Humanitarian Protection, Social Welfare, and the Reception Experiences of Forced Migrants

Background and Purpose:

The 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol define what it means to be a refugee and offer protection for those who fall under that category. In the United States, however, humanitarian protection for forcibly displaced people includes permanent and temporary immigration statuses. Refugee and Asylee are permanent statuses with a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship, while Asylum Seeker, Humanitarian Parole, and Temporary Protection Status (TPS) are temporary or uncertain statuses, as recipients cannot be sure of their residency in the US. Those who hold these different forms of humanitarian protection experience significant variance in access to social welfare benefits. Few studies have explored the relationship between humanitarian protection statuses (both permanent and temporary statuses) and social welfare access in shaping the reception experiences of those who have experienced forced displacement, and we address this critical gap.

Methods:

The study conducted 40 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with individuals who currently or previously held one or more of the following humanitarian protection statuses: Refugee, Asylee, Asylum Seeker, Humanitarian Parole, and TPS. The study utilized both targeted and snowball sampling methods. An initial sample was obtained through an Asylee outreach program at a refugee and immigrant legal and social service agency in Philadelphia, PA. Then, participants were recruited through the social networks of initial participants. The interviews elicited participants' migration experience to the US, the process of obtaining a humanitarian protection status, and their experiences with public assistance programs that are means-tested relief: SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, and SSI. The study conducted a thematic analysis of the collected data, which allowed for an inductive approach.

Results:

The data analysis reveals those who received Humanitarian Parole (temporary status) often experienced uncertainty and confusion regarding their social welfare benefits. Asylum Seekers and TPS holders were barred from benefits altogether and needed to rely on the support of their social networks, including family, community members, or non-profit organizations. This finding reveals that temporary statuses often impose precarious situations on the lives of forced migrants. Some participants described the challenges they experienced with caseworkers at welfare agencies who were unfamiliar with different policies towards Humanitarian Parolees regarding their welfare benefit access. Afghans and Ukrainians who received Humanitarian Parole qualified for social welfare benefits but often navigated barriers to accessing services due to confusion regarding their parole provisions. Those who received a Refugee or Asylee status had broader access to and utilization of welfare benefits. However, many participants who hold permanent statuses reported their experiences with cuts to their welfare benefits due to their employment, which left them in precarious situations in regard to supporting family members and their care needs.

Conclusion and Implications:

The findings highlight the importance of understanding the relationship between legal categories for forced migrants and social welfare benefits in shaping their reception experiences. The findings have important theoretical, policy, and practice implications regarding how the construction of immigration legal categories profoundly shape access to and utilization of social welfare.