The Ukrainian Surge to the U.S.

The United States has resettled more than 100,000 Ukrainians since Russia's invasion, but the way we're doing it raises questions and criticisms.

By
30

In March the ground in Eastern Ukraine was too frozen to dig graves, so survivors of Russian bombing draped blankets over corpses rather than properly burying their dead. It’s not something that Igor Khatuntsev, 45, then a Mariupol resident, can forget. “People were dying right in front of our eyes,” he told The Dispatch through a translator. “Children, adults …”

He and his wife Marina, 43, now live in Illinois. But the weeks they sheltered underground with their three sons, living in fear of indiscriminate bombing, don’t feel far away. “Shelling was coming closer and closer,” Marina Khatuntsev recalled. “You’re kind of in this constant state of fear and prayer.” The shelling pitted the ground with holes that they eventually began using for burials.

With the ground still frozen in Mariupol, President Joe Biden announced in March that the United States would admit some 100,000 Ukrainians and family members fleeing Russia’s  invasion. The U.S. has exceeded that benchmark, welcoming the Khatuntsevs and another 130,000 Ukrainians through various legal pathways, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
30
By
Comments (30)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Emma

    I think they should stay in fight. We're funding this war. The men and women of Ukraine need to stay and fight or fold.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    David Eggleston

    We have genocides in Ukraine, Burma, China, and Ethiopia, and major civil wars in Syria, Libya, Cameroon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as refugee crises in Venezuela and elsewhere, and we haven’t even filled 15% of a pitifully small number of slots for refugee status? Good grief!

    Collapse
  3. Natty Bumpo

    Thanks for this update Harvest. One of the enduring frustrations I have with our government is the ineffectiveness of our immigration processes. Although I identify as conservative (traditional pronouns), I actually wish to see MORE federal employees hired to support the immigration process, especially refugee/asylum cases, in a timely fashion. (I would add that I like the addition of personnel at the IRS if for no other reason than we need to deal with the abysmal state of return assistance and processing).

    We have a moral obligation to assist Afghanis who worked with us in their country settle in the U.S. I would say that Ukrainians deserve similar consideration and help in settling here.

    Collapse
    1. Emma

      Europe should take care of Europe.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Rjosephpaquette

    There are many many things that would be fixed by simply increasing the number of immigration judges. It should take weeks not months (or years) to have asylum requests adjudicated.

    Collapse
    1. Martin Tatuch

      Indeed. The whole immigration enforcement process has been eternally underfunded. These decisions should and could be made quickly. Most illegal crossers are economic migrants without a legitimate claim for refugee status. They have been gaming the system for years because they know how long it takes to get any kind of hearing. Bring the certainly of quick justice to the process, and that pull factor disappears.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Matt Hannon

    Another good article sampling the idiocy of our immigration laws. Thanks you.

    Our immigration system is like a game of duck duck goose. Different Presidents hand pick large numbers of 'temporary' immigrants which falsely 'advertises' the US as a place for refugees fleeing war and persecution. With all the temporary pathways and one totally ineffective refugee resettlement asylum program it's no wonder Uniting for Ukraine isn't working either.

    Recently the US has granted asylum status to mostly Chinese and Venezuelan applicants followed by Egyptians and Guatemalans and Salvadorans. It looks like the number of Ukrainians who applied for the traditional refugee resettlement asylum, <900, falls in line with the 2-3% for so many other countries' citizens that have applied and have been granted asylum in the last decade.

    As the saying goes: What's the opposite of progress? Congress. Hence the executives declaring goose!

    Collapse
  6. Roger Ellis

    Need to send them to places that cannot find workers and let them work. Plenty of jobs in downstate Illinois at companies that can't find workers or hire substandard workers they can't fire.

    Collapse
    1. Emma

      Or they can stay in Ukraine and fight. Or surrender. But no, we don't need more people here we have Americans in need.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    EricRemcon@gmail

    I glad TD is following up on the Ukrainian refugee story. It is and will continue to be, a mess like all big government programs. The ‘official’ process is too cumbersome and ill-fitting so back doors and short cuts are used instead. Effectively re-writing laws on the fly, using the refugees as guinea pigs and pawns in a political game.

    The war necessitated executive action resulting in chaos which is understandable. What is not acceptable is the inaction in congress. Instead of enacting better solutions they are focused on verbal point scoring on national issues such as Dobbs, student loans, and the ridiculous MAGA culture wars.

