In the past decade, we’ve seen an unprecedented increase in the flow of migration, and, in response, rising anti-immigrant sentiment. Both major political parties campaigned on immigration in this election, with Democrats emphasizing their attempted passage of one of the most conservative immigration bills in years, and Republicans saying that isn’t good enough.
President-elect Trump has made it clear that his first 100 days will see the closure of the US-Mexico border, hundreds of migrants deported, and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, tapped to lead the Department of Homeland Security, overseeing the entire process. But, what does that actually mean for immigration in the US? How will that impact cities like DC with large migrant populations?
Krish O’Mara Vignarajah is the President and CEO of Global Refuge, the largest faith-based nonprofit dedicated to serving immigrants and refugees. She previously served in the Obama White House as First Lady Michelle Obama’s Policy Director and at the State Department where she served as a senior adviser for both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry during their respective times leading the department. Vignarajah, who grew up in Baltimore County after her parents immigrated from Sri Lanka, spoke with Washingtonian about anti-immigrant sentiment, what we should expect under Trump 2.0, and what to look out for in his first 100 days.
We’ve seen the national debate shifting with both Democrats and Republicans coming down on immigration this election cycle. I’m curious how you think that will actually flesh out post-January. What’s rhetoric versus reality?
I hope that given how divisive and xenophobic the rhetoric around immigration has been, that we won’t see it translate into draconian and inhumane immigration policies. One key takeaway from the election is a clear mandate from the American people to reform what is a broken immigration system. We, as an immigration organization, have stressed this for years. It’s a result of three decades of failure to reform. I think that there is a real opportunity, especially with unified power, for the Republican Party working with Democratic leadership to think through how we institute immigration reforms that recognize the American values of family reunification and hard work, such that we have legal pathways that support our economy, national security interests, and American families. We also need to invest in fixing dysfunction on backlogged programs so that we don’t see the crisis at the border that we’ve seen for a decade now.
During the President-elect’s first administration, we saw the refugee admissions cap dip to record lows, down to 15,000. What kind of policy are you preparing for?
Sometimes it’s a very technical program, but I think it is so important to emphasize because right now, every immigrant demographic is conflated, and so when you hear this rhetoric of, “People should come the right way,” versus other pathways, I think it’s really important to emphasize that refugee resettlement is the exemplar of a program responding to humanitarian crises. There’s a reason why this program has always had strong bipartisan support, and so we hope that we don’t see what happened during the first Trump administration. The infrastructure that had been built over four decades during the Republican and Democratic administrations was intentionally dismantled. This is the program through which President Reagan resettled 600,000 refugees. These are refugees who have contributed over $63 billion into the US economy. It’s the program where refugees cross an international border. They apply through the United Nations or US Embassy, they wait years as they go through extreme vetting, and only when they are legally processed and admitted, do they enter the United States. This is a program that works. It meets our humanitarian obligations while ensuring that there is an orderly and fair system in place. I am hopeful for Senator [Marco] Rubio [Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State] and many other Republican senators who have historically been supportive of refugee resettlement. I hope that those voices of reason and moderation are lifted and heard, and that we don’t see folks like Stephen Miller attack these bipartisan tried and tested programs, with a sledgehammer.
Looking backwards a bit, in the past few years we’ve seen increasing conflict around the world, rising migration patterns in the Global South due to climate change, with the juxtaposition of anti-immigration rhetoric in the Global North. I’m curious how you’ve seen that pan out in the States or in your other work, and how you think that will progress moving forward?
It’s incredibly challenging, because at a time when there is unprecedented local displacement, we see anti-immigrant posturing. To be crystal clear, of course, the US can’t do it alone, but when the US leads, other countries follow, and when the US steps back from its humanitarian leadership, other countries follow. So I think that’s where there is an opportunity for the US as a superpower, to lead the charge in terms of what our, and other nations’ obligations, need to look like, in light of the fact that some of these dynamics that are playing out are also related to US foreign policy. I mean, take the climate crisis. We expect 216 million displaced by 2050 as a result of a climate crisis that we certainly played a key part of. I think obviously the anti-immigration rhetoric is not unique to the United States, and so it is alarming when you see so many prosperous nations stepping away from a leadership role at the same time that countries like Moldova responded with such a generous spirit when the Ukrainian refugee crisis happened. There’s sort of a dissonance there in terms of what nations like Jordan are doing, compared to a country like the United States. When we hear this rhetoric of our country’s role, “We can’t do this anymore,” really we’re doing a fraction, comparatively to some of these countries that have far fewer resources than we do.
I’m curious how you’ve seen it playing out on the local level in cities like DC, in terms of integrating refugees into their communities. What is the future of that for the next four years?
So obviously, the dynamic in the last few years has been interesting in terms of this strategy we’ve seen with Republican governors bussing immigrants to New York City or Washington, DC. On the one hand, our southern states cannot respond alone, in light of the fact that immigration is a federal issue and there does need to be a more coordinated response. We’ve said this over the last several years spanning from the Trump administration to the Biden administration in terms of advocacy to the White House and Congress, that if we want a functioning immigration system, then states and cities should not face these challenges alone. But I also think it’s important for cities like Washington, DC, to realize that there are strong benefits of being welcoming communities. I think DC is a great example of that diversity, where one in seven DC residents are immigrants. In terms of the contribution of the immigrants in DC, they contributed over a billion dollars in taxes. Three-fifths of immigrants in DC possess a college or a higher degree. They are valuable contributors to local communities, and I think that’s everything from bringing over $3 billion in spending power to DC entrepreneurship; immigrant entrepreneurs in DC generate tens of millions dollars in business revenue. 5,452 immigrant business owners accounted for 16 percent of all self-employed residents in 2018 and they generated $145 million in business income. So, I think that’s where the rhetoric needs to reflect reality.
What should we be paying attention to as the transition begins?
I think we’ve got to fix a broken system. I hope we learn from our history of what mass deportation in the past has looked like, which has been absolutely devastating to American communities. I also think there’s a lot of healing that has to happen. There’s been a lot of misinformation and fear mongering. The reality is that affordable housing, the opioid epidemic, those are real challenges. The cost of living understandably was a top concern of Americans, but the idea of pinning the blame on immigrants is scapegoating when we need real solutions. So I think that’s what we’ll be looking for. Can we move past the campaign rhetoric where we play the blame game to institute real reforms and identify the root causes of some of these national crises, understanding that they’re not they’re not because of immigrants?
