This most recent migrant crisis has forced a reconsideration of how we fund migrant programs.
Since 2022, more than 118,000 migrants have landed in New York City’s shelter system, with about 10,000 more arriving each month.1 In fiscal year 2023, the asylum-seeker crisis demanded $1.45 billion of New York City’s funds.2 With minimal assistance from the federal government, New York and other sanctuary cities spend fortunes managing the unprecedented crisis. New York City alone expects to spend more than $4 billion by the end of 2024.3 Sanctuary cities race to supply sufficient shelter and resources. The federal government has repeatedly refused to disperse funds to sanctuary cities. The combined urgency and severity of the migrant crisis necessitates the formation of a permanent emergency migration fund by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
To understand the urgency of the asylum crisis, it is crucial to understand the functions of the current migration system. The U.S. “has attracted more migrants than any other nation for the past 50 years. In 2020, the U.N. notes, the U.S. held about 51 million international migrants. The runner-up, Germany, had about 16 million.”4 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processed 6 million arrests at the southern border between February 2021 and September 2023. In 2023, more than 800,000 people applied for asylum in the U.S. Most asylum applications take six months to several years before being processed. Currently, there are more than two million asylum applications awaiting government response.5 The U.S. immigration system is becoming increasingly strained because its design makes it unequipped to handle the numbers it is experiencing.
Contentiously, federal law requires migrants to wait six months after filing for asylum before they can receive work permits, though the backlog in application cases usually elongates wait times by months.6 Additionally, applying for asylum can cost thousands of dollars, making migration inaccessible for many migrants. The cost and length of asylum applications hardly concern the federal government. In 2013, the Senate passed a “comprehensive immigration reform bill [that] created a new temporary status that mandated, among other things, three separate fees, a $1,000 fine, attendance at English-language classes, a 13-year wait to apply for citizenship, and an annual income that is 125 percent of the poverty line or no unemployment greater than 60 days.”7 Due to the federal government’s lack of immigration reform, their response to migrants is costly and delayed. Additionally, the politicization of immigration issues prevents the federal government from comprehensively and flexibly funding immigration services. Ultimately, the U.S. has failed to develop a robust immigration system at its southern border, burdening sanctuary cities that accept buses of migrants from such states. If all migrants were to disperse evenly across the country, each state would be left to account for slightly more than 1 million migrants, which would burden state governments. Instead, a handful of municipalities absorb the vast majority of migrants, placing great burdens on sanctuary cities. An ‘Immigration FEMA’ is a sustainable alternative that would “permit the government to unlock specific funding during times of high migration,” as well as “unlock other immigration-related authorities to expedite asylum processing.”8 To effectively manage the asylum-seeking process, there needs to be substantially cheaper and less onerous paths to citizenship. In the short term, there must be novel solutions to reduce the impact of the asylum-seeking crisis on individual cities. An ‘Immigration FEMA’ would enable Congress to create an emergency migration fund that distributes emergency funds to local governments and non-governmental organizations.
Overall, the principle that sanctuary cities should be responsible for managing the migration crisis is more practical than federal management. Municipalities are better suited to allocate resources according to local intricacies, such as the quantity and availability of shelters. To practically address immigration, municipalities should receive funding from the federal government. Yet, current administrative practices make the prospects of such a partnership between states and the federal government appear bleak. Discrepancies between federal and state government jurisdiction inhibit the potential for a more efficient immigration policy. The federal government is generally responsible for creating and enforcing immigration laws, and the federal government chooses which immigration-related duties to delegate to state and local governments. However, almost 25% of U.S. counties limit their cooperation with ICE in dedication to serving as a “sanctuary” for migrants because sanctuary cities aim to shield migrants from unwarranted law enforcement before their asylum applications can be processed.9 This lack of cooperation between municipalities and ICE creates obstacles for the standardized enforcement of border policies, burdening both parties.
It is financially pragmatic for the federal government to alleviate immigration issues in the short and long run. Some estimates predict “it would cost more than $2 billion to eliminate the immigration court backlog within the next five years” as officials say it is too deeply underfunded to catch up soon.10 When evaluating the limited pay-off of border enforcement processes, addressing the principal cracks in the system is necessary. Already, a considerable extent of ICE’s budget goes toward border enforcement and detainment. In 2020, ICE “spent $290 million prosecuting immigrants … just [under] three percent of the ICE budget and less than one percent of total immigration enforcement spending.”11 Given that the federal government spent this much in one year to attempt to abate the migrant crisis, it is worth devising long-term plans that can fund cities dealing with the brunt of this crisis. In May of 2023, FEMA announced the allocation of “over $330 million to more than 30 cities and organizations in the first round of funding for migrants.”12 FEMA does not focus on contributing to migration needs, so this dispersal of $330 million across American cities offers limited and short-term help for immigration services, forcing individual cities to finance immigration crises through independent means. While sanctuary cities scrape by with insufficient funds from the federal government, the increasing severity of the ongoing migrant crisis undoubtedly threatens the stability of established urban systems unless significant expansions to the system are provided. Thus, $330 million will not withstand long-term expenses. Municipalities require renewable and persistent federal funding to efficiently handle the immigration crisis.
