Community sponsorships for refugees and other forced migrants: learning from outside and inside the United States

• Author: Janine Prantl
• Position: LL.M. (Columbia Law School) is an immigration postdoctoral associate in the Cornell Law School Immigration Law and Policy Research Program
• Pages: 401-472

COMMUNITY SPONSORSHIPS FOR REFUGEES

AND OTHER FORCED MIGRANTS:

LEARNING FROM OUTSIDE AND INSIDE

THE UNITED STATES

JANINE PRANTL*

The number of refugees and other forcibly displaced persons is at a his-

toric high, but countries have failed to address this global resettlement

need. Traditionally, the United States counts among the top resettlement con-

tributors, followed by Canada. But after U.S. refugee admissions reached an

all-time low under former President Trump, the system has not returned to its

prior pace. In fact, over 100,000 open slots remained unused of the 125,000

target for refugee admissions in fiscal year 2022. There is a need to look at

options to fill the gap.

Unlike Canada and many other refugee resettlement countries, the United

States is only in the early stages of formally introducing a private sponsorship

system to increase its capacity and receive more refugees. Under private

sponsorships, individuals collaborate to provide financial, emotional, and

practical support for refugees. Some countries also empower sponsors to

nominate specific refugees to enter and stay in their country. The Biden

administration recognizes that private sponsorships can help to rebuild the

U.S. refugee system and launched a private sponsorship pilot program.

Against this backdrop, this Article argues that community-based sponsor-

ships are historically rooted in U.S. migration law and policy, and discusses

what future U.S. private refugee sponsorships on a permanent basis should

look like. The Article looks at Canada and six other countries with commu-

nity-based refugee sponsorship programs: Australia, Argentina, Germany,

Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. It complements this compar-

ative analysis of programs outside the United States by comparing recent

community sponsorship models within the United States. A case study con-

ducted for the purposes of this Article reveals the experiences of volunteer

groups in Seattle who sponsored Afghan and Ukrainian families under the

* Dr. Janine Prantl, LL.M. (Columbia Law School) is an immigration postdoctoral associate in the

Cornell Law School Immigration Law and Policy Research Program. Special thanks to Professor Stephen

Yale-Loehr for his support and thoughtful comments. This Article incorporates suggestions from

Matthew la Corte, Eliza Bateman and Ania Kwadrans, Aubrey Grant, Laura Wagner, Maggi Johnson and

Erica de Klerk, Professor Alan Hyde, research colleagues from Cornell’s Academic Professionals

Workshop, and others. Any errors are my own. © 2023, Janine Prantl.

401

Sponsor Circles initiative – an initiative that has supported Americans in

sponsoring Afghans, Ukrainians, and others, such as with application sup-

port, various resources, and expert guidance.

Eventually, putting together lessons from outside and within the United

States, the Article proposes policies that are based on experience, practic-

ability, and the specific needs of the actors likely to be involved in future U.S.

private refugee sponsorships.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ......................................... 404

I. LEARNING FROM OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES ............... 407

A. Defining Community Sponsorships ................. 407

B. The Canadian Model as Point of Reference........... 409

1. History and Evolution of Private Sponsorships in

Canada .................................. 409

2. Core Principles and Characteristics of Canadian

Private Refugee Sponsorships.................. 413

C. Community and Private Refugee Sponsorships in Other

Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416

1. Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416

2. Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

3. Germany ................................. 420

4. Ireland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

5. New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

6. United Kingdom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422

D. Comparative Analysis........................... 424

1. Additionality .............................. 424

2. Eligible Sponsors ........................... 425

3. Scope of Beneficiaries, Selection, and Naming through

Sponsors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425

4. Travel Costs and Financial Requirements. . . . . . . . . 426

5. Length of Sponsorship and Responsibilities. . . . . . . . 427

6. Legal Status .............................. 427

II. ROOTS AND NATURE OF COMMUNITY SPONSORSHIPS IN THE UNITED

STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

III. LEARNING FROM CURRENT INITIATIVES IN THE UNITED STATES ...... 430

402 GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 37:401

A. Reform Attempts under the Biden Administration Towards

Private Sponsorships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

B. Co-sponsorships .............................. 432

1. The Integrated Refugee and Immigrant Services in

Connecticut ............................... 433

2. The International Rescue Committee ............. 435

3. Ethiopian Community Development Council . . . . . . . 435

4. HIAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436

5. Lessons to be Learned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

C. The Community Sponsorship Hub. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

D. The Sponsor Circles Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440

1. Sponsor Circles Program for Afghans ............ 440

2. Uniting for Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441

E. Case studies of Sponsor Groups in Seattle. . . . . . . . . . . . 446

1. The First Case Study........................ 446

2. The Second Case Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

3. Lessons to be Learned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450

IV. SPONSORSHIP THROUGH U.S. UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER HIGHER

EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS ............................. 453

A. World University Services as Canadian Best Practice

Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

B. Initiatives in Other Countries Beyond Canada . . . . . . . . . 454

1. The University Corridors for Refugee Students Project

in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454

2. The Middle East Scholars Program in Lithuania. . . . . 455

3. King’s College in the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 455

C. Initiatives in the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456

1. Every Campus a Refuge...................... 456

2. Initiative on Increasing U.S. Education Pathways for

Refugee Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456

D. Lessons to be Learned........................... 457

V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A PERMANENT FUTURE U.S. PRIVATE

REFUGEE SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM ........................ 459

A. Additionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460

B. Eligible Sponsors .............................. 460

C. Types of Refugee Beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462

2023] COMMUNITY SPONSORSHIPS FOR REFUGEE 403