For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-R40117 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Chad C. Haddal Analyst in Immigration Policy January 6, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40133 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Summary A refugee is a person fleeing his or her country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Asylum-seekers are individuals that claim to be refugees and apply for sanctuary from within a potential host country, but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been evaluated and determined. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) collects data on the millions of refugees and asylum-seekers worldwide and their inflows to the United States and other countries, including Member States of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD). The recent economic downturn could lead to an escalation in the worldwide supply of refugees and asylum-seekers. Thus, a potential issue for Congress is whether the United States should increase admissions of asylum-seekers and refugees during a worldwide economic downturn, maintain current admission levels, or whether the economic circumstances warrant diverting refugee resources to other concerns. In terms of refugee populations, the United States is one of 13 OECD countries that participates in large-scale resettlement of refugees. Its leadership role in refugee resettlement is substantial. For every year since 1994, the total UNHCR-registered refugee resettlements to the United States have exceeded the cumulative total for all other OECD Member States. Resettlement levels relative to the rest of the OECD, however, have declined since the mid-1990s. Because of security concerns and political sensitivities over immigration, numerous OECD countries have moved to restrict the inflows of asylum-seekers through unilateral measures or multilateral agreements, particularly in countries that are members of the European Union (EU). In the United States, numerous measures for inflow control have been implemented, some of which other OECD countries have mirrored. Efforts such as the safe third-country agreements and various cost control programs--as well as forthcoming security-based efforts in the European Union--have lowered asylum-seeker inflow rates in the major receiving OECD countries in recent years. The United States' proportion of asylum-seeker inflows in 2007 registered at 17% of the OECD cumulative total. Germany, France, Canada, and the United Kingdom each received approximately 6%-9% of the asylum-seeker inflows. The data in this report show that there is no uniform inflow trend across OECD countries relating to refugees or asylum-seekers. One of the main observations is that several OECD countries with historically greater numbers of asylum-seekers (such as the United States) have had the levels of their asylum-seeker inflows converge with each other. Moreover, the level at which these asylum- seeker levels have converged is in most cases markedly lower than asylum-seeker inflows during the 1990s. Other OECD countries--mainly those on the periphery of the EU--have recently experienced an upward trend in asylum-seeker inflows. This pattern is likely due to safe third country provisions and their geographic proximity to non-European Union countries. One set of comparative measures frequently employed is the relative burdens for countries hosting refugees. When placed in the context of national income, the United States, on average, took on a larger refugee hosting burden than almost every other OECD country from 2002 to 2006. Only Germany had a higher relative burden than the United States. The United States' average relative burden was lower than that of 14 other OECD countries between 2002 and 2006. This report will be updated as necessary. Congressional Research Service Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 Concepts and Definitional/Contextual Background......................................................................2 U.S. Context .........................................................................................................................3 UNHCR's Global Context.....................................................................................................4 Overview: UNHCR's Population of Concern...............................................................................5 Refugee Resettlement in OECD Member States ..........................................................................7 Resettlement Inflows.............................................................................................................8 Migration Concerns and Political Values .....................................................................................9 Asylum Policy Shifts, Cost Control, and Security Mechanisms.................................................. 10 Inflow Control .................................................................................................................... 11 Asylum-Seekers in the United States ............................................................................. 11 Safe Third Country ....................................................................................................... 12 Deterrence Mechanisms ...................................................................................................... 14 Voucher Program .......................................................................................................... 15 Dispersal Actions .......................................................................................................... 16 The Effects of New Asylum-Seeker Policies.............................................................................. 17 Convergence and Increases ................................................................................................. 17 Convergence of Asylum-Seeker Inflows........................................................................ 17 Escalating Asylum-Seeker Inflows ................................................................................ 18 Asylum Decisions ............................................................................................................... 19 Sanctuary Capacity and Contributions of OECD Countries........................................................ 23 Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 27 Figures Figure 1. UNHCR Populations of Concern, 1998-2007................................................................6 Figure 2. UNHCR Population of Concern, by Region of Origin...................................................7 Figure 3. Refugee Resettlement Inflows and Ratios for the United States and Other OECD Countries ......................................................................................................................9 Figure 4. Convergence of Asylum-Seeker Inflows in Select OECD Countries............................ 18 Figure 5. Escalating Asylum-Seeker Inflows in Select OECD Countries .................................... 19 Figure 6. Average Annual Percentage of Positive Decisions for All Asylum-Seeker Cases Where a Decision is Taken, by OECD Country....................................................................... 21 Figure 7. Cumulative Refugee Population to GDP (PPP) Per Capita .......................................... 24 Figure 8. Cumulative Refugee Population to 1,000 Inhabitants .................................................. 26 Tables Table A-1. Inflows of Asylum-Seekers into OECD and EU Countries........................................ 28 Congressional Research Service Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Table A-2. Index of Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows into OECD and EU Countries ........... 30 Appendixes Appendix. Asylum-Seeker Flows .............................................................................................. 28 Contacts Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 32 Congressional Research Service Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Introduction Worldwide there are millions of people that flee their homes and cross international borders due to threatening circumstances, including refugees and asylum-seekers. A refugee is a person fleeing his or her country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Asylum-seekers are individuals that claim to be refugees and apply for sanctuary from within a potential host country, but whose claim for refugee status have not yet been evaluated and determined. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)--an agency mandated to lead and coordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide--attempts to register and assist as much of this population as possible. UNHCR contributes to a statistical database that allows for the tracking and analysis of what it describes as "populations of concern," that includes asylum-seekers and refugees. Specifically, this database allows for the comparison of refugee and asylum-seeker inflows and populations in the United States and other countries, such as Member States of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).1 UNHCR data generally show that the United States ranks among the highest recipients of refugees and asylum-seekers in the OECD.2 While the refugee and asylum-seeker situation has been of concern to policymakers for many years, the recent economic downturn may hold implications for the worldwide population of concern. International slowdowns in the availability of capital, as well as the accompanying unemployment, means that resources shortages are developing due to tightening government revenues. Some countries may develop shortages of vital food and agricultural imports, which could lead to food-based migration and displacement. Resource shortages have historically also served as the basis for conflict, which could mean an escalation in the worldwide supply of refugees and asylum-seekers. Yet, the United States is also being severely impacted by the economic downturn, and the demand for government assistance is growing. Thus, a potential issue for Congress is whether the United States should increase its admissions of asylum-seekers and refugees during a worldwide economic downturn, maintain current admission levels, or whether the economic circumstances warrant diverting refugee resources to other concerns. Providing a comparative and historical analysis of refugee and asylum-seeker inflows to the United States is of particular informational value, especially relative to other OECD countries.3 Such information informs Members of Congress as to how policies in the United States and the rest of the OECD are impacting refugee and asylum-seeker inflows and populations. Other CRS 1 Historically, the OECD has served as a consortium of advanced industrial countries. The OECD has as its mission to promote democracy and market economies by providing a forum where "governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and coordinate domestic and international policies." (OECD, "About OECD," online at [http://www.oecd.org/]) It has a process by which countries may be invited for membership and be included in the reports and analyses, so long as they meet certain accession criteria (e.g., democracy, rule of law, human rights). Thus, membership in the OECD may be used as a proxy for countries with economies in more advanced stages of development. 