The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Uniting for Ukraine Private Refugee Sponsorship Program Breaks Through Bureaucratic Red Tape
In sharp contrast to the sclerotic traditional refugee admissions program, the new private refugee sponsorship program enables Ukrainians fleeing war and repression to enter the US quickly and relatively easily. As a participating sponsor myself, I have firsthand knowledge of its effectiveness.
The Biden Administration's new Uniting for Ukraine program has enabled Ukrainians fleeing Russia's brutal invasion and repression to enter the United States far more quickly and easily than would have been possible through the sclerotic traditional refugee admission system. This success can be expanded on in the future. The Wall Street Journal has a helpful summary of the program and its success (unfortunately paywalled; but there are various legal ways around it):
Mariia Holovan left Ukraine on a bus to Poland, waited for what felt like forever at the border, flew to Chicago, then connected to Charlotte, N.C., and met an American named Grant Jones. Together they went to her new home in the United States…..
Their unlikely meeting was a long time coming…..
But maybe the most unexpected of the many forces that brought Ms. Holovan and Mr. Jones together was a U.S. government program that worked because it barely resembled one.
It was fast. It was efficient. And it bulldozed through the roadblocks of Washington's immigration bureaucracy to clear a pathway for Ukrainians.
Ukrainians who qualified were granted immediate humanitarian parole to live and then work in the U.S. for two years as long as they had sponsors here vowing to support them financially. There were many who wanted to come—and even more Americans who wanted them here. The numbers behind the program called Uniting for Ukraine were staggering: 171,000 applications to be sponsors, 121,000 travel authorizations for Ukrainians and roughly 85,000 arriving since April, said a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman.
By contrast, 25,465 refugees from around the world resettled in the U.S. with a path to citizenship in the government's fiscal 2022, according to State Department data. The prior year, it was 11,411, the fewest in the U.S. refugee program's history….
The war in Ukraine was a crisis that required a nimble policy response, but the immigration system was not the first place anyone would look to find it.
Then the White House's commitment to accept 100,000 Ukrainians after the invasion created an unusual mandate for the Department of Homeland Security: make it easier for people to escape a war. The existing refugee program is supposed to respond to humanitarian emergencies, said Julia Gelatt, a senior analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, but it doesn't serve that urgent role with its slow timeline for vetting and processing…..
The authorities at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services found ways to rewrite the rules for this exodus. The concept of temporary parole and model of private sponsorship dramatically streamlined the process. The accelerated program built around electronic applications allowed Ukrainians to seek refuge online and skip the paperwork normally required. The government even collaborated with a nonprofit that matched Americans and Ukrainians. Entering the country took weeks instead of years as a result. This idea of so many displaced people getting to the U.S. so quickly was "completely unheard of," said Matthew La Corte, an immigration policy expert at the Niskanen Center think tank.
I myself am a participating sponsor in the Uniting for Ukraine program, and can thereby testify first-hand to its effectiveness. Like the North Carolina family featured in the Wall Street Journal article, my wife and I created a profile on the Welcome Connect, a free nonprofit website that matches would-be US sponsors with Ukrainian refugees seeking them. Within a few days, we connected with a Ukrainian family, and agreed to sponsor them. I then filled the necessary paperwork at the USCIS website. In sharp contrast to the normal glacial pace of the federal government's immigration bureaucracy, we got a response granting entry authorization within less than ten days after I submitted the forms (a process which you can do entirely online). The family - a couple and their 2.5 year-old-daughter - will be arriving sometime within the next two weeks - less than two months after we started the process of becoming sponsors.
Some parts of the process were still unnecessarily annoying and bureaucratic. Communication with the Ukrainian family was greatly eased by the fact that I am a native speaker of Russian (which most Ukrainians also know). Things would have been tougher if we could only communicate in English, though I know other US sponsors have nonetheless successfully coped with this problem.
