforms seeking to modernize and humanize the approach to immigrants and refugees. The holistic objective was to weld a more compassionate infrastructure around those fleeing persecution, thus fostering a consistent national policy that resonates with America's foundational ethos of welcoming the oppressed.

Winners

The beneficiaries of this policy reversal are numerous and diverse. Refugee communities themselves stand as the most apparent winners. Without the state and local veto, refugee families can now resettle in environments best suited to their integration needs, based on capacity rather than consent. This offers them greater stability and access to established support networks facilitated by nongovernmental organizations. Agencies like the International Rescue Committee and Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Service can now operate with greater predictability and efficiency, securing accommodations and resources without the uncertainty of last-minute local government opposition.

Many urban areas, which tend to have more resources and existing infrastructures for aiding refugees, may see an influx of new arrivals, enhancing cultural diversity and contributing to economic growth. Immigrant-rich cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago are positioned to benefit from an expanded labor pool, compensating for demographic shifts that may otherwise lead to workforce shortages. The presence of refugees can stimulate local economies, introducing new entrepreneurial activities and increasing demands for housing and services.

Industries such as agriculture, hospitality, and home healthcare may also find themselves beneficiaries of the revocation. These sectors often depend on immigrant labor and may now access a stable influx of potential employees eager to work and integrate. Additionally, the reversal provides significant opportunities for social service organizations specializing in refugee assistance to expand their initiatives, securing funding and growing their influence in shaping policy at both state and federal levels.

Losers

Conversely, jurisdictions and political groups previously opposed to refugee resettlement, or those using refugee skepticism as a tool in political narratives, may perceive themselves to be disadvantaged by the revocation. For these stakeholders, the ability to control refugee settlement locally had been a powerful tool for maintaining a specific demographic makeup and appeasing constituents harboring anti-immigrant sentiment.

Certain state and local governments that argue for more localized control, claiming unique regional burdens or resource constraints, now find themselves overridden by federal mandates. These authorities might face challenges justifying resource allocation in anticipation of potential refugee arrivals without direct input on numbers or timing. The lack of autonomy in managing populations they feel directly affect their infrastructures—such as schools, healthcare systems, and housing—presents real and perceived administrative difficulties.

Politically, the revocation has the potential to widen ideological divides within states, where urban centers governed by more progressive administrations may embrace the change, whereas rural areas resist it. This dichotomy could exacerbate local tensions and polarize community responses to future federal directives regarding immigration and resettlement.