2 Although the OECD publishes some of its own analysis of refugee and asylum-seeker flows to OECD countries, the data employed in these publications stems from the UNHCR database. OECD findings are generally published in International Migration Outlook (also known as SOPEMI), published annually by the OECD. 3 There are currently 30 full members of the OECD: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. Congressional Research Service 1 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States products provide extensive discussion of United States refugee and asylum policy.4 The aim of this report, however, is to provide Members of Congress with a comparative data context. Various patterns will be extracted from the data and the inflows to the United States will be analyzed in comparison to other OECD Member States. The policy analysis will provide some discussions regarding policy developments in OECD countries that may impact their respective inflows of refugees and asylum-seekers. The vast majority of these policies relate to the flows of asylum- seekers, since this group tends to foster less political support in the OECD. The data in this report shows that there is no uniform inflow trend across OECD countries relating to refugees or asylum-seekers. One of the main findings is that several OECD countries with historically greater numbers of asylum-seekers (such as the United States) have had the levels of their asylum-seeker inflows converge. 5 Moreover, the level at which these asylum- seeker levels have converged is in most cases markedly lower than asylum-seeker inflows during the 1990s. Other OECD countries--mainly those on the periphery of the EU--have recently experienced an upward trend in the asylum-seeker inflows. This pattern is likely due to their geographic proximity to non-EU countries and the existence of safe third country provisions (a concept discussed later in this report). Additionally, refugee data demonstrates that the United States continues to be the main host country of resettled refugees, both in the OECD and worldwide. Despite lower numbers of refugee resettlements in the United States from a decade ago, the number of refugee resettlements in other OECD countries has also declined. Therefore, the resettlement burden of the United States as compared to other OECD countries has remained consistent. Concepts and Definitional/Contextual Background Refugee policy in the United States and other OECD countries is rooted in a post-World War II context. As state parties to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 and the subsequent 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,6 all Member States of the OECD have committed themselves to admitting an unspecified number of individuals fleeing persecution. The intent of the Convention was to end an ad hoc approach to refugee admissions and resettlement that had previously characterized refugee policy. The United States has adopted the principles of the convention in statute.7 After a state officially grants sanctuary to an individual under the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol, the state is obligated to provide law- abiding admitted refugees with many of the same rights and privileges that citizens enjoy, such as access to courts, the right to pursue gainful employment, public education, medical access, artistic expression, and the like. These rights and privileges do not necessarily extend to individuals that have not been officially granted protective status. Yet, under the principal of nonrefoulment-- which prohibits the expulsion or involuntary return of a refugee or a person seeking asylum to a 4 For background on the international context see CRS Report RL31689, U.S. International Refugee Assistance: Issues for Congress, by Rhoda Margesson and CRS Report RL31690, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), by Rhoda Margesson and Johanna Bockman. 5 The term "converge" is used throughout this report in reference to the range of various country inflows becoming smaller. Thus, countries with converging levels are witnessing increasingly similar inflow levels. 6 These agreements are more commonly referred to as the "1951 Convention" and the "1967 Protocol" (or, in some cases, the "New York Protocol"). United Nations, Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2006). Hereafter cited as United Nations, Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. 7 See Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(42), §207-209. Congressional Research Service 2 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States territory where his/her life or freedom would be threatened--all parties to the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol must provide some evaluation of claims for sanctuary from persons within its jurisdiction. In OECD countries, sanctuary is normally offered on a permanent basis. U.S. Context For the United States, two historical elements were essential in shaping current U.S. law: (1) the conflicts in South and Central America in the 1970s and 1980s; and (2) the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Each of these factors compelled policymakers to examine the mechanisms for dealing with displaced populations seeking admission. These events caused policymakers to conclude that the previous ad hoc refugee efforts were inadequate for dealing with such populations, and in the late 1970s steps were taken by Congress towards codifying such measures into statute that eventually became part of current law. The admission of refugees to the United States and their resettlement are authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980.8 The 1980 Act had the dual purposes of providing a uniform procedure for refugee admissions and authorizing federal assistance to resettle refugees and promote their self-sufficiency. Under the INA, a refugee is a person who is outside his or her country and who is unable or unwilling to return because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Refugees are processed and admitted to the United States from abroad.9 In addition to refugees, the INA also employs the notion of "asylees." Aliens present in the United States may apply for asylum with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after arrival into the country, or they may seek asylum before the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) during removal proceedings. Aliens arriving at a U.S. port who lack proper immigration documents or who engage in fraud or misrepresentation are placed in expedited removal; however, if they express a fear of persecution, they receive a "credible fear" review with an USCIS asylum officer and--if found credible--are referred to an EOIR immigration judge for a hearing. 10 U.S. law also specifically addresses certain populations. When civil unrest, violence, or natural disasters erupt in spots around the world, concerns arise over the safety of nationals from these troubled places who are in the United States. Humanitarian provisions exist in the INA to offer temporary protected status (TPS) or relief from removal under specified circumstances. 11 The INA also contains other ongoing provisions for certain country nationals.12 8 The INA is Act of June 27, 1952, ch. 477, codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. The Refugee Act is P.L. 96-212, March 17, 1980. 9 For discussion of refugee policy in the United States, see CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno. 10 Asylum policy in the United States is discussed in CRS Report RL32621, U.S. Immigration Policy on Asylum Seekers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem, and CRS Report RL34587, Female Genital Mutilation as Persecution: When Can It Constitute a Basis for Asylum and Withholding of Removal?, by Yule Kim. 11 CRS Report RS20844, Temporary Protected Status: Current Immigration Policy and Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem and Karma Ester. 12 For admissions policies regarding Cuban and Haitian nationals, see CRS Report RS20468, Cuban Migration Policy (continued...) Congressional Research Service 3 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States UNHCR's Global Context UNHCR Terms and Definitions Refugee: under the 1951 Convention, a refugee is legally defined as a person fleeing his or her country because of persecution or "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside of the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country." Asylum-seeker: a person who has made a claim that he or she is a refugee, but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been evaluated and determined. Internally Displaced Person (IDP): a person who has been forced to move from his of her home, but remains inside the country of his or her nationality. Population of Concern: an overarching term used by the UNHCR to cumulatively describe refugees, asylum-seekers, IDPs, stateless persons, and other victims who have been displaced or are in need of protection. Migrant: according to UNHCR, "a wide-ranging term that concerns most people who move to a foreign country for a variety of reasons and for a certain length of time. Immigrant: a person who takes up permanent residence in a country other than his or her homeland. Economic Migrant: a person who leaves his/her country for financial/economic reasons (rather than refugee reasons). While the U.S. approach to refugee issues is anchored in the INA, the UNHCR approach for dealing with refugee issues is rooted in a global context. Refugees and asylum-seekers are a subset of a larger population that UNHCR refers to as "populations of concern." This larger population can also include such individuals as internally displaced persons (IDPs), stateless individuals, or other victims who have been displaced or are in need of protection. While both asylum-seekers and refugees claim to have been persecuted or fear they could become victims of persecution under UNHCR's definition, they are distinct populations for classification purposes. Before their request for asylum has been granted, however, these individuals are classified as "asylum-seekers." For classification purposes, UNHCR categorizes most people fleeing their home country as refugees if they have not specifically applied for sanctuary from the host country. Refugees and asylum-seekers that are registered as part of the UNHCR population of concern undergo a "status determination." These status determinations are a set of evaluation procedures used to determine their eligibility for sanctuary in a host country. While the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol establish a standard by which to evaluate claims for sanctuary, individual states receiving applications retain the right to determine their own procedures for recognizing and granting protective status. Evaluations of refugees and asylum-seekers are usually conducted by a national government-sponsored program,13 through a program administered by UNHCR, 14 or (...continued) and Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem, and CRS Report RS21349, U.S. Immigration Policy on Haitian Migrants, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 13 When an individual applies for sanctuary in a given country, that country is normally responsible for determining whether the individual is to be granted official refugee status. In OECD countries, such status determinations occur mostly with asylum-seekers, although for some countries, it may involve refugee resettlement populations as well. These obligations usually exist within the country's national legislation and derive from the 1951 Convention. Some OECD countries will also conduct their own efforts to identify refugees for resettlement concurrent to UNHCR. The United States is one of the few OECD countries with concurrent national program resettlement identification efforts (although referrals from UNHCR are the norm). The United States accepts resettlement referrals from several sources: (1) UNHCR, (2) U.S. embassies, and (3) designated voluntary agencies that provide assistance to refugees overseas. It is U.S. policy to admit at least half of the refugees referred by UNHCR for resettlement each year, depending on the (continued...) Congressional Research Service 4 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States through a jointly operated program15 shared by UNHCR and the respective national government.16 Yet, despite the existence