Despite these caveats, Uniting for Ukraine is a massive improvement over traditional refugee admissions policy. In a July Washington Post article, coauthored with Canadian refugee policy specialist Sabine El-Chidiac, we describe how the US can build on the program and expand it into a more general system of private refugee sponsorship for refugees fleeing war and oppression around the world. As we explain, we can also adapt elements of Canada's generally successful private refugee sponsorship system. Such a system would enable the US to take in many more refugees at little or no added expense to taxpayers. And any expenses would be easily outweighed by the economic contributions the migrants make after they get settled.
The Biden Administration has already created a similar program for migrants fleeing Venezuela's brutally repressive socialist government, though unlike Uniting for Ukraine it it has a numerical cap of only 24,000 participants. The Venezuelan refugee crisis has not attracted as much attention as the Ukrainian one. But it is in fact of comparable magnitude, with some 6 million people fleeing the regime's socialist oppression over the last few years. Next year, the Administration plans to create a more general private refugee sponsorship pilot program, though its parameters are still unclear.
Despite its virtues, Uniting for Ukraine still has at least two significant limitations. One is that the residency and work permits received by participants currently last for only two years. Experience with past conflicts shows that many refugees will need permanent homes, not just temporary ones. Permanence also enables them to make greater economic and social contributions to American society. The second is that the program currently rests largely on the discretion of the executive. If the political winds shift and President Biden (or a successor) decides to terminate it, participants will be left out in the cold, and potentially subject to deportation. Congress should act to fix these flaws.
Finally, critics can legitimately argue that, even with the creation of a limited similar program for Venezuelans, it is unjust that that private refugee sponsorship is available to Ukrainian refugees, but not those fleeing comparable horrors elsewhere in the world. This critique has some merit. But, as I have argued previously, the solution is not to bar Ukrainians (or Venezuelans) but to "level up" by making private refugee sponsorship available to others, as well. Hopefully, the success of Uniting for Ukraine can help make that possible.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Given Israel's move to a one-party state with differing citizen rights based on religion/race it is time the US Govt was opent to large scale Palestinian immigration to the US. They are hardworking, well educated, high IQ people and would be great Americans. Given the realities on the ground, there is never going to be a two-party state. And a few million conservative Palestinians in the US would balance the liberal Jewish voters in a positive way for the US in foreign policy, economics, and social institutions. Diversity is a great thing...
Leaving aside the completely false characterization of recent trends in Israel, there are only about 30,000 Palestinian refugees. The overwhelming majority of "Palestinian refugees" never lived in, and many of them are citizens of the countries in which they were born. There is no reason to believe that current trends in Israeli politics will make refugees of the residents of Gaza, Judea, or Samaria.
As for the attractiveness of Palestinian Arabs as immigrants, while they do have virtues such as being generally well-educated, a large percentage are also bigoted against non-Muslims, virulently anti-Semitic, intolerant of gay people, and misogynist. Those are not attractive features.
According to Wikipedia there are over 5 million people registered with UNRWA as Palestinian refugees, over a million of whom are living in refugee camps. You may think UNRWA is wrong. You may think the people registering are wrong. Bill Falcon’s proposal may be a bad one. But nonetheless the concept is well-defined, and the existence of a large number of people with this status is widely accepted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugees#Refugee_statistics
The vast majority of people registered as Palestinian refugees have never lived in the country they are supposedly refugees from. Many of them are generations removed from anybody who could legitimately claim that status. This is indeed a gross abuse of the term.
Prof. Somin, does the family you sponsor actually live in your house, at least initially? If not, what exactly does sponsorship entail? My wife and I are interested, and we have lots of extra space in our house.
Ilya does not engage with commenters. I have no reason to believe he has ever glanced at the comments here.
I expect he has, on rare occasions. But admittedly have no examples on tap.
It appears to me Ilya is disengaging with the Conspiracy anyway; His frequency of posting here looks to have dropped quite a bit recently.
Is there a way to contribute without providing full sponsorship?
There are people on Gofundme raising funds to help them do it. For instance.
Looks like a viable option.
It's almost as if it's easier to do something about "red tape" if the refugees in question are (perceived as) white...
"Ukrainians who qualified were granted immediate humanitarian parole to live and then work in the U.S. for two years as long as they had sponsors here vowing to support them financially."
...and what happens after two years? Will they be heading back home to reconstruct their home country?
