By: Jessica Crist and Bernhard Streitwieser
Peer reviewed by REAL members
On December 13th, two REAL members attended an event at the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) in Washington, DC on the European Union’s (EU) Temporary Protection Directive (TPD), an initiative set into motion by the EU on March 4th, 2022 in response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis. The TPD was established in 2001. However, it was not used until the war in Ukraine set off an avalanche of human displacement. Monique Pariat, Director General for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission, discussed this initiative with MPI Director of International Programs, Meghan Benton. Understanding the EU’s initiative provides valuable lessons to U.S. policymakers who currently struggle to reform migration policy, especially for Central American migrants.
Background
All available figures today attest to an unrelenting rise in global human displacement.
Displacement figures are the highest since World War II. In 2015, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimated a global migrant count of 249 million. Only five years later, this estimate grew to 281 million, which is equivalent to the entire U.S. population in 2000. This was a 3.37 to 3.60 percentage increase in statelessness in just five years: 32 million more people losing everything. For context: Canada’s population of 36 million is only slightly larger. Imagine nearly every Canadian losing their home, giving up their livelihood, leaving loved ones behind, and being stripped of their identity.
Among the many factors that contribute to global statelessness – war, civil strife, gang violence, ecological disaster, corruption, and religious and social intolerance – the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan in August of 2021 and the unprovoked Russian military invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022 played prominent roles. The resulting sudden population influxes often stress, and potentially limit, the available systemic resources that governments, civil societies, and institutions have to respond. These disruptions also often trigger negative sentiment, sometimes violent, towards migrants.
Those seeking asylum in the U.S. in recent years were met with nationalist policies attempting to halt migration by separating children from their parents or imposing quotas under the guise of prolonged public health crises (Title 42). The continuing migration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border and the political stalemate regarding Title 42 exemplify the need for more open and welcoming migration policies. The perception of control created by TPD has swayed EU public opinion to be more welcoming toward migrants. Additionally, the social and financial benefits provided to migrants through TPD have allowed migrants to better integrate into EU society. Moving forward, existing positive and widely-accepted response models must be explored and cultivated into practice.
The Potential Impact of the Temporary Protection Directive on U.S. Policy
The TPD is authorized annually and has been extended through March of 2024 because the Ukrainian crisis continues. Pariat explained that the TPD is not only a “massive investment by the EU” regarding humane migrant reception, but also an equally important investment in demonstrating orderly and successful migration management to all citizens. In the U.S. and in the EU there are some similarities in the reasoning behind the asylum debate. However, the circumstances are distinct: Ukrainian refugees flee to the EU to escape war, while Central American migrants flee to the U.S. to escape poverty and crime. Even so, adopting policies similar to TPD could improve U.S. public opinion on migrants, control chaos at the border, and provide essential services to incoming migrants.
TPD created a perception of order for EU citizens. MPI director Dr. Andrew Selee explained “the perception of order and control gives it credibility; it’s not so much about the money….Perception is the key.” Credibility is important to counterbalance anti-immigration sentiment, which also includes accusing their political opponents’ efforts as exacerbating what they see as gross government misspending.
Rising nationalism in the U.S. has influenced attacks on the current government and pushed the financial responsibility for migrants onto liberal-leaning states. The “migrant buses,” which forced migrants from the southern border to northern states on frigid Christmas Eve, is only the most recent egregious example. The TPD’s financial and political success is, in part, owed to its impression of order and control, which garners public support for migrants. The U.S. could adopt similar policies to reform their migration system. Doing so would foster a more inclusive public attitude toward incoming migrants.
The social and financial benefits provided to Ukrainian migrants by TPD also aid in the wider integration process. TPD gives refugees access to social benefits, education, economic mobility, and medical care. Pariat explained that TPD creates a “talent pool,” aiming to match Ukrainian migrants with labor market shortages in their host country. As there is no U.S. equivalent for U.S.-Mexico border migrants, those who are bused to various U.S. cities receive humanitarian relief from mutual aid groups, churches, and civilian volunteers. By crafting an integration policy comparable to the TPD, the U.S. government could support essential migrant services rather than rely on local efforts and civilian funds. Public perception would be improved by the control and organization demonstrated by the policy.
The U.S. Temporary Protective Status and the EU Temporary Protection Directive
The U.S. government’s Temporary Protective Status (TPS) policy allows migrant populations from certain countries to stay in the U.S. legally while seeking asylum. However, TPS does not include a pathway to permanent residency. Similar to the EU’s TPD, in the U.S. the TPS policy must continue to be renewed. The TPS program in the U.S. can be renewed for 6, 12, or 18 months at a time, depending on the situation in the designated country. TPS allows beneficiaries to apply for a work permit, but, in contrast to Europe’s TPD, does not award social benefits. This major shortcoming continues to leave most migrants in economic precarity. The goal of the TPD is to integrate Ukrainian migrants into EU society through essential service provisions, while TPS is designed to be temporary in nature and only prevents the immediate deportation of those temporarily approved migrants.
Can the U.S. Emulate the EU’s TPD?
The U.S. government stands to learn from the EU’s TPD by adopting similar policies and contextualizing them to create an organized process supporting humane and orderly migration at the southern border. This would concurrently aid in building positive public reception and inclusion of migrants. Regarding the current discourse on the termination of Title 42 and the temporary nature of TPS, the U.S. urgently needs to attain a credible and organized immigration plan that will ease the strain on the migration system and align the two political parties on the best and most humane approach. Through lowered tensions and an assured orderly process that can be respectable to shelter seekers and also to the hosting communities along the border and further in the country, humanity may yet prevail. The EU’s TPD serves as a powerful next-generation model that U.S. policymakers should think about trying to leverage if they hope to more effectively address migration and humanitarian relief.