of UNHCR evaluation programs, the potential host country has the final authority to grant sanctuary within its borders. Overview: UNHCR's Population of Concern As mentioned above, the UNHCR tracks official data worldwide on groups and individuals labeled as "UNHCR populations of concern"--a classification that includes several categories such as refugees, asylum-seekers, IDPs, and other populations of concern. In 2007, the worldwide population of concern was approximately 31.7 million. Of this population, approximately 36% were refugees, 2% were asylum-seekers (with pending cases), 43% were internally displaced persons, and the remaining 19% were other populations of concern (e.g., stateless persons). Note that these figures represent those registered with UNHCR, but do not represent the full total worldwide (as many are not registered). As shown in Figure 1, the period between 1998 and 2007 witnessed a shift within the UNHCR's population of concern. For most of the time period there was a downward trend in the refugee population. Yet in 2007, the year-over-year growth number of refugees rose by 15% to approximately 11.4 million, due mainly to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.17 Asylum-seekers experienced declining numbers during the latter half of the 10-year period. Asylum-seekers dropped from a peak in 2001 of 1.1 million asylum-seekers to roughly 740,000 at the end of 2007, a decline of 32%. Persons categorized as "other populations of concern" increased notably in recent years before declining in 2007 to 5.7 million. Yet, the population that has undergone the largest absolute change in the previous few years has been the worldwide population of IDPs. At the end of 2007, UNHCR-registered population of IDPs had grown to nearly 13.7 million persons--an approximately twofold increase since 2005. (...continued) availability of funding (U.S. Department of State, "Refugee Resettlement Policy," 9 F.A.M. Appendix O, 100 Refugee Resettlement Policy). 14 UNHCR often assists states that are not parties to the 1951 Convention. UNHCR may also be involved if a state's status determination procedure is non-functioning, or its determination procedure does not meet the minimum standards of fairness set out by the UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2006 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions, p. 43. 15 In some countries with long-standing status determination experience, such as the United States and Canada, UNHCR has in place strategic partnerships that allow the agency to draw on the expertise and resources of those countries, including the deployment of national government experts to UNHCR field operations. In the United States, the State Department is responsible for overseas processing of refugees. Generally, it arranges for an overseas processing entity to conduct pre-screening interviews of prospective refugees and prepare cases for submission to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which handles refugee adjudications. By law, the annual number of refugee admissions and the allocation of these numbers by region of the world are set by the President after consultation with Congress. For more information on refugee policies and procedures in the United States, see CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno. 16 UNHCR statistics for 2006 show that, for countries where data were available, 92 countries (61%) conducted their own status determination programs, 43 countries (28%) used UNHCR-administered programs, and 16 countries (11%) had jointly-administered status determination programs between the national government and UNHCR. 17 CRS Report RL33936, Iraqi Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons: A Deepening Humanitarian Crisis?, by Rhoda Margesson, Jeremy M. Sharp, and Andorra Bruno, and CRS Report RL33851, Afghan Refugees: Current Status and Future Prospects, by Rhoda Margesson. Congressional Research Service 5 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Figure 1. UNHCR Populations of Concern, 1998-2007 Population in Millions Millions Refugees Asylum-seekers Internally Displaced Persons Others of Concern 35 30 25 Number of Persons 20 15 10 5 - 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Source: CRS presentation of data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook, 2007: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions (Geneva: UNHCR, 2008). Notes: The category labeled "others of concern" is composed of stateless persons, and other victims who have been displaced or are in need of protection. The regions of origin for the populations of concern are predominantly Africa and Asia, as shown in Figure 2. The people from Asia and Africa constituted 38% and 35% of this population in 2007, respectively. The third-largest contributing region during the same year was Latin America and the Caribbean, which was responsible for producing 12% of the population of concern. The persons of concern originating from Europe represented 4% of the estimated total population. North America's population (excluding Mexico and the Caribbean) represented less than 1% of the total population--similar to persons of concern from Oceania. The category of other populations such as stateless persons (labeled "various" in Figure 2) accounted for 11% of the worldwide population. Congressional Research Service 6 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Figure 2. UNHCR Population of Concern, by Region of Origin Data for 2007 Oceania 2,306 Various (0%) 3,333,482 North America (11%) 3,880 (0%) Latin America and the Caribbean Africa 3,737,214 10,986,052 (12%) (35%) Europe 1,139,981 (4%) Asia 12,474,748 (38%) Source: CRS presentation of data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook, 2007: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions (Geneva: UNHCR, 2008). Notes: The "various" category consists mainly of stateless persons. The total population of the chart is 31,677,661. Refugee Resettlement in OECD Member States As mentioned above, those refugees determined by the UNHCR to be most at risk are eligible to be screened and processed for permanent resettlement in a country with an existing resettlement agreement. Mandated by the UNHCR's charter, resettlements are used as a protection tool and durable solution for resettled individuals. Among OECD countries, the United States is somewhat unique in its continued participation in large-scale resettlement of refugees. The majority of OECD countries do not participate at all in refugee resettlement and fulfill 1951 Convention terms by processing asylum-seekers that arrive within their borders. In the past decade, only 12 other OECD Member States have participated in refugee resettlement,18 and one of those countries--Japan--has not resettled any refugees since 2001. By contrast, countries such as Australia, Canada, and the United States have consistently resettled thousands of refugees on an 18 The other countries are Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Congressional Research Service 7 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States annual basis, thereby constituting the states most involved in refugee resettlement over the past 10 years. Resettlement Inflows The depiction of refugee resettlement in industrialized countries in Figure 3 below reveals the large refugee resettlement inflows into the United States relative to other OECD countries. For every year since 1994, the total inflows to the United States have exceeded the cumulative total for all other OECD Member States. Although the inflow level was multiple times higher than the remaining OECD countries during the mid-1990s, the two levels nearly converged in 2002 and 2003. This trend toward convergence was mostly due to declining inflows into the United States following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. U.S. refugee inflow levels dropped by approximately 76% from 1994 to 2002. Since 2002, the United States has experienced a general upward trend, and in 2007 the United States resettled over 48,000 refugees. Comparatively, the cumulative total for other OECD countries has remained more consistent, fluctuating in a range between 22,000-32,000 resettlements annually from 1996 to 2007. Another notable aspect of Figure 3 is the depiction of refugee resettlement to the United States and other OECD countries in relation to UNHCR's worldwide refugee population total.19 While the OECD as a whole has annually resettled at least 50,000 refugees, since 1994 these inflows have not exceeded 1% of the worldwide refugee population for a given year. Because the process for refugee resettlement is challenging and resource-intensive, relatively few refugees are chosen (or even eligible) for resettlement. According to UNHCR, "the selectivity of resettlement ... must remain focused on protecting refugees who are at risk." In addition, refugee resettlement requires close coordination with national governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These agencies frequently work with UNHCR in the identification and screening of resettlement candidates, and facilitating such interaction can be both time- and resource-intensive. Although some observers argue that the 1% proportion indicates that more refugees could be resettled in industrialized countries, the numbers in Figure 3 speak equally to the significant size of the refugee population in the world. What is more apparent from Figure 3 is that the fluctuations in the proportion of refugees resettled to the worldwide refugee total could be largely attributed to the changes in inflows to the United States. From 1994 through 2001, the contribution of the United States to refugee resettlement in all OECD countries hovered between 73% and 77%. Consequently, the ratio of the worldwide population being resettled in other OECD countries largely mirrored the resettlement pattern to the United States. This mirroring pattern continued when this same ratio experienced a large drop in 2002. Since 2003, the mirroring pattern has continued, although the relatively large change in the ratio is likely more attributable to worldwide decline in the refugee population during this period than due to changes in United States inflows. Also, the share of refugee inflows to the United States as a percentage of total OECD refugee resettlement inflows ranged between 58%-67% from 2003 to 2007. Consequently, while the United States still accounts for roughly two-thirds of refugee resettlements in OECD countries, its share has diminished somewhat since the mid-1990s. 19 This worldwide refugee population total does not include the other categories included under UNHCR's populations of concern, such as asylum-seekers. Congressional Research Service 8 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Figure 3. Refugee Resettlement Inflows and Ratios for the United States and Other OECD Countries Data for 1994-2007 United States Other OECD Countries OECD Resettlement Ratio 120,000 1.20% Resettlment Inflow as Percentage of Worldwide 100,000 1.00% Refugees Resettlement Inflow 80,000 0.80% Refugee Population 112,981 60,000 0.60% 99,974 85,076 76,181 74,791 72,143 40,000 0.40% 69,276 68,925 53,813 52,868 48,281 41,277 38,791 34,343 31,735 20,000 0.20% 30,311 28,422 27,321 27,166 26,839 26,798 26,832 26,561 26,120 26,152 23,732 23,619 22,724 0 0.00% 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Source: CRS presentation of data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook, 2006: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions (Geneva: UNHCR, 2007) and Statistical Yearbook, 2007: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions (Geneva: UNHCR, 2008). Migration Concerns and Political Values The policy approaches that countries have taken towards refugees and asylum-seekers has been largely intertwined with the political value countries have placed on immigration in general. While countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia