The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Biden Expands Uniting for Ukraine Private Refugee Sponsorship Model to Include up to 30,000 Migrants Per Month from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Haiti
The move is a step in the right direction. But it has limitations and is combined with harmful "border enforcement" measures.
Just two days after I published a Washington Post op ed urging expansion of the Uniting for Ukraine private refugee sponsorship model to include migrants from other nations, the Biden Administration did exactly that - announcing that a similar approach will be used to accept up to 30,000 migrants per month from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti. In reality, the two events were probably unconnected! Regardless, still a step in the right direction.
According to the White House "fact sheet" released today, "up to 30,000 individuals per month from these four countries, who have an eligible sponsor and pass vetting and background checks, can come to the United States for a period of two years and receive work authorization." If I understand it, this is 30,000 total from, all four nations combined, not 30,000 from each one.
This system is very similar to the conditions of the highly successful Uniting for Ukraine program, described in my article, except that the latter has no monthly numerical cap. The Administration had previously created a much more limited version of the program for Venezuelan refugees, capped at just 24,000 total participants. Today's measure is a huge expansion.
As explained in my previous writings on private refugee sponsorship and Uniting for Ukraine (e.g. here and here), this sort of system admits refugees far faster than the sclerotic traditional refugee system, bolsters our economy, and improves America's position in the international "war of ideas" against despots like Russia's Vladimir Putin, Refugees from Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are fleeing repressive anti-American communist and socialist regimes. During the Cold War, conservatives understood the moral and strategic advantages of opening our doors to refugees from communism. Today, sadly, too many of them prioritize nativism instead.
This move also undermines claims that Uniting for Ukraine privileges mostly white Ukrainian refugees over non-white ones fleeing comparable ones elsewhere. Most migrants from the four countries covered by today's new initiative are not "white," as that admittedly arbitrary concept is usually understood in the US. Haitian migrants are overwhelmingly black, as are some Cubans. To the extent there has been a double standard here, the right approach to is to "level up." Today, the Administration moved in that direction.
Ideally, the system should be open to those fleeing poverty and oppression, regardless of country. But today's announcement is a major step in the right direction, nonetheless.
Even so, this expanded program, like Uniting for Ukraine, has two major limitations noted in my recent article about the latter:
First, the residency and work permits last only two years. Experience shows that many refugees need permanent homes, not just temporary ones. Permanence also enables them to make greater economic and social contributions to our society.
Second, the program is largely the product of executive discretion. If the political winds shift and President Biden (or a successor) decides to terminate it, participants could be subject to deportation. Congress should pass legislation to permanently fix these flaws.
As noted in the article, fixing these flaws likely requires congressional action.
Today's expansion of private refugee sponsorship is unfortunately coupled with various harmful "border enforcement" measures that will expand expulsion of migrants at the border. By making legal entry more difficult for those who do not qualify for the expanded private sponsorship system, these steps will predictably worsen the situation at the border, and increase suffering among migrants. The Administration also continues to play what looks like a cynical double game on cruel Title 42 "public health" expulsions.
We should not lose sight of these wrongs. At the same time, however, the Biden Administration has also made many improvements in immigration policy. The introduction of large-scale private refugee sponsorship is one of its most impressive achievements. Hopefully, this will not be the last expansion of the system.
UPDATE: I have made minor additions to this post.
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
Move down to South Florida and actually deal with some Haitians up close and personal and then tell me importing them is a good idea.
Way past time for the No Vacancy sign to be lit.
Let's look out for our own -- FIRST!
When will this one trick pony shut up.
"Ideally, the system should be open to those fleeing poverty and oppression, regardless of country."
So, 2 or 3 billion, right? Because otherwise you're going to be selective and selective is unfair.
That's the general idea, yes.
So how many are your marxist buddies in MV taking in? You and they sure are generous with other people's time and resources but I seem to recall you bitching about your leftist pals being called to task for that collective hypocracy when the sanctuary city had the national guard called in to remove the dirty "refugees".
It is astonishing how mindless and one-trick the right wing nuttery is that they have exactly one go to insult: "Marxist." They have no clue what it means, of course. In the same way that people on the left describe anything they don't like, from traffic laws to bad weather, as "white supremacist," these idiots on the right label anything from laissez faire economics to supporting an ally against foreign aggression as "marxist."
As for your idiot Fox talking points: Martha's Vineyard isn't a city, so it couldn't be a sanctuary city. They did not call in the National Guard to remove people. And nobody is discussing "taking in" people in the sense you mean, but Prof Somin literally did sponsor refugees under the Ukrainian program, so your nonsensical attack doesn't even make sense. And Prof. Somin is not offering other people's time and resources.
So you're just straight up denying reality to support your leftist talking points. Denying the national guard did in fact remove people from MV because admitting otherwise makes you both a hypocrite and evil. I'd feel sorry for you but your delusions impact the real world
"So you’re just straight up denying reality"
Isn't that what you do everyday?
“Martha’s Vineyard isn’t a city, so it couldn’t be a sanctuary city. They did not call in the National Guard to remove people.”
1: In Massachusetts, the distinction between a “Plantation”, a “Town”, and a “City” is largely irrelevant.
2: Governor Baker deployed 125 members of the National Guard and the Mass State Police to remove them from the island.
3: He put them on Joint Base Cape Cod — formerly known as the Massachusetts Military Reservation. It’s National Guard — see: https://www.massnationalguard.org/JBCC/index.html
Massachusetts did bring the refugees from a place where there was no social services for them to a place where there was. "Called in the national guard to remove them," of course, is not meant to connote that; it's meant to connote that they were rounded up by military force and hauled off, which did not happen.
The MSP -- men in uniforms and with guns -- removed them from the island.
I still don't know how that was legal.
Yeah, police escorts are basically kidnapping, since it’s men in uniforms and with guns removing me from one place and taking me to another.
Ed, below you want to commit crimes against humanity. Maybe worrying about legality isn't for you.
Nobody "removed them." They were given rides, not forced at gunpoint.
Finally, Biden is going to reduce immigration from its present level.
I'm curious about the use of scare quotes for the term "border enforcement." Whatever the objection might be to enforcing the law, it does seem to qualify as enforcement and it does occur at the border.
Even if refugees were welcome PEOPLE RUNNING ACROSS THE BORDER ARE NOT!!!
The chosen logo tells it all -- we are to endure the horde.
Heck no -- we have machine guns!
I hate to say this, but mowing down a few hundred illegal aliens would END the crisis overnight. And most other countries would do it to us.
Mass murder of civilians fleeing war, oppression, and socialism? Dr. Ed is all for that!
You mean fleeing toward welfare checks. Sorry if your proggy sensibilities don't compute the real world properly,seems very much a you issue.
Illegal immigrants — and, hell, even most lawful immigrants — are not entitled to welfare checks.
Mass murder, SJiN.
You are defending mass murder.
I could spend hours brainstorming the worst possible takes, and I’d never come within light years of the stuff this guy shits out without a second thought. True Salieri and Mozart stuff.
Even over 75 years, the fiscal impact of low-education immigrants and their descendants is negative: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers/17-13.pdf. We're not going to "bolster the economy" with refugees from these four sub-85 IQ countries.
It's like how nuking Japan SAVED lives.
Say we had to kill 5000 to secure the border -- how many lives are lost each year to the fentanyl being smuggled in?
It's like the decision to order hurricane evacuations -- you know how many people that will kill (statistically).
By refugee applicants? None.
Bullbleep.
More .50 rounds fired, fewer dead Americans.
Maybe one well-televised Napalm strike would work....