The forbidden "city upon a hill": The US resistance to refugee resettlement

NICOLAS GARDNER: Despite its foundation as a nation that welcomes the world’s persecuted peoples, the U.S. has come to neglect its history and its duty to protect refugees. More than a century before its birth as a constitutional republic, the origins of America’s commitment to refugees was forged by the arrival of Puritans from England, who marked the beginning of a long association between the United States, refugees and freedom. 

On April 8,1630, John Winthrop set sail for the New World along with hundreds of other Puritans on The Arbella, an arduous seafaring voyage that would last months and one that entailed a high risk of shipwreck and death. To avoid the rising persecution of Puritans and in the pursuit of free expression of religion, the Puritans were left with no decision but to abandon their mother country of England and travel to what was then an unknown and strange land. 

Just weeks before their departure, Winthrop delivered a sermon on March 21, 1630, a sermon immortalized in world history whose words modern Americans would later interpret as the great calling and divinely inspired destiny of the territory in which the Puritans sought refuge. In this sermon, Winthrop delivered the now legendary words “for we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.” These words appear to be eerily prophetical of the role that this new land would play as a place of refuge for many millions of people.  As President Ronald Reagan addressed the nation on January 12, 1989, in his last days in office, he lent on Winthrop as he imagined the past and future of America. Reagan declared, “I’ve thought a bit of the shining ‘city upon a hill’... a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans.”

The Puritan’s flight from England mirrors the Israelite exodus from Egypt, a biblical analogy Winthrop sought to cement, which no doubt reinforced the refugee identity of the Puritans and for the various waves of European immigration that came after. As a result,  it is fundamental that we understand the story of the United States and acknowledge its birth as a country that received the world’s persecuted peoples. 

Given the role that refugees have played in this nation’s founding and development, one would expect for U.S. policy to reflect this through a commitment to resettling the world’s refugees. The reality is disappointing. As for the United States treatment of refugees, there have been numerous instances of the US neglecting its moral duty to provide shelter for those fleeing persecution over the decades. For example,the 1939 rejection of Jewish refugees aboard the M.S. St Louis fleeing anti-Semitism by US immigration authorities, perhaps the most notorious of such cases. After having been denied entry to Cuba, the M.S St. Louis sailed close enough to Miami’s shores for the refugees to glimpse the city lights, admire its beaches and taste freedom. But, this counted for nought as the ship was turned away, and for a third of its passengers, this rejection would mean death upon return to Europe in the events of the Holocaust. Historically speaking, for a country that has received refugees since John Winthrop in 1630, we would expect the language, concept, discussion and knowledge of refugees to be deeply woven into the fabric of American culture, society and government. 

Yet, despite such a long association between this country and refugees, the U.S.  Congress only enacted the first refugee legislation in 1948 and passed the seminal Refugee Act in 1980 which incorporated the United Nations 1951 Convention into US law. While these laws did much to advance the safe harbor of refugees in the United States, we have been witnessing a falling commitment to refugees, a phenomenon that was compounded but not caused by the xenophobia and racism inspired by Donald Trump’s election. For example, the refugee admission ceiling since 2009 and before 2017 hovered between 70,000 and 85,000 which lingered behind countries such as Canada, Australia and Norway which have arguably become the world’s leaders in refugee resettlement rather than the United States, a country forged in the archetype of the refugee paradise. 

Additionally, the Trump administration imposed such a draconian cut on refugee admission that for the fiscal year 2020 the admissions cap was a meagre 18,000, over a 79% downfall when compared with the figures from 2016. From a refugee admission high of 207,116 in 1980, when the Refugee Act was passed, a clear marked trend has continued downwards since then, a development which we can only look upon as a neglection of US moral duty. While President Biden has raised the refugee cap to 125,000, effective October 1 onwards, for all the resources and land that the United States boasts, the cap should be higher, perhaps exceeding 200,000 a year.

On the day of the writing of this article, March 15, 2021, we mark the tenth year anniversary of the beginning of the Syrian Civil War, a tragedy that has upended the lives of millions of Syrians and that has become the world’s foremost humanitarian disaster. Since the beginning of the conflict ten years ago in which 6.6 million Syrians have been forced to flee their homes, we would do well to respond to this milestone by reflecting on the issue of refugee resettlement.

If we truly wish to regard ourselves as the safe haven of the world’s hungry and tired masses, then it is imperative that the US government recommits to refugee resettlement by raising the refugee cap to the level in 1980 or ideally higher. To turn away from such a duty would be to close the gates on a place of safety and comfort for anyone who faces persecution, an act that would surely disappoint Winthrop and his fellow Puritans, and, in their eyes, turn the United States into the forbidden city upon a hill.

Nicolas Gardner is a sophomore in the SFS studying International Politics and Chinese.