have traditionally had relatively proactive immigration policies, many European countries have not historically accepted many immigrants and have practiced highly restrictive legal immigration policies. These divergent immigrant experiences are partly reflected in the United States' willingness to accept hundreds of thousands of permanent immigrants annually. Consequently, refugees have constituted a smaller share of permanent inflows into the United States.20 By comparison, most European countries tend to prefer admitting foreign nationals on a temporary basis, and in many European countries asylum has become a main avenue for entry and a perceived "loophole" for immigration. The sizable inflows of asylum-seekers to many European countries has led to a perception in a number of states that their asylum systems are overburdened. In many countries, the expenditure of resources towards special accommodations, financial assistance, and providing temporary 20 In FY2008, the ceiling for refugee admissions was 80,000, compared to 70,000 from the previous six fiscal years. Congressional Research Service 9 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States employment, has led to dissatisfaction with the asylum system. Additionally, the wave of migrants that arrived in Western Europe with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Communist control over Eastern Europe placed a burden on public resources that many European policymakers are not eager to see repeated. Thus, many of the restrictive policy trends that are noted in subsequent sections have emerged out of these political developments in Europe over the last two decades. Moreover, the lack of geographic barriers make travel to Europe less strenuous, and, as a result, make some countries on the European periphery especially susceptible to asylum- seeker inflows. An additional development affecting asylum-seeker and refugee policies in European OECD Member States has been the expanded number of Member States in the European Union (EU). For EU Member States, their nationals may freely travel, settle, and seek employment in other Member States. While such an arrangement should benefit the economic development of the entire EU area in the long term, political and cultural concerns have been raised about the impact this openness may have on various countries. Moreover, since countries cannot restrict flows from within the EU area, they have shown a greater eagerness to restrict unwanted flows from outside. Thus, asylum-seekers have become a prominent target for certain proponents of immigration restriction. EU countries are increasingly attempting to coordinate immigration and asylum-seeker policies, such as the recently passed European Pact on Immigration and Asylum. 21 The inflow of large numbers of unauthorized immigrants has prompted security concerns amongst policymakers in Europe (as it has in the United States). The new European security- based provisions are likely to impact asylum-seekers since the proposed changes to EU policy will be based upon the concept of "country reception capacity"--thereby suggesting that inflows to each country beyond the level of "reception capacity" constitutes a security risk.22 For many OECD countries, however, the most confounding factor is illegal migration. The difficulty for many countries is separating illegal economic migrants from actual asylum-seekers that have migrated inside their borders. Moreover, asylum-seekers may have economic considerations when migrating to a destination country. Although less than 1% of UNHCR populations of concern are admitted into OECD countries, these countries are frequently desirable destinations for asylum-seekers because of the stronger performing economies and potential for social and economic upward mobility. Thus, the question for many OECD policymakers has been how to develop adequate inflow control measures without excluding genuine asylum-seekers. Asylum Policy Shifts, Cost Control, and Security Mechanisms Empirically, OECD countries with strongly performing economies are likely to be recipients of relatively higher rates of asylum applications.23 Strong economies serve as an incentive for 21 Jim Brunsden, "EU Agrees Wide-ranging Immigration Plans," European Voice, October 16, 2008, online at [http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2008/10/eu-agrees-wide-ranging-immigration-plans/62739.aspx]. 22 According to reports, the "reception capacity of individual countries will be based upon their abilities to provide employment, housing, education, health and social services." (Renata Goldirova, "EU to Rubber-stamp Common Immigration and Asylum Rules," EU Observer, October 15, 2008, online at [http://euobserver.com/22/26924]. 23 Asylum-seekers have commonly been treated as a distinct category under the immigration policies of most OECD countries, often because of the forced nature of the migration combined with the geographic location from which their application is submitted. Partly, the distinct categorization arises because the potential host country does not have the (continued...) Congressional Research Service 10 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States economic migrants to travel to these states (in either an authorized or unauthorized manner), but not necessarily for asylum-seekers. More recent asylum-seeker policies throughout the OECD, however, have seemingly been based upon the assumption that asylum-seekers are economically rational actors, similar to many illegal immigrants. The response in the United States and throughout other OECD states has been to develop proactive measures to control the flows of asylum-seekers, by way of unilateral measures or via multilateral agreements. Efforts such as safe third-country agreements and various cost control programs have been the likely cause of the convergence of asylum-seeker inflow levels in certain OECD countries with historically higher inflow rates (a convergence that is depicted in Figure 4). Inflow Control A number of efforts to control the inflow of asylum-seekers embrace a concept that political scientists refer to as "beggar thy neighbor." Commonly used to refer to protectionist trade barriers, the term describes a policy whereby the objective or benefit sought by one country is achieved at the expense of others. In the case of asylum flows, a number of OECD countries have employed mechanisms and advocated policies that transfer the asylum-hosting obligations (and costs) to other countries. While some advocates view this shift as avoiding obligations, others contend that it constitutes an equitable distribution of cost in sheltering asylum-seekers and refugees. A few of these policy mechanisms--discussed in the sections below--are employed in the United States, while others are more unique to other OECD member states. Asylum-Seekers in the United States Controlling the mass inflow of asylum-seekers has been a concern of U.S. policymakers for decades.24 Prior to 1996, aliens arriving at a port of entry to the United States without proper immigration documents were eligible for a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether the aliens were admissible. Aliens lacking proper documents could request asylum in the United States at that time. If the alien received an unfavorable decision from the immigration judge, he or she also could seek administrative and judicial review of the case. Critics of this policy argued that illegal aliens were arriving without proper documents, filing frivolous asylum claims, and obtaining work authorizations while their asylum cases stalled in lengthy backlogs. The Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)25 made substantial changes to the asylum process, including establishing expedited removal proceedings; codifying many regulatory changes; adding time limits on filing claims; and limiting judicial review in certain circumstances, but it did not alter the numerical limits on asylee adjustments. Foreign nationals arriving without proper documents who express to the immigration officer a fear of being returned home must be kept in detention while their "credible fear" cases are (...continued) opportunity to screen candidates from outside its borders. Yet, academic analysis of asylum-seeker behavior has suggested that once compelled to flee their country of origin, asylum-seekers may undergo similar cost/benefit calculations as economic migrants. In addition to employment considerations, the cost/benefit calculations of asylum- seekers tend to account for such factors as cultural adjustments, the pre-existing family or group ties, linguistic barriers, and public benefits made available (Wayne A. Cornelius and Marc R. Rosenblum, "Immigration and Politics," Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 8 (June 2005), pp. 99-119). 24 CRS Report RL32621, U.S. Immigration Policy on Asylum Seekers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 25 P.L. 104-208. Congressional Research Service 11 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States pending.26 Moreover, the reforms established serious consequences for aliens who file frivolous asylum applications. IIRIRA also codified many regulatory revisions of the asylum process that the former George H.W. Bush and Clinton Administrations made. Most notably, aliens are statutorily prohibited from immediately receiving work authorization at the same time as the filing of their asylum application. Now the asylum applicant is required to wait 150 days after the USCIS receives his/her complete asylum application before applying for work authorization. 27 The USCIS then has 30 days to grant or deny the request. IIRIRA also added a provision that enabled refugees or asylees to request asylum on the basis of persecution resulting from resistance to coercive population control policies, but the number of aliens eligible to receive asylum under this provision was limited to 1,000 each year. Safe Third Country One form of cost shift and inflow control in the OECD has been through "safe third country" provisions. A safe third country is a country the asylum-seeker has passed through en route to the receiving country and with which the receiving country has a reciprocal agreement. Under a safe third-country agreement, the receiving country can refuse to make an asylum determination, if the safe third country (the country an asylum-seeker passed through) is technically responsible for examining the application.28 These types of arrangements are most common among the OECD states that belong to the EU. Major recipients of refugee flows in the EU have generally advocated such agreements between the EU Member States, as it allows these countries to shift some asylum determination responsibilities to other countries without violating the direct terms of the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol. The UNHCR has stated that responsibility-sharing agreements between states can, when appropriate safeguards are in place, enhance the international protection of refugees by ensuring the orderly handling of asylum applications. The United States has only one similar arrangement in place: the U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement.29 Effective since December 29, 2004, the program is run through a cooperative agreement between Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and three U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).30 As part of the agreement, UNHCR independently monitors and reviews the implementation of the program and offers recommendations for improvement and compliance. The impact, however, has been small. In the United States, during the first year of implementation, there were 66 such claims at 26 For background and analysis on detention policy under the Immigration and Nationality Act, see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative Issues, by Alison Siskin. 27 8 C.F.R. §208.7. 