Local governments have the best insight regarding their capacity to address the crises. They are well-equipped to determine what their city needs to handle the migrant crisis as opposed to the distant federal government. Currently, the federal government’s reactive policy toward immigration is a gross mismanagement of funding and fails to address the roots of immigration problems, leaving long-term solutions out of reach. Despite their recent support from Republican congressional representatives, scathing anti-immigration laws, such as the current Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, are often costly and typically fail to work. Rather than implementing sustained investments into building a better immigration system, several presidential administrations and Congresses have repeatedly attempted to introduce aggressive border and police enforcement and deterrence-based policies to reduce the number of people permitted to apply for asylum.13 Recently, House Republicans denied a “$118.3 billion immigration deal” which would include “about $20 billion for enhanced border security, and $2.3 billion to assist refugees within the U.S.” and “would prompt a massive overhaul of the nation’s asylum system.”14 Hindering the establishment of a high-cost system may seem practical, but continuing to prevent a desperately needed reorganization of America’s neglected immigration system will not resolve migratory problems because current federal practices do not address the root causes of the migrant crisis. The federal government should partner with and invest in sanctuary cities through a supportive ‘Immigration FEMA’ for the long-term sustainability of sanctuary cities.
The inflow of federal funds toward municipalities should be consistent to alleviate the strain of spontaneous fluctuations in asylum seekers. Long-term planning allows cities and federal departments to allocate resources, such as funds and land, to create the infrastructure to host future migrants. Furthermore, it is necessary to impose restrictions that “ensure that [funding] is not used for detention, enforcement, deportations, or any form of expedited asylum processing.”15 In promoting long-term solutions for migrant processing, an ‘Immigration FEMA’ would satisfy the above requirements and redirect federal funding toward a practical and proactive stance, as opposed to their current reactive stance.16
Countries around the world are facing the demands of rising migration numbers, and it is likely that those demands will only increase with time, not die out as a fluke phenomenon. “With the worsening effects of climate change exacerbating poverty and living conditions within failed states, desperation will drive more people from their homes and communities.”17 Considering the increasing numbers of migrants, federal and local governments should invest in sustainable solutions for migratory systems. It is imperative to invest in structures that can handle the demands not only of the current migration crisis but also future migrant trends. Moreover, the costs demanded for a properly maintained American immigration system that works federally and locally and can strategize for future migration trends will help create economic growth. The U.S. has seen a recent economic surge, in which about 50% of growth came from foreign-born workers throughout 2023, and due to these influxes of immigrants, the economy is projected to grow by $7 trillion more over the next decade.18 Understandably, lawmakers are hesitant to undertake extreme costs to fix one system. Still, without a drastic reallocation of funds, the outdated design will continue impinging on an already lacking immigration system And, the economic benefits of improving the immigration system will pay for themselves.
Statistically, Americans support immigration reform. 71% of Americans support legislation that would create a path to citizenship and secure America’s southern border.19 Americans overwhelmingly consider immigration good for the U.S. but acknowledge the system needs reform. Many Americans admit to becoming increasingly worried about immigration issues, including how cities will fare, given that they cannot afford to finance this crisis.20 The politics of immigration bars genuine work on robust immigration policy to go into effect. Considering almost 3/4ths of Americans voice concern, this reveals a strong majority view on the issue of immigration. Lawmakers should act on this rare unity and bring substantial, working immigration solutions, such as ‘Immigration FEMA,’ to the American people.
Ultimately, ‘Immigration FEMA’ is a clear alternative to the current systems that have shown to be failures for decades. Abnormal migration patterns will persist, if not worsen, as global conflicts, climate change, and economic instability threaten the stability of various nations. This is not a problem that America can wait out nor hinder through the use of convoluted anti-immigration legislation, which repeatedly fails to achieve its goals. The American Dream has long enticed people worldwide, turning America into a melting pot. It is time to protect the promise America serves to immigrants, starting with an ‘Immigration FEMA’ fund.