An Analysis of The Proposed Emergency Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021

The Proposed Emergency Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal  Year 2021 is the Biden administration’s move to reverse the Trump administration’s controversial  Presidential Determination No. 2021-02 (PD 2021-02). PD 2021-02 severely limited the number of  refugees that could enter the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). This new policy  makes 2 significant changes. The first is an increase in available admission slots for refugees, from  15,000 to 62,500 per year. The second lies in how slots are allocated. PD 2021-02 allocated slots to  different categories of refugees, such as individuals referred to USRAP by an embassy. In contrast, this  new proposal allocates available slots based on refugees’ regions of origin.  

This policy has been lauded by domestic and international actors alike, but is this new system  of allocation as effective as it could be? Are these slots allocated to the regions that need them most, or  could this distribution be motivated by political factors?  

To answer this question, this paper compares the percentage of slots allocated to each region  by this policy against the percentage of displaced people originating from each region. To determine  the current real distribution of displacement, this paper utilizes data from the UN Refugee Agency,  UNHCR. Examining these patterns of global displacement will allow us to determine whether the  regional allocations outlined in this policy mirror real regional distributions. If they do, it could indicate  that this policy was created in accordance with global displacement data. Conversely, if they do not, it  could indicate that the distribution of these slots was driven by other motivations. 

The category of “Other” in the global dataset encompasses countries that do not fall under  the regions outlined, such as Canada, Australia, and many Southeast Asian nations. It also includes  individuals who’s region of origin is unknown. This policy reserves 20% of slots as an “Unallocated  Reserve” to be distributed as needed; unused slots for one region can also be reallocated to another.  These measures could help to ensure that available slots are allocated based on need, although they are  unlikely to entirely mitigate the disparities discussed below. 

As seen in Figures 1.1 and 1.2, some regions have received more appropriate allocations than  others. Africa’s allocation appears to be quite accurate, with a disparity of only 0.62% between the  percentage of people displaced from the region and the percentage of slots allocated to it. The region of  Europe/Central Asia is also allocated an appropriate percentage of slots, with a disparity of only 0.73%.  East Asia is allocated far more slots than would appear necessary, with a disparity of 9.15%. Latin  America/Caribbean is allocated far fewer slots than needed, with 7.66% more people displaced from  the region than would be indicated by this policy. The Near East/South Asia region is also significantly  under-allocated, with a disparity of 13.66%.  

The similarity between the percentage of slots allocated to Africa and Europe/Central Asia and  the real percentage of globally displaced people from these regions bodes well for the objectivity of this  proposal. This could indicate that these allocations were determined through examining displacement  data and acknowledging global trends. However, the large disparities present for the rest of the regions  undermines the accuracy displayed here.  

The large disparity present between East Asia’s allocation and real displacement could be  motivated by American perceptions of regional conflict. The policy specifically mentions the recent  coup in Burma, as well as the Chinese government’s treatment of Uyghur populations and individuals  in Hong Kong. The over-allocation to this region could indicate that the US believes these conflicts  will significantly worsen in coming months, resulting in more displacement.  

The under-allocation for the regions of Latin America/Caribbean and Near East/South Asia  could be a result of domestic American attitudes towards immigrants from these regions. The Trump  administration, through policies such as the Muslim ban and through the spreading of misinformation  concerning migrant caravans from Latin America, highlighted the discomfort that many Americans feel  toward both Latin American and Muslim immigrants. Despite Biden’s dismissal of his predecessor’s  discriminatory attitudes, limiting available slots for these regions could be a continuation of these  patterns.  

One of the largest flaws with this policy is the lack of slots reserved for Southeast Asian and  Pacific island nations. These nations contribute to a significant percentage of displaced populations  today, and there will likely be far more displacement from this region in coming years. These nations  are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels. As climate change continues to accelerate over the  coming years, displacement in the region will only worsen. The unallocated reserve slots could help to  resettle some individuals from this region, but considering the large disparities discussed above, this  reserve will likely not be enough.  

This policy in its current form seems to allocate slots to some regions based on need, although  there appears to be other driving motivations as well. The Biden administration has announced that it  plans on further increasing the cap for FY 2022 to 125,000 available slots. Considering how these  slots are currently distributed in contrast to real global displacement patterns, the 2022 policy could be improved by allocating fewer slots to East Asia, adding more slots for Latin America/Caribbean and  Near East/South Asia, and introducing slots for the region of Southeast Asia and the Pacific. These  changes would ensure that USRAP protects refugees in a manner which is fair and driven by need,  rather than political motivations. 

WORKS CITED 

Farrington, Dana, and Alana Wise. “Biden Raises Refugee Cap To 62,500 After Earlier Criticism.”  NPR. NPR, May 3, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/993216680/biden-raises-refugee cap-to-62-500-after-earlier-criticism.  

Folkenflik, David. “Tensions Rise At Fox News Over Coverage And Rhetoric Surrounding Migrant  Caravan.” NPR. NPR, October 30, 2018. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/30/662253600/tensions rise-at-fox-news-over-coverage-and-rhetoric-surrounding-migrant-caravan.  

Presidential Determination No. 2021-02 on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021 § (2020). https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-11-06/pdf/2020-24912.pdf.  

Report to Congress on the Proposed Emergency Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions  for Fiscal Year 2021 § (2021). https://www.state.gov/proposed-emergency-presidential determination-on-refugee-admissions-for-fy21/. 

“Statement by President Joe Biden on Refugee Admissions.” White House, May 3, 2021. The White  House.https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/03/statement by-president-joe-biden-on-refugee-admissions/.  

Storlazzi, Curt D., Edwin P. L. Elias, and Paul Berkowitz. “Many Atolls may be Uninhabitable within  Decades due to Climate Change.” Scientific Reports, vol. 5, no. 1, 2015. 

“Timeline of the Muslim Ban.” ACLU of Washington, February 10, 2020. https://www.aclu-wa.org/ pages/timeline-muslim-ban.  

UNHCR. “Refugee Data Finder.” Geneva: UN Refugee Agency, 2020.  

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “UNHCR Applauds US Decision to Increase  Refugee Resettlement.” UNHCR, May 3, 2021. https://www.unhcr.org/news/ press/2021/5/6090fa084/unhcr-applauds-decision-increase-refugee-resettlement.html.