28 The concept of safe third country has been described as follows: "An asylum-seeker is denied access to substantive refugee determination procedures in a particular [country] on the ground that he or she already enjoyed, could or should have requested and, if qualified, would actually have been granted refugee protection in another country" (Eva Kjaergaard, "The Concept of `Safe Third Country' in Contemporary European Refugee Law," International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 6, no. 4 (1994): p. 651). 29 INA §208(a)(2)(A) and (C). 30 CBP is responsible for identifying individuals subject to the agreement, USCIS is responsible for conducting a threshold screening determination to determine if an exception to the agreement applies, and ICE is responsible for the physical custody of individuals subject to the agreement, as well as the return to Canada of individuals who fail to establish an exception to the agreement. Congressional Research Service 12 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States land border points of entry (POE).31 Of those 66 claimants, 62 were subject to the agreement. The other four claimants were Canadian citizens, who are not subject to the agreement.32 During the same time period, Canadian authorities returned 303 individuals to the United States as a result of the application of the agreement. 33 The concept of a safe third-country mechanism first emerged in 1990 as part of the so-called Dublin Convention of EU Member States.34 The objective of this convention was to determine which Member State would be responsible for examining an application for asylum--a matter not explicitly declared in the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol.35 The parties agreed to abide by the order of responsibility laid out in the Dublin Convention, and subsequent agreements included conditions for accepting third country asylum-seekers. Critics, however, have contended that adequate safeguards are sometimes not in place. One of the main concerns about the concept of safe third countries for asylum-seekers has been its potential for unilateral application by a receiving country. Without a bilateral agreement, removing asylum-seekers from a receiving country to a third country could result in a refusal by the third country to accept the asylum-seeker. Critics have referred to such a phenomenon as "refugees-in-orbit," wherein the asylum-seeker is deported from country to country until a government chooses to accept the asylum-seeker. In the EU, third country responsibilities are required between Member States, but the same requirements are not applicable to non-Member States.36 EU countries have historically attempted to make arrangements with countries that are 31 Between 2000 and 2004, there was an average of 58 asylum claims from individuals arriving at a Canada and U.S. land border POE each year. Asylum claims from individuals arriving at a Canada and U.S. land border port of entry during fiscal years 2000 to 2004 were as follows: 2000 (72), 2001 (68), 2002 (64), 2003 (32), and 2004 (54). The 66 cases during the first year of implementation stem from calendar year 2005 rather than fiscal year. 32 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement, Assessment Report (Washington, D.C., November 16, 2006). 33 Ibid. 34 "Convention Determining the State Responsible for Examining Applications for Asylum Lodged in One of the Member States of the European Communities - Dublin Convention," Official Journal of the European Union, C254 (August 19, 1997): 1-12. As is commonly the case with agreements between European states, the agreement signed in Dublin, Ireland, on June 15, 1990, was named after the location where the diplomatic relations occurred. The original 12 signatories to the Dublin Convention were Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Prior to the Member States recognizing each other as safe third countries, the notion had been based on the unilateral decisions of individuals states. By 1998, the agreement had been extended to Austria, Finland, and Sweden. 35 The 1990 Dublin Convention addressed these issues by explicitly setting out rules for determining which countries had adjudication responsibility under a number of potential asylum-seeking scenarios. The agreement took effect on September 1, 1997, and was subsequently adopted by later parties to the agreement. In 2003, the agreement was replaced by the so-called Dublin II Regulations. The 2003 regulations were intended to build on the asylum-seeker determination responsibilities provisions of the Dublin Convention by preventing unauthorized immigration and "visa shopping" by applicants through different Member States. The original Dublin Convention had, among other things, been criticized for laying vague burdens of proof for determining illegal entry into a Member State (Agnes Hurwitz, "The 1990 Dublin Convention: A Comprehensive Assessment," International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 11, no. 4 (1999): 646-677). The Dublin II Regulations aim to prevent such behavior through information sharing in the European Automated Fingerprint Recognition System (EURODAC), as well as forcing the responsible state to accept the return of an asylum-seeker (within a limited and specified time period) who is residing illegally in another member state. 36 Under the London Resolutions of 1992, in cases where an asylum-seeker has traveled through a non-Member State before arriving in the receiving country, that Member State can remove the asylum-seeker to the third country-- provided the third country complies with the 1951 Convention. Agreements with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland have extended the Dublin Convention terms to those three non-Member States. Congressional Research Service 13 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States frequently stopovers before a final European destination.37 But the bilateral approach to safe third country agreements has resulted in numerous EU Member States having mismatched lists of safe third countries (presumably because of different interpretations of what constitutes compliance with the 1951 Convention). Since 1999,38 the EU has been working toward harmonizing minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, including creating an EU list of third countries as safe countries of origin.39 Several other OECD countries outside the European Union have set up their own bilateral safe third country provisions. Safe third-country provisions have likely caused some shift in the distribution of asylum-seekers among OECD countries with high inflow rates, such as the United Kingdom. As a country located in the northeastern region of Europe--and thus effectively containing a buffer zone from many asylum-seeker countries of origin--one would expect to see a notable number of asylum-seekers categorized as "not subject to asylum consideration" because of the availability of a safe third country. Cumulatively from 1996 through 2007, the United Kingdom refused consideration to roughly 20,200 principal applicants, but annually it never accounted for more than 8% of all asylum applications during that time period.40 Deterrence Mechanisms A notable cause of shifting burdens of asylum-seeker inflows in some OECD countries has been policy mechanisms designed to control flow rates and deter fraud and abuse. Working on the belief that asylum-seekers are economically rational, numerous governments and immigration critics across the OECD area have argued that some migrants engage in so-called "asylum shopping"--the practice of applying for asylum in several countries in order to maximize the likelihood of a positive asylum determination and/or receiving the most generous public benefits. The United States has implemented deterrence mechanisms, among other ways, through the previously discussed expedited removal mechanism, as well as the ongoing efforts to implement the provisions of the REAL ID Act.41 Several tactics have been attempted or implemented in various other OECD countries. Most widespread has been the development of shared databases on asylum-seekers. The inclusion of fingerprints and other biometric identifiers in systems like Eurodac,42 as well as the issuance in some cases of special identification cards,43 provides governments with improved tools for tracking asylum-seekers to ensure that they do not migrate from the first country of asylum to claim improved public benefits. The European Pact passed by the EU in October 2008 requires that Member States should start issuing biometric visas from 37 Eva Kjaergaard, "The Concept of `Safe Third Country' in Contemporary European Refugee Law," International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 6, no. 4 (1994), p. 653. 38 Member States undertook to set up a common European asylum system based on the full and inclusive application of the 1951 Convention at the Tampere European Council in October 1999. 39 European Union, "Future Common European Asylum System," Europa: Activities of the European Union, July 30, 2008, at [http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l14561.htm]. 40 Based on CRS analysis of statistics from the United Kingdom Home Office, Asylum Statistics: United Kingdom, London: H.M.S.O., 1997-2008. 41 P.L. 109-13. 42 Eurodac is a large database of fingerprints of applicants for asylum and illegal immigrants found within the EU that complies with provisions in the Dublin Convention on handling claims for asylum. 43 "Asylum-seekers given `smart' ID cards," BBC, January 31, 2002, sec. UK Politics, at [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1793151.stm]. Congressional Research Service 14 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States January 1, 2012, establish an EU-wide electronic entry/exit system to record the movement of people, and only regularize the status of unauthorized individuals on a "case-by-case" basis.44 Voucher Program The United Kingdom, which has been a vocal advocate of asylum policy reforms in the European Union,45 introduced two programs in the past decade that some observers believe were designed specifically to prevent asylum shopping.46 Officially, these programs were aimed at preventing asylum fraud, illegal immigration, and human smuggling. The first of these efforts was a voucher program for asylum-seekers that was implemented in place of cash-based social security benefits. Although small cash allowances were also received, asylum-seekers were required to collect vouchers for most purchases at the post office and use the voucher in place of cash or credit at businesses. A review of the program by the UK Home Office found that the voucher scheme had encountered a number of operational problems such as business owners refusing to accept vouchers. Moreover, complaints from asylum-seekers and advocates claimed that the program was causing a further stigmatization of asylum-seekers and that many users suffered embarrassment.47 The UK government eventually did away with the voucher program in 2002, and instead instituted "smart card" identification requirements, including biometric identifiers such as fingerprints.48 In the United States, such a voucher program has not been attempted as the INA bans asylum-seekers from receiving any public benefits until they become legal permanent residents.49 44 Jim Brunsden, "EU Agrees Wide-ranging Immigration Plans," European Voice, October 16, 2008, online at [http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2008/10/eu-agrees-wide-ranging-immigration-plans/62739.aspx]. 