Clik here to view.
(credit: European Commission DG ECHO)
Stories and images from the refugee crisis in Europe have dominated recent news cycles. As thousands of migrants fleeing war-torn regions of the Middle East and North Africa move through Europe seeking refuge, European leaders like Angela Merkel of Germany and Jean-Claude Junker of the European Commission are calling for greater European unity and action.
Merkel, who has said that Germany expects to allow 800,000 refugees entry in 2015, has called on her fellow European leaders to adopt similar policies and help alleviate the crisis. There has been pushback to this idea, however, as various EU countries take measures, such as building fences, to stop the flow of migrants. They have balked at Germany’s request, asserting their national interests and sovereignty.
When European countries chose to join the EU, they consented to giving up some of their sovereign powers. The European Parliament can pass “regulations,”, binding legislative acts with which constituent countries must comply. So if the Parliament passes a regulation mandating that countries accept a certain amount of refugees, they are bound to comply with that mandate.
In the United States, the system is similar yet very much distinct.
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed a commitment to raising the number of refugees that the nation will receive this year in response to this crisis. The exact magnitude of the increase will be up to Congress, which determines through legislation how many refugees are to be allowed entry to the United States.
Once refugees are granted entry to the United States, the State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration administers their integration into local communities. Ultimately, refugees settle in one of the 50 states, which historically have had little power in the area of immigration compared to the federal government.
The main costs of hosting refugees—including rent, furnishings, food and clothing—are covered by the State Department Reception and Placement program for the first three months after their arrival. After that period, refugees are provided assistance through state-administered programs, which are in part, but not completely, funded by Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement.
Still, the federal government determines which communities and states would be suitable for specific groups of refugees, with the guidance of nonprofit resettlement agencies. Given that states ultimately share the cost of caring for these refugees, they historically have pushed back and requested that federal authorities reduce the amount of refugees resettled in their jurisdictions. In 2013, for example, Georgia expressed fiscal concerns related to refugee resettlement, and requested a lower number of refugees, a request that was ultimately granted.
But as recently as 2012 in Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court reaffirmed federal supremacy in immigration law and underscored Congress’ enumerated power to regulate immigration. Federal law largely treats refugees with the same legal status as legal immigrants, with refugees being permanent residents who can apply for naturalization.
If the U.S. moves ahead with its plan to increase the amount of refugees it will receive, it is possible that states would feel compelled to express their discontent. If the federal government does not grant their requests, however, it is unlikely that they will have any promising avenues of legal recourse.
Jonathan Stahl is an intern at the National Constitution Center. He is also a senior at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in politics, philosophy and economics.
Recent Stories on Constitution Daily
Dred Scott gets a brief moment in the national spotlight
Podcast: Obamacare, Kim Davis, and religious exemptions
Constitution Check: Did the Kentucky county clerk win her religious exemption, after all?