Berkley Center

Attending the Jesuit Universities Humanitarian Action Network (JUHAN) Conference got me thinking a lot about the differences between refugees and immigrants. Before the conference, I was aware of the the legal distinction between two terms. “Immigrant” is a nebulous term that refers to any person who migrates for any reason across international borders. The term “refugee,” on the other hand, is more specific. A refugee is someone who flees her home country due to persecution on the basis of her race, ethnicity, religion, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. To receive asylum in the United States and in most other countries, an individual must demonstrate that she meets the definition of a “refugee” under international law.

This semantic distinction, I found, has a number of consequences. Refugees and asylees in the United States are eligible for a number of government benefits immediately upon arriving in or being granted asylum in the United States. These benefits include access to healthcare and, in some instances, cash assistance. Refugees and asylees also have a relatively quick path to legal permanent residency (a "green card"), which carries additional privileges. Immigrants, on the other hand, do not have access to any government benefits in the absence of legal status. Their pathway to residency, if available, is often longer than that of a refugee. 

Society also seems to views the two groups differently. More sympathy is generally given to refugees fleeing war and persecution than immigrants, who are perceived as coming to the United States solely to work. I talked about the distinction between immigrant and refugees in my presentation about Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), a type of legal status for immigrant children who were abused, abandoned, or neglected by their parents in their home country. These children are grappling with trauma due to parental abuse or abandonment, and many have experienced horrifying gang violence. Yet they generally do not qualify for asylum because, while they may have been persecuted, they were not persecuted because of the protected grounds codified in U.S. and international law. As such, children who received SIJS do not receive the same benefits as refugee children do. While their eligibility for SIJS gives them a pathway to residency and eventually citizenship, this process is long and frequently delayed because of a cap on available Special Immigrant Visas. While children are waiting for a green card, they are stuck in a vulnerable limbo without work authorization and without access to healthcare. 

In my presentation, I proposed finding ways to close the gap in relief and services between Special Immigrant Juveniles and refugee children. Children with SIJS have a lot of the same needs as refugee minors, yet those needs are not met in the same way. After my presentation, a woman in the audience raised her hand and pointed out that the resources available to refugees aren’t necessarily sufficient either and that their pathway to settlement in the United States is often delayed as well. She was absolutely right. I had been thinking about closing the gap, but I realized that the bar needs to be raised for both groups. 

In our current political atmosphere, it’s hard to imagine this happening. Yet, if we are to continue to base our refugee and immigrant policy on a subjective view of who is most in need and most “worthy,” as we currently do, than, at the very least, immigrant kids who have experienced abuse and serious trauma should be treated equally to kids who flee persecution. And if we are to maintain any sense of compassion in our immigration system, the needs of both groups must be met.