45 In 2003, the United Kingdom advocated large scale reforms to the European Union asylum policy, including efforts to combat illegal immigration and asylum shopping. Much of this proposal was based on the former restrictive policies of the Australian government. After criticism from asylum advocacy groups, these proposals were rejected by the European Union. However, on June 19, 2008, European Union lawmakers voted to allow undocumented migrants to be held in detention centers for up to 18 months and banned from European Union territory for five years. The EU countries came to an agreement on October 16, 2008 known as the European Pact that would institute greater border controls in the EU area and institute a common immigration and asylum policy in an effort to stem the inflow of unauthorized immigrants. According to UNHCR, this measure could affect potential asylum-seekers that opt for illegal entry to Europe because of a lack of legal channels. (Tony Blair to Costas Simitis, "New International Approaches to Asylum Processing and Protection," letter, March 10, 2003; European Council on Refugees and Exiles, "Statement of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles on the European Council Meeting, 21 and 22 March 2003," press release (London, UK, March 17, 2003); Human Rights Watch, "An Unjust "Vision" for Europe's Refugees: Human Rights Watch Commentary on the U.K.'s "New Vision" Proposal for the Establishment of Refugee Processing Centers Abroad," June 17, 2003; Joanne van Selm and Eleni Tsolakis, "The Enlargement of an `Area of Freedom, Security and Justice': Managing Migration in a European Union of 25 Members," Policy Brief (Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute, May 2004); Caroline Brothers, "E.U. Passes Tough Migrant Measure," The New York Times, June 19, 2008, sec. International/Europe). 46 Both programs were intended only for asylum-seekers. If an asylum-seeker's application was approved, these restrictions would be lifted. 47 Home Office, Report of the Operational Reviews of the Voucher and Dispersal Schemes of the National Asylum Support Service (London, UK: Home Office, October 2001), p. 5. 48 "Asylum-seekers given `smart' ID cards," BBC, January 31, 2002, sec. UK Politics, at [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ uk_news/politics/1793151.stm], visited May 19, 2008. 49 For more information, see CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. Congressional Research Service 15 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Dispersal Actions The second program associated with preventing asylum shopping in the United Kingdom has been the government's effort to disperse asylum-seekers.50 Following the Immigration and Asylum Act of 1996 and its mandate that local authorities be responsible for the care of asylum- seekers, a few local governments began their own dispersal actions (through private contracts) and lobbied for greater burden sharing. Subsequently, the government implemented the Immigration and Asylum Act of 1999, which included a dispersal scheme to send asylum-seekers throughout the United Kingdom with the objective of controlling asylum-seeker inflows. The national government has maintained that dispersion has been necessary to more widely distribute service costs among municipalities, 51 yet some observers believe the policy has been "unduly harsh."52 In addition, news reports have sometimes linked the dispersal policy with increased incidences of racism, harassment, and violence against refugees and asylum-seekers.53 Studies have suggested that improved communication efforts between local authorities, national government, and refugee groups could potentially improve the tensions between asylum-seekers and local populations.54 Whether or not these mechanisms effectively deterred asylum remains unclear. From 1996 to 2002, new asylum applications in the United Kingdom increased by 248% to 103,080 applications in 2002. Yet, in subsequent years, the levels dropped by 73%, to a level of 27,905 in 2007.55 Because of the cluster of asylum flow control measures being implemented in both the United Kingdom and European Union during this time period, multiple factors likely contributed to the downturn in applications. For advocacy groups, however, the introduction of programs partially aimed at controlling asylum flows raises numerous normative questions about asylum policy in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Thus, despite the recent reduction in new asylum applications, tensions surrounding deterrence mechanisms and asylum-seekers remain a catalyst for political and social divisions.56 50 Concentration of asylum-seekers in sectors of major urban areas has occurred in a number of European cities. As such, both Sweden and the Netherlands also have programs for dispersing asylum-seekers into municipalities across the country. (Vaughan Robinson, "Defining the `Problem'," in Spreading the `Burden'?: A Review of Policies to Disperse Asylum-seekers and Refugees, ed. Vaughan Robinson, Roger Andersson, and Sako Musterd (Bristol, UK: The Policy Press, 2003), p. 8.) 51 In 1998-99, a total of £475 million was being spent in the United Kingdom on supporting asylum-seekers. Yet, because of the concentration of the recipients, the support was only being funded by, or channeled through, a few localities. (Robinson, "Defining the `Problem,'" p. 8.) 52 Vaughan Robinson et al., "Dispersal Policies in the UK ," in Spreading the `Burden'?: A Review of Policies to Disperse Asylum-seekers and Refugees (Bristol, UK: The Policy Press, 2003), p. 127. 53 Nigel Morris, "Dispersal policy `put asylum-seekers at risk'," The Independent, March 16, 2007, [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dispersal-policy-put-asylumseekers-at-risk-440442.html]. 54 Allen Anie et al., An exploration of factors affecting the successful dispersal of asylum-seekers, Home Office Online Report (London: United Kingdom Home Office, 2005), p. 3. 55 Piotr Juchno, "Asylum applications in the European Union," Statistics in Focus 110, Population and Social Conditions (August 30, 2007), p. 3. 56 One victory for opponents of deterrence policies came in May 2008 with the government of Australia's decision to offer asylum-seekers permanent sanctuary rather than temporary visas. In 1999, the government had begun issuing asylum-seekers "temporary protection" visas, which were good for only three years, if they entered the country without authorization to apply for sanctuary. Refugees who had applied from abroad were given permanent visas only if their applications were accepted. ("Australia praised for new refugee policy," The Washington Post, May 14, 2008). Congressional Research Service 16 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States The Effects of New Asylum-Seeker Policies The "beggar thy neighbor" policy approach within the European Union has elevated concerns among numerous observers, causing some advocates and academics to label the EU as "Fortress Europe."57 While empirical data do not support the implication that the EU Member States (nor other OECD countries for that matter) are closing off asylum-seeker inflows entirely, statistics do indicate that there have been marked inflow level shifts downward in several traditionally larger receiving countries for asylum-seekers. Asylum-seekers represent the largest inflow population into OECD countries. Table A-1 in Appendix shows that the inflows of asylum-seekers into OECD countries has declined in recent years (the table also includes information for EU countries). In total, the OECD took in 638,539 asylum-seekers in 2001, while in 2005 this number had been reduced to 319,050, a drop of 50%. The corresponding drop in the worldwide asylum-seeker population was 29%.58 Although these trends are likely the results of inflow control policies implemented by the various countries, other factors such as regional stability cannot be ruled out as causal variables. Convergence and Increases Within the OECD, data shows that the larger states have begun converging in the number of asylum-seeker admissions. The convergence point sits at a lower inflow level than during the previous decade for most of the countries. In other countries, however, a pattern of increasing inflows has emerged. Overall, asylum-seeker inflows to the OECD still exceed historical lows from the past two decades. Convergence of Asylum-Seeker Inflows To illustrate the aforementioned convergence pattern, Figure 4 below maps out the asylum- seekers from 1996 to 2007 of five recipient countries in the OECD with historically large inflow levels: the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada. From the illustration, the convergence trend of these five countries becomes evident. While these countries still vary in their respective annual refugee admissions, the range of these admissions in 1996 was 2.8 times greater than in 2007. This convergence has been driven by both decreases in some countries and increases in others. For example, the United States' inflow rate dropped by 35% from 1995 to 2007. By 2001, Germany and the United Kingdom were each experiencing higher asylum-seeker inflows than any other OECD Member States. Although the five major recipient countries included in Figure 4 witnessed fluctuations in their annual inflow levels over the entire interval, all the countries exhibited a downward trend beginning around 2002. Consequently, asylum-seeker inflows have been more evenly distributed among major OECD recipient states. 57 For a discussion of the perceived move towards asylum restrictions in Europe, see Andrew Geddes, Immigration and European Integration: Towards Fortress Europe? (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2000). 58 In order to capture the trends of asylum-seeker inflows, Table A-2 in Appendix compiles an index for inflows to OECD countries. Using 2000 as a baseline year (with an index value of 100), the table shows how inflows have changed in prior and subsequent years. Of the countries included in the Table 2, 10 experienced higher levels of asylum-seeker inflows in 2007 compared with 2000 levels, while the other 20 experienced lower levels. Congressional Research Service 17 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Figure 4. Convergence of Asylum-Seeker Inflows in Select OECD Countries Data for 1996-2007 United States United Kingdom Germany France Canada 140,000 120,000 Inflows of Asylum Seekers 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Source: CRS presentation of data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook, 2007: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions (Geneva: UNHCR, 2008) and International Migration Outlook: SOPEMI ­ 2007 Edition (Paris: OECD, 2007). The plotted lines in Figure 4 stem from data presented in Table A-1 of Appendix. These data indicate that since 1996, the United States has been one of the main recipients of asylum-seeker inflows among OECD countries. From 2002 to 2007, the U.S. share of OECD asylum-seeker inflows fluctuated between 13% and 19% annually. This proportion represents an increase from 1999, when the United States received 9% of the OECD asylum-seeker inflows. The proportion of asylum-seeker inflows in 2007 registered at 17% of the OECD cumulative total. Germany, France, Canada, and the United Kingdom each received approximately 6-9% of the asylum- seeker inflows in 2007. During this same time period, other OECD countries accounted for shares of asylum-seeker inflows that ranged from a low of 26% in 1996 to a high of 51% in 2007. Escalating Asylum-Seeker Inflows A development that may be partially attributed to the third-country policies in the European Union is the significant increase in asylum-seeker inflows in certain smaller Member States. These countries generally border non-EU states and serve as either land- or sea-based access points to the EU. Unlike certain OECD states that are geographically prohibitive for refugees to reach other than by expensive and restrictive air travel (such as Australia, New Zealand, or Japan), European states are easily accessible by land and sea, making certain countries especially subject to asylum-seeker inflows and third-country asylum application responsibilities. Figure 5 Congressional Research Service 18 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States below depicts three of the