"Will they be heading back home to reconstruct their home country?"
Ha Ha
No
Is a time limit really a issue?
It's important to differentiate the situations here. Many refugee situations are due to an abusive home government. That's not really the case with Ukraine...with Ukraine it's due to an invading enemy. Yes, Ukraine's government isn't perfect, but the real reason for the refugee crisis here isn't Ukraine's government, but the ongoing invasion.
Because of that, we get a bit of an unintended consequences problem going on, with unfettered refugee/immigration situations. Russia would like nothing better than unfettered long term emmigration from Ukraine. That would reduce Ukraine's human resources, human capital, and make it easier to dominate in the future. By encouraging such action, that, in essence helps Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
In addition, from a purely economic perspective, many Ukrainians would like to come to the US GDP per capita is much higher here. More than 5 times higher (before the current war). That is a bonus, from an individual level.
That is not to say that we should refuse the current refugee situation. However, it should be a temporary situation, until the current war is over. Otherwise, what happens is it effectively helps Russia.
When has it ever worked that way?
They will never return to Ukraine, but Ukrainians will make better citizens than the Southern border jumpers.
"Despite its virtues, Uniting for Ukraine still has at least two significant limitations. One is that the residency and work permits received by participants currently last for only two years. Experience with past conflicts shows that many refugees will need permanent homes, not just temporary ones. Permanence also enables them to make greater economic and social contributions to American society. "
You're making a big mistake here, albeit one dictated by your open borders ideology.
If my neighbor's home burns down, I would gladly take them in for a while, while they make more permanent arrangements.
If letting them use the spare bedroom means they're entitled to live in my home indefinitely? I'd have to REALLY like them before I'd consider that.
Permanent status for refugees directly implies much, much greater restrictions on the number and sort of refugees admitted. This is obvious to anyone who doesn't already want to erase national borders; You're transforming refugees into immigrants, and there is simply no significant political constituency in America for unrestricted immigration.
Refugees are not a net cost to their country of relocation.
I’m not for open borders but that’s a fallacious anti immigrant paradigm you are working off of.
If they are not a net cost, then what are they?
If you are not for open borders then what are you for?
Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. In aggregate, immigrants in America remain a net benefit. There's a NToJ post that lays out the economics pretty well - I can link you back to it if you like.
I'm for not targeting the immigrants; hardening the border and walls do nothing except endanger and immiserate them. Our system is awful.
Instead, go after the businesses! Illegals are slightly up from slaves in their level of exploitation. Just make it so that pay and hours and safety laws apply to everyone, no questions asked. No more off the books under the table labor.
Presto, no more incentive to hire illegals special; fewer job opportunities means less incentive for illegals to endanger their lives to come over here, and the problem is at least mitigated.
Targeting the victims of this system just victimizes them harder; it doesn't stem the flow. But it does provide a lovely outgroup to target!
Pay and hours and safety laws do apply to everyone, no questions asked.
Nominally, yes, but if you're subject to deportation if exposed, you have a strong motivation to not report violations. Which is exactly why known illegal immigrants become preferred employees for some jobs: Violating those laws against them is relatively low risk.
To follow up on what Brett said, in implementation illegals are not really able to avail themselves of US regulations and protections. That would have to be openly changed, as California did with drivers' licenses and managed to get some adoption by illegals.
This is not true. I'd estimate that probably 2/3 of the wage and hour cases brought are brought by illegal immigrants. There's a ton of caselaw out there saying that immigration status is irrelevant and not even a proper subject of inquiry in these cases.
The issue is not that illegals can't bring a case, it's that they fear doing so.
And my point is that they don’t (fear bringing cases).
As usual you are conflating two different things. Most Americans support legal immigration but oppose illegal entry and unlimited refugees.
Your question was about borders; open borders is a change in policies about illegal immigration, not immigration generally. Immigrants being let in will continue to be let in regardless of policy changes regarding borders.
So I’m not conflating anything, you’re just being a dick and lying about what your question was for some reason.
Sure. Whatever you say ConflatO.
Sure, but most Republicans oppose all of this.
