To Revitalize Our Heartlands, We Need to Re-think the Refugee Crisis
The departure of US troops in Afghanistan left a disastrous refugee crisis in its wake. As reports of terrorism by the Taliban echoed throughout American newswaves, politicians were quick to take a side on the growing debate regarding Afghan resettlement in the U.S.
On September 16th, Montana Congressman Matt Rosendale issued a statement opposing the resettlement of 75 Afghan refugees in Montana. He noted that without proper vetting, American resources are best used relocating these refugees to areas that “share their values and culture.” Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson’s response to the Afghan refugee crisis was surprisingly welcoming: “These refugees have supported the United States over the past 20 years. We want to help relocate these allies for their protection and the protection of their families from the sure peril they will face if they remain in Afghanistan.” Hutchinson was allotted - and accepted - up to 98 Afghan refugees.
The choice to leave your country for another is a hard decision - one that many American policy-makers on both sides of the aisle have never had to make. And yet, this experience should not be entirely alien to our representatives. Immigrants and the children of immigrants make up 14% of the 117th Congress, according to data from Pew. But beyond the emotional politics of the refugee crisis lies a more rudimentary challenge for the United States going forward: America is experiencing slow population growth, with active population decline hitting many of its rural areas.
From 2010-2020, the US had the lowest growth rate period since the 1930s, during The Great Depression. According to Vox, the 2020 results “are a warning sign that America is on course for slow population growth.” By now it is common knowledge that many rural areas face a declining and aging population. Poor places keep getting poorer while rich places keep getting richer, a standard in keeping with wealth inequality trends as a whole.
Although the relatively small number of Afghan refugees won’t be able to significantly bolster an American workforce, a collective refugee movement might. Most recently, many Haitians have been seeking resettlement in America in the wake of a series of natural and political disasters. After the assasination of their President in July, coupled with a devastating earthquake in August, it’s safe to say their decision to leave isn’t just a choice - it’s a necessity for survival. As US authorities spend time and money flying Haitians back to their homeland, it begs the question: Would these groups actually benefit the American economy? According to experts, the answer is yes. But to get there we must ask the question “Who counts as a refugee?”
The 1951 Refugee Convention defined refugee as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” While legally this term has a fairly narrow viewpoint, I argue that we should start considering it’s scope more broadly. With climate change becoming a real and dangerous threat to the viability of a life in certain areas, the very definition of “refugee” should be reworked to include victims of climate-related disasters - that is, someone who “is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a climate-related disaster.” Last year, the Caribbean saw a record-breaking 30 tropical storms last year, six of those being major hurricanes, and low-income countries were hit the hardest. We know that climate disasters will continue to increase, which in turn will lead to more economic and political instability. We have to accept that the refugee crisis is not going away.
It’s important to realize that while border control spends time and money “corralling” these groups, heartland areas face a population decline that has only been exacerbated by Covid-19. Perhaps the solutions to both problems are more intertwined than we let on. Some think tanks, like the Economic Innovation Group, are already devising ways to bolster heartland areas. EIG’s Heartland Visa specifically targets heartland areas with declining populations, and subsequently, declining economies - matching them with skilled immigrants. This program provides resources for immigrants to generate economic revenue in desolate areas, and provides an eventual path to citizenship. Could this kind of program also work for refugees looking to relocate due to extreme weather, political violence, or economic despair?
I believe the answer is yes, and changing our approach to the refugee crisis stands to benefit both the United States and the wider world. .