states that have experienced increases in their asylum-seeker inflows: Greece, Poland, and Sweden. Figure 5. Escalating Asylum-Seeker Inflows in Select OECD Countries Data for 1996-2007 Sweden Greece Poland 40,000 35,000 30,000 Inflows of Asylum Seekers 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Source: CRS presentation of data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook, 2007: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions (Geneva: UNHCR, 2008) and International Migration Outlook: SOPEMI ­ 2007 Edition (Paris: OECD, 2007). As the plots in Figure 5 show, all three countries experienced upward trends in asylum-seeker inflows from 1996 to 2007. The largest of these increases in absolute terms was the inflow to Sweden. Its annual inflows numbered less than 6,000 in 1996, but by 2007 this number had climbed to over 36,000--a more than sixfold increase. The same observation holds true for Poland and Greece. The inflow rate in Poland increased by over threefold over the same time period, from a level of 3,211 in 1996 to an inflow of 10,047 in 2007. Greece had the highest relative increase of the three countries, increasing over 15-fold, from 1,643 asylum-seekers in 1996 to 25,113 in 2007. Several other European "portal countries" have also witnessed increases over the same span, although most did not exhibit similar sized shifts in their relative inflow rates. Asylum Decisions In countries with relatively high inflow levels of asylum-seekers, anti-immigrant groups have criticized their respective governments for being "too permissive" in their admissions policies--a factor that is in some cases cited as attracting more asylum-seekers. In response, governments have focused their efforts on reducing incentives for asylum-seekers with respect to public Congressional Research Service 19 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States benefits, as those discussed above. Yet, for some critics the question remains whether higher rates of positive asylum decisions could create higher asylum-seeker inflows (a causal relationship that could lend credence to the assumption of informed asylum-seekers conducting rationalized "asylum shopping"). If such a relationship did exist, one would reasonably expect that the countries with higher positive decision rates should demonstrate higher asylum-seeker inflow rates. The average annual rate of positive decisions for asylum applications where a decision was taken (shown in Figure 6) indicates a markedly large range between OECD countries from 2004 to 2007.59 On the one hand, Turkey had an annual positive decision rate of roughly 78%, the highest of all OECD countries. By contrast, Greece granted positive asylum decisions in 1% of cases where a decision was taken. This disparity in the decision rate occurred despite the inflows of thousands of asylum-seekers annually to each country. In the United States, the average positive decision rate for 2004-2007 was higher than the majority of OECD countries. The OECD average for this time period was 28%, 7% below that of the United States. Moreover, these figures do not account for the additional number of asylum-seekers that are granted asylum on appeal. The main analytical conclusion that may be drawn from Figure 6 is that the positive decision data demonstrate almost no relation to the inflow levels of asylum-seekers during the given time period. For example, in spite of different trends shown in Figure 4 from Figure 5, Canada and Poland have similar average positive asylum decision rates. Greece has one of the highest rates of increase in asylum-seeker inflows in the OECD from 2004 to 2007, while simultaneously accounting for the lowest positive decision rate. Statistical analysis performed by CRS confirms 60 these visual observations. Therefore, while so-called "asylum shopping" might occur based on the public benefits a country offers, the evidence suggests that the recent rates of positive asylum decisions have been of little consequence for such behavior on asylum-seeker inflow levels in general. More likely, the driving factors behind asylum-seekers are the accessibility of a country, cultural and linguistic ties, the existence of a diaspora or family members, and similar considerations. 59 In many countries, an initial rejection of an asylum application can be appealed or granted some form of administrative review. The statistical figures on positive decisions in this report do not include administrative review data or rates on appeals. 60 A simple Pearson Correlation of average rate of positive decisions to average inflow level of asylum-seekers was .05 for 2004-2007, meaning there was virtually no statistical correlation between these two measures. In other words, a change in the positive decision rate showed effectively no relationship to any changes in inflows. In statistics, a correlation indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables. The Pearson Correlation represents one way to calculate this relationship. The correlation is 1 in the case of an increasing linear relationship, -1 in the case of a decreasing linear relationship, and some value in between in all other cases. These values indicate the degree of linear dependence between the variables. The closer the coefficient is to either -1 or 1, the stronger the correlation between the variables. In the cases where the variables are independent then the correlation is 0. Congressional Research Service 20 Percentage of Positive Asylum Decisions CRS-21 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Turkey 78% Italy 52% Finland 51% Austria 50% Canada 49% Switzerland 49% Poland 48% Netherlands 46% Norway 39% Luxembourg 38% Mexico 38% United States* 35% OECD Total 28% Belgium 28% Portugal 27% Country Australia* 24% Republic of Korea 24% Average is for 2004-2007 Sweden 23% New Zealand 21% United Kingdom* 20% France 19% Hungary 18% Denmark 16% Japan* 15% Germany 14% Spain 12% Ireland 11% Czech Republic 8% Iceland 4% Slovakia 3% Figure 6. Average Annual Percentage of Positive Decisions for All Asylum-Seeker Cases Where a Decision is Taken, by OECD Greece 1% Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Source: CRS presentation of data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook, 2007: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions (Geneva: UNHCR, 2007), as well as previous annual editions. Note: The population of cases includes all types of cases reported to UNHCR, such as first instance cases, administrative review, and judicial review. In countries with more than one level in the procedure (first instance, appeal, etc.), the figures for both procedures have been added up. As a result, appeal cases might have been counted more than once (once at first instance and once on appeal). These data allow analysts to monitor the number of positive decisions taken, but they are not indicative of the final outcome of the procedure for negative decisions. The decisions taken in these cases may include (1) recognition under the 1951 Convention, (2) a complementary form of protection, or (3) a rejection. The positive decision percentage is calculated by adding the 1951 Convention recognition decisions and the complementary protection decision, and subsequently dividing this sum by the total number of decisions taken. Cases that are pending, withdrawn or otherwise closed are not included in the calculations. * Country data refers to number of cases or mix of persons and cases. CRS-22 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Sanctuary Capacity and Contributions of OECD Countries The preceding data analysis has largely been based on inflow levels. While such analysis is both informative and valid in an overview of capacity for and contributions towards these populations, it does not fully address the relative costs that countries experience from such inflows. Employing additional economic and demographic indicators would provide a fuller view of refugee inflows in OECD Member States. Therefore, this section attempts to place these inflows into a comparative context that emphasizes the relative burden of refugee populations in terms of economic costs and population size. One approach to contextualizing inflows in OECD countries is to analyze a country's existing refugee population relative to the size of the national income and productivity. The map shown in Figure 7 shows these data and uses gross domestic product (GDP)61 adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP)62 to account for a given country's potential, relative financial burden. Specifically, Figure 7 maps out the average number of refugees per $1 GDP (PPP) per capita from 2002 to 2006, thereby adjusting national income to both exchange rates and the size of the population. This measure makes no assumption about the long-term net cost/benefit of refugee because such factors are entirely dependent on how economically integrated into the host country this population becomes. The map in Figure 7 demonstrates that when placed in the context of national income, the United States has taken on a larger refugee hosting burden than almost every other OECD country. Only Germany, with 26.3 refugees per $1 GDP (PPP) per capita, had a higher relative burden than the United States (10.9). On a worldwide basis, both the United States and Germany ranked in the top 35 for this same measure. Moreover, the map shows that the majority of OECD countries had an average population of one refugee per $1 GDP (PPP) per capita or less. Consequently, the United States had an average burden at least 11 times greater than most OECD countries for the 2002- 2006 time period relative to national income. The lowest-ranked country in the OECD for this measure was Iceland, which had over 100 times fewer refugees than the United States relative to national income. 61 The gross domestic product (GDP) is one of the measures of national income and output for a given country's economy. GDP is defined as the total market value of all final goods and services produced within the country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year). 62 Purchasing power parity (PPP) is an economic technique used when attempting to determine the relative values of two currencies. It is useful because often the amount of goods a currency can purchase within two nations varies drastically, based on availability of goods, demand for the goods, and a number of other, difficult to determine factors. Purchasing power parity solves this problem by taking some international measure and determining the cost for that measure in each of the two currencies, then comparing that amount. In terms of the cost of country-based activities, using PPP allows for a more accurate comparison by adjusting for some factors that affect cost variations. Thus, PPP gives a more accurate measure of a country's "ability to pay." Congressional Research Service 23 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Figure 7. Cumulative Refugee Population to GDP (PPP) Per Capita Average Population for 2002-2006 Source: CRS presentation of data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook, 2006: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions (Geneva: UNHCR, 2007). CRS-24 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Another way to contextualize burden sharing worldwide is to consider a given country's existing population. Such an approach removes economic conditions and considers refugees in terms of the number of residents in a country. This measure serves as one type of indicator for the demographic impact of refugee inflows. Depicted in Figure 8 is a world map showing the 2002- 2006 average cumulative number of refugees to every 1,000 inhabitants in each country. Unlike the measure for national income, the United States--with 1.7 refugees per 1,000 inhabitants-- figured more toward the median of OECD countries for this demographic measure. Overall, the ratio for the United States was lower than that of 14 other OECD countries and ranked 56th worldwide. The highest ratios among OECD countries were for Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Norway. Sweden's ratio ranked 11th worldwide. Thus, the top 10 hosting countries for refugees per 1,000 inhabitants worldwide were all outside the OECD.63 A plurality of OECD countries averaged 1.0 or fewer refugees per 1,000 inhabitants from 2002 to 2006.64 63 The top ten countries for this measure were: Armenia (70.9), Djibouti (35.6), Serbia and Montenegro (21.6), Congo (21.1), Chad (20.2), Jordan (17.1), Zambia (16.1), Tanzania (15.9), Iran (15.4), and Guinea (12.4). 