I'd be interested in the link as I'm unfamiliar with NToJ and couldn't find anything refugee-related. (When I google NToJ I am directed to a website for Nantong OuJin Trading Co., Ltd.)
Found a batch of articles discussing whether there's a net cost or benefit of immigration, all but one were published by advocacy organizations and the results (unsurprisingly) aligned nicely with those groups' preferences...
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/06/09/the-oft-noted-hollowing-out-of-the-middle-class-is-a-metropolitan-phenomenon/?comments=true#comment-8294886
Not exactly what I was expecting - I thought you were linking to a study of some sort, purporting to show that immigrants are a net gain, rather than NToJ's philosophy on whether the country's native population deserves protection from competition...
"Refugees are not a net cost to their country of relocation."
Even assuming that's true, so what?
First, for any given number of immigrants admitted, you'll get more net benefit if you chose the immigrants on the basis of their potential contribution, rather than their unfortunate circumstances. So refugees can easily be a loss to society relative to the situation where somebody else was admitted in their place, even if the refugees are actually productive enough to carry their own weight.
Second, being a "net" benefit is perfectly consistent with their lowering the welfare of 80% of the population, and just raising the welfare of the remaining 20% by more than that. All they'd need to do is depress wages a bit by increasing the supply of labor more than they increase the demand for it; Many more people are dependent on wages, than are paying them.
Finally, the point is that making them permanent simply is inconsistent with treating them as charity cases; They will instead be evaluated as immigrants. And, again, there is no real political constituency for unlimited immigration. We will inevitably accept fewer refugees if they're staying for good.
The whole point of refugees is that they are a different group from immigrants.
But just because they're being let in for reasons other than strictly economic does not mean they must be an economic loser.
Do you think the current system is set up to sort immigrants by expected productivity??? It's not!
They are more than charity cases, Brett. Refugee status has generally not been temporary, why do you think that has been the case for so long??
It's quite telling simple charity is the only way you can understand this.
"The whole point of refugees is that they are a different group from immigrants."
And making them permanent largely erases that difference.
"Do you think the current system is set up to sort immigrants by expected productivity???"
Not efficiently, no, and that's one of my beefs about it.
"It’s quite telling simple charity is the only way you can understand this."
Letting them in is doing something for them that they aren't entitled to.
If they are people we would have admitted regardless of what is going on in Ukraine, then they aren't really being treated as refugees. The ones being treated as refugees are the ones we wouldn't have admitted under different circumstances, but who were instead admitted due to their unfortunate circumstances.
What is this, then, if not charity?
And making them permanent largely erases that difference.
The difference is in why we let them in. Making it permanent does not make that the same as general immigration.
Letting them in is doing something for them that they aren’t entitled to.
Not everything is transactional. Good lord.
Right, not everything is transactional. Some things are charity.
If you define charity as something not transactional that's fine. But that means your net cost assumption is not established.
And since we don't optimize legal immigration for cost-benefit as it is, your opportunity cost theory does not apply.
We don't fully optimize legal immigration for cost/benefit. We at least partially do, by use of factors like criminal records, educational accomplishment, English literacy, and so forth.
We don't use educational accomplishment for the vast majority of our visas that have a path to a greencard.
Once more we see a self-proclaimed libertarian somehow getting the notion that politicians and bureaucrats can effectively run labor markets. If the issue were the importing of widgets or sugar or coal, these people would be sneering at the concept of government officials figuring out the right amount of these commodities to bring into the country to manage the output of the economy. But when it's labor — another commodity — Brett somehow thinks that some people sitting behind desks in Washington D.C. can determine the right amounts and types to bring in to keep the economy humming along.
"Finally, critics can legitimately argue that, even with the creation of a limited similar program for Venezuelans, it is unjust that that private refugee sponsorship is available to Ukrainian refugees, but not those fleeing comparable horrors elsewhere in the world."
And those critics could start or support an organization to help those people fleeing horrors, but they'd prefer to bitch about someone else who is taking actions.
Whoosh!
Jerry, why did you neglect to include the very next sentence in your quote, as its embedded links point to groups who are doing that which you complain does not exist?