After months of contentious debate and a near-shutdown of the government, Congress approved spending for fiscal year 2024, which President Biden quickly signed into law. This spending package includes several important immigration-related budgets and provisions. But surprisingly, $800 million was cut from the Shelter and Services Program (SSP) under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and transferred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). SSP funding allows states and local governments to recoup some of the costs of providing services such as shelter and health care to migrants.
Reductions in SSP funds previously allocated under the Humanitarian Emergency Food and Shelter Program will undermine critical infrastructure that states and localities have adopted over the past two years to accommodate newly arrived migrants. There is a fear.
In the absence of federal aid, cities are now forced to limit aid to new immigrants.
How did cities respond?
Over the past two years, the number of migrants seeking asylum at the U.S. southern border has increased, forcing cities to respond urgently to prioritize shelter and other basic needs for migrants. They responded quickly and built the necessary infrastructure, including migrant reception centers and shelters. Cities at the forefront of this response have led with their values and met this moment with a humane response.
But the city's emergency response is not, and was never intended to be, a long-term solution to the continued influx of migrants. Rising housing costs in large cities mean the costs associated with opening and operating a shelter are high. Shelters for migrants were created as a temporary stopgap. Recognizing this, cities have called for federal action and assistance to help accommodate newly arrived immigrants as early as 2022.
States and local governments leverage available resources to meet the needs of newly arrived immigrants, from innovative partnerships with USCIS to leveraging state and local funding to support newly arrived immigrants. We have stepped up and taken extraordinary steps to establish the Center. Nevertheless, the lack of increased funding or support from the federal government means that state and local governments have fewer resources to focus on long-term solutions, and instead use limited funds to address immigrants' short-term needs. This means that the amount of time spent on dealing with
One of the key tools states and local governments are using to address the high costs of housing and immigration assistance is funding from the SSP, a program that was just cut in the new spending package. Through the SSP, states, local governments, and organizations serving migrants were able to recover a portion of the costs of providing shelter, transportation, medical services, and other administrative costs.
SSPs are not perfect and have complex reporting requirements and other bureaucratic hurdles for fund users. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that it is an important component of the infrastructure built to welcome new arrivals. Congress' $800 million cut to the program reflects a lack of commitment to the needs and values of cities on the front lines of welcoming new residents.
States and cities are asking for help.
Mayors, governors, the business community, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) urge the federal government to act to continue the tremendous work they are doing on the ground and accept their responsibility to respond to the needs of immigrants. I have asked repeatedly.
The mayors of five major cities (Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, and New York) met with President Biden last November to discuss the support needed to welcome new immigrants. At the meeting, the mayors called for $5 billion for state and local governments to provide shelter and services to immigrants, as well as expedited work permits for newly arrived immigrants.
In January, nine governors from states experiencing large influxes of immigrants wrote a letter echoing the mayors' call, pledging to increase funding and support for states and cities that accept new immigrants.
Meanwhile, last fall, the American Immigration Council led more than 100 businesses, trade groups and chambers of commerce in a letter to Congress calling for shorter wait times for asylum seekers to obtain work permits. This is an act that reduces pressure on local communities by allowing immigrants to work faster and support themselves. The companies that signed the letter represented a variety of industries and came from states across the political spectrum.
Congressional leaders across the political spectrum continue to push for changes to current immigration policy to support the influx of asylum seekers. But politics has taken precedence over actual policy change, and Congress has taken little action to implement these statements.
While there are many examples of united bipartisan cities, states, and business groups calling on the Biden administration and Congress to act, the absence of significant policy is itself a policy decision. The message is clear. The federal government is choosing not to act to support state and local efforts to welcome new immigrants.
A city that changes policy
This message has a major impact on the policies states and cities adopt.
As SSP funding dwindles, state and local governments are unable to sustain the costs they have spent supporting new immigrants and are being forced to cut support. These cuts will leave alarming gaps in the needs of newly arrived migrants, potentially further exacerbating their humanitarian needs.
New York City, Chicago, Denver and Massachusetts currently have limits on how long migrants can stay in shelters. Some states, such as Massachusetts, are investing in programs to find permanent housing for migrants removed from shelters.
As the commitment to long-term solutions shows, the problem is not that state and local governments are unwilling to support immigrants. Rather, because of the federal government's inaction, state and local governments are trying to support immigrants within their budget constraints. This has resulted in cities and states reducing or reducing funding for other services to offset the costs of hosting immigrants. If the federal government does not provide financial support to states and localities, investments in immigration assistance are no longer sustainable, and limiting spending means limiting immigration assistance.
Cutting SSP funding is a step in the wrong direction in dealing with newly arrived immigrants. With little policy movement in Congress and no broader action at the executive level, states and localities are once again being forced to make immigration policy decisions—even if they are not what state and local leaders want. Even if it wasn't a decision.
In charge: Biden administration