64 A third way to measure the hosting contribution of countries is to measure the refugee population relative to the geographic area. This ratio can be useful to highlight the potential population density burden of additional inflows on smaller countries. However, as an indicator, this ratio becomes problematic because of the built-assumptions that are not adjusted for. For example, a country such as Canada may have large areas of land and a low aggregate population density, but much of the area is either undeveloped or uninhabitable. Similarly, such large countries may have areas which are protected from development. Thus, without any adjustments, conclusions drawn from this measure could bias results to be lower for countries with large areas of land but fewer effectively inhabitable areas. Congressional Research Service 25 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Figure 8. Cumulative Refugee Population to 1,000 Inhabitants Average Population for 2002-2006 Source: CRS presentation of data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook, 2006: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions (Geneva: UNHCR, 2007). CRS-26 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Overall, refugees constitute the costliest recipients of public benefits on a per person basis in the United States. Yet, as advocates will note, the costs either presented or implied in the figures above do not convey the benefits of hosting refugee (or asylum-seeker) populations. Many benefits cannot be quantified in monetary terms, but nonetheless have affected host countries enormously. In the United States, for example, refugee populations frequently contribute to multicultural diversity and global awareness in the population. Moreover, some refugees that chose to remain have become successful entrepreneurs and strong contributors to economic development. Historically, recipient countries have benefitted from the human capital that refugee populations have represented by using that human capital for intellectual and technological advancement. In this regard, notable refugees to the United States include Nobel Prize winner and scientist Albert Einstein and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. While costs of refugee resettlement and asylum-seeker programs are necessary considerations for any government, these costs must also be weighed against the many contributions to the political, economic, cultural, and religious life that these populations make in OECD countries. Conclusion The findings of this report indicate that currently the United States resettles more refugees and has a higher inflow rate of asylum-seekers than any other OECD country, despite having numerous deterrence mechanisms in place. Additionally, the rate of positive asylum decisions (when a decision is taken) is above the OECD average. But the data also indicate that there are millions of refugees and other populations of concern worldwide, and in recent years these populations have grown. And with the worldwide economic downturn occurring, these populations are likely to increase. Yet, the United States is also being severely impacted by the economic downturn, and the demand for government assistance is growing. Thus, balancing the availability of resources against the demand for refugee assistance will likely continue. Congressional Research Service 27 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Appendix. Asylum-Seeker Flows Table A-1. Inflows of Asylum-Seekers into OECD and EU Countries Data for 1996-2007 Country 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Australia 9,758 9,312 8,156 9,451 13,065 12,366 5,863 4,295 3,201 3,204 3,515 3,980 Austria 6,991 6,719 13,805 20,096 18,284 30,135 39,354 32,359 24,634 22,461 13,349 11,921 Belgium 12,433 11,788 21,965 35,780 42,691 24,549 18,805 16,940 15,357 15,957 11,587 11,115 Bulgaria 302 429 833 1,331 1,755 2,428 2,888 1,549 1,127 822 639 975 Canada 26,120 22,584 23,838 29,393 34,252 44,038 39,498 31,937 25,750 20,786 22,868 27,865 Czech Rep. 2,211 2,109 4,085 7,220 8,788 18,094 8,484 11,396 5,459 4,160 3,016 1,878 Denmark 5,893 5,092 9,370 12,331 12,200 12,512 6,068 4,593 3,235 2,260 1,918 1,852 Estonia 0 0 23 21 3 12 9 14 14 11 7 14 Finland 711 973 1,272 3,106 3,170 1,651 3,443 3,221 3,861 3,574 2,331 1,434 France 17,405 21,416 22,375 30,907 38,747 54,291 58,971 59,768 58,545 49,733 30,748 29,387 Germany 116,367 104,353 98,644 95,113 78,564 88,287 71,127 50,563 35,607 28,914 21,029 19,164 Greece 1,643 4,376 2,953 1,528 3,083 5,499 5,664 8,178 4,469 9,050 12,267 25,113 Hungary 152 209 7,097 11,499 7,801 9,554 6,412 2,401 1,600 1,609 2,117 3,425 Iceland 4 6 19 17 24 52 117 80 76 88 39 42 Ireland 1,179 3,883 4,626 7,724 10,938 10,325 11,634 7,900 4,769 4,324 4,314 3,988 Italy 675 1,858 11,122 33,364 15,564 9,620 16,015 13,455 9,722 9,548 10,348 14,053 Japan 147 242 133 223 216 353 250 336 426 384 954 816 Korea 1 44 17 4 43 39 37 86 145 412 278 717 Latvia 0 0 58 19 4 14 30 5 7 20 8 34 Lithuania 0 320 163 133 199 256 294 183 167 118 139 125 Luxembourg 263 431 1,709 2,921 621 687 1,043 1,549 1,577 802 523 426 Mexico 158 145 125 252 277 415 257 275 404 687 480 374 CRS-28 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Country 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Netherlands 22,170 34,443 45,217 42,733 43,895 32,579 18,667 13,402 9,782 12,347 14,465 7,102 New Zealand 1,317 1,495 1,972 1,528 1,551 1,601 997 841 580 348 276 245 Norway 1,778 2,271 8,373 10,160 10,842 14,782 17,480 15,959 7,945 5,402 5,320 6,528 Poland 3,211 3,533 3,373 2,955 4,589 4,529 5,170 6,909 8,079 6,860 4,430 10,047 Portugal 270 297 365 307 224 234 245 88 113 114 128 224 Romania 588 1,425 1,236 1,670 1,366 2,431 1,151 1,077 662 594 460 659 Slovak Rep. 415 645 506 1,320 1,556 8,151 9,700 10,358 11,391 3,549 2,871 2,643 Spain 4,730 4,975 6,654 8,405 7,926 9,489 6,309 5,918 5,535 5,254 5,297 7,662 Sweden 5,753 9,662 12,844 11,231 16,303 23,515 33,016 31,348 23,161 17,530 24,317 36,370 Switzerland 18,001 23,982 41,302 46,068 17,611 20,633 26,125 20,806 14,248 10,061 10,537 10,387 Turkey 4,183 5,053 6,838 6,606 5,685 5,041 3,795 3,952 3,908 3,921 4,553 7,646 United 37,000 41,500 58,500 91,200 98,900 91,600 103,080 60,050 40,620 30,840 28,320 27,905 Kingdom OECD (non- 300,939 323,396 417,255 523,442 497,410 534,621 517,626 418,963 324,199 274,179 242,195 274,309 U.S.) EU-25, 259,251 284,835 376,401 476,141 442,503 470,998 467,145 377,363 289,897 244,498 209,386 232,797 Norway and Switzerland United 84,293 85,239 72,080 54,820 51,898 61,880 74,654 67,268 57,672 53,160 55,654 54,957 Statesa INS/USCIS 42,416 34,602 43,836 55,138 47,221 39,120 36,095 37,747 39,629 EOIR 12,404 17,296 18,044 19,516 20,047 18,552 17,065 17,907 15,328 Source: CRS presentation of data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook, 2007: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions (Geneva: UNHCR, 2008). a. The data listed is on the number of cases received and are for fiscal years rather than calendar years. The data come from U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office of Immigration Review, Statistical Yearbook, for FY2004 and FY2007. The INS/USCIS data are for "affirmative" applications received by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and formerly by the Immigration and Naturalization Services, and the EOIR data are for defensive applications received by the Executive Office of Immigration Review. Data on affirmative and defensive applications are only published for applications received for FY1999-FY2007. The data do not included the handful of cases that were listed each fiscal year as "unknown" in terms of being affirmative or defensive. CRS-29 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Table A-2. Index of Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows into OECD and EU Countries Data for 1996-2007 Index: Year 2000 = 100 Country 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Australia 75 71 62 72 100 95 45 33 25 25 27 30 Austria 38 37 76 110 100 165 215 177 135 123 73 65 Belgium 29 28 51 84 100 58 44 40 36 37 27 26 Bulgaria 17 24 47 76 100 138 165 88 64 47 36 56 Canada 76 66 70 86 100 129 115 93 75 61 67 81 Czech Rep. 25 24 46 82 100 206 97 130 62 47 34 21 Denmark 48 42 77 101 100 103 50 38 27 19 16 15 Estonia 0 0 767 700 100 400 300 467 467 367 233 467 Finland 22 31 40 98 100 52 109 102 122 113 74 45 France 45 55 58 80 100 140 152 154 151 128 79 76 Germany 148 133 126 121 100 112 91 64 45 37 27 24 Greece 53 142 96 50 100 178 184 265 145 294 398 815 Hungary 2 3 91 147 100 122 82 31 21 21 27 44 Iceland 17 25 79 71 100 217 488 333 317 367 163 175 Ireland 11 36 42 71 100 94 106 72 44 40 39 36 Italy 4 12 71 214 100 62 103 86 62 61 66 90 Japan 68 112 62 103 100 163 116 156 197 178 442 378 Korea 2 102 40 9 100 91 86 200 337 958 647 1667 Latvia 0 0 1450 475 100 350 750 125 175 500 200 850 Lithuania 0 161 82 67 100 129 148 92 84 59 70 63 Luxembourg 42 69 275 470 100 111 168 249 254 129 84 69 Mexico 57 52 45 91 100 150 93 99 146 248 173 135 Netherlands 51 78 103 97 100 74 43 31 22 28 33 16 New Zealand 85 96 127 99 100 103 64 54 37 22 18 16 CRS-30 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Index: Year 2000 = 100 Country 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Norway 16 21 77 94 100 136 161 147 73 50 49 60 Poland 70 77 74 64 100 99 113 151 176 149 97 219 Portugal 121 133 163 137 100 104 109 39 50 51 57 100 Romania 43 104 90 122 100 178 84 79 48 43 34 48 Slovak Rep. 27 41 33 85 100 524 623 666 732 228 185 170 Spain 60 63 84 106 100 120 80 75 70 66 67 97 Sweden 35 59 79 69 100 144 203 192 142 108 149 223 Switzerland 102 136 235 262 100 117 148 118 81 57 60 59 Turkey 74 89 120 116 100 89 67 70 69 69 80 134 United Kingdom 37 42 59 92 100 93 104 61 41 31 29 28 OECD (non-U.S.) 61 65 84 105 100 107 104 84 65 55 49 55 EU-25, Norway 59 64 85 108 100 106 106 85 66 55 47 53 and Switzerland United Statesa 162 164 139 106 100 119 144 130 111 102 107 106 INS/USCIS 0 0 0 123 100 127 159 136 113 104 109 115 EOIR 0 0 0 72 100 104 113 116 107 99 104 89 Source: CRS presentation of analysis based upon data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook, 2007: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions (Geneva: UNHCR, 2008). a. The data used for analysis is on the number of cases received and are for fiscal years rather than calendar years. The data come from U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office of Immigration Review, Statistical Yearbook, for FY2004 and FY2007. The INS/USCIS data are for "affirmative" applications received by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and formerly by the Immigration and Naturalization Services, and the EOIR data are for defensive applications received by the Executive Office of Immigration Review. Data on affirmative and defensive applications are only published for applications received for FY1999-FY2007. The data do not included the handful of cases that were listed each fiscal year as "unknown" in terms of being affirmative or defensive. CRS-31 Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Inflows in the United States and Other OECD Member States Author Contact Information Chad C. Haddal Analyst in Immigration Policy chaddal@crs.loc.gov, 7-3701 Congressional Research Service 32 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-R40117