    While the Ukrainian refugee story is important, I would also like to call attention to a story about the even bigger problem – the southern border refugee situation. The NYT has a story today titled “Biden Administration Has Admitted One Million Migrants to Await Hearings”.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/06/us/politics/asylum-biden-administration.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220906&instance_id=71182&nl=the-morning®i_id=161520125&segment_id=105488&te=1&user_id=d52fc18c9cd166530405009905328419

    I mention this not to hammer on the Biden administration (though he is making the problem worse). Large numbers of border crossers (really border surrenders) are admitted every year regardless of who is president. The way they are handled is effectively re-writing immigration laws on the fly because they are treated as asylum seekers even though less than 10% of them will ever have their cases approved. Even the ones who do not disappear into the shadows wait years for a hearing, establishing a life in America in the process. A pointed excerpt that shows the ridiculousness of the situation:

    "Maria Zombo, an Angolan asylum seeker and mother of six who lives outside of Portland, recently opened an African grocery store in the revitalized downtown of Biddeford. She came to the country on a tourist visa eight years ago, and has yet to receive an initial response to her application for asylum. She has started a business, purchased a home and had a child. Her experience is not atypical, said Conchita Cruz, co-executive …."

    While she entered on a tourist visa instead of surrendering at the border, the story follows the same pattern. Fill out asylum application, wait years, establishing a life (and often birthing US citizens) that would be painful to upend when the asylum is eventually denied.

    Instead of designing and enforcing a rational immigration process, the asylum back door is acting as “official” US immigration policy in practice. Everyone knows this is happening and no one will step up and do something about it (I do not count child separation and stay in Mexico serious policies).

    This is yet another example of dereliction of duty by congress, allowing the executive branch to exercise out sized power with appalling results. It continues to happen because we are arguing about masks, cancel wars, book banning, and stolen elections.

    Every politician and the voters who cast their ballots based on TV commercial talking points should be ashamed of themselves. ☹

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ed P

      Democrats including Joe Biden have made consistent, good faith efforts at immigration reform for 15 years. I don’t think they should be the focus of your ire on this issue, despite the Maga propaganda. GW Bush and Obama both told the nation our immigration system was broken and causing the executive to write law on the fly. The problems have only compounded from there

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        EricRemcon@gmail

        Could you please point to the section with my ire for D’s? I specifically said I was not calling out Biden. My frustration is with congress and voter attention span as a whole. You could point to the gang of eight immigration bill that failed during Obama as good faith, but it didn’t pass. I’m talking about actual legislation, not Dreamer “pen action” or border wall building mantras.

        I am blaming the lack of seriousness from all sides. The politicians want to keep it as a money raising, vote getting talking point and the voters continue to swallow those talking points instead of rewarding debate about real solutions.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ed P

          It wasn’t pen action. The gang of 8 bill passed the Senate and would have passed the house too if not for cynical obstruction - and it was never even given a hearing.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            EricRemcon@gmail

            My last attempt to clarify:

            The pen action I mentioned was Obama’s dreamer EO and OT’s wall EOs. The gang of eight bill is an example of attempted compromise legislation that isn’t even brought up anymore. I wasn’t advocating for/against it, just pointing out real balanced solutions don’t get talked about anymore.

            Everything is one sided depending who is in the majority. Sometimes they are semi-serious, more often they are exaggerated because they know it will never pass the other chamber, or fail to be signed by the President. Politicians on both sides only see the up-side. Either I get everything I want or I will get to demonize the other side and raise money – a political win/win, meanwhile it is an immigrant and country lose/lose.

            Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Ed P

    When the refugee applicants are not from our Southern border, the years long asylum backlog is problematic NOW.

    You might say those desperately fleeing tyranny deserve better and of course you’d be right. But that applies to people fleeing the tyranny of the drug lords we’ve enabled with our incredibly stupid war on drugs too imho.

    And the situation in Latin America is so dire, please understanding the cartels murder 10s of thousands a year in Mexico alone, including the politicians and journalists that stand up to them . When El Salvador’s violence peaked in 2015, over 100 per 100,000 were murdered. For comparison, using the current estimate of 6000 civilian deaths in the first 6 months of escalated war in Ukraine, a population of 42 million, that amounts to 29 per 100,000 civilian slayings per year, not even 1/3rd the civilian casualty rate of the worst of El Salvador’s peak. (No intention to diminish the suffering of Ukrainians or the tyranny of Putin, but rather to highlight the scale of violence in Latin America)

    Maybe time we actually implemented an immigration reform. That 2013 bill looks really stinkin good in retrospect. Thanks Mr Ryan for your cynical obstruction

    Collapse
    1. Mathew A

      Agreed that the war on drugs is stupid. And I would end it.

      That being said, those fleeing drug violence (or really any other type of regular crime) don't and shouldn't qualify for asylum.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ed P

        If this were “regular” crime, I would agree. I would also argue that crime and violence on the scale I’ve described above is simply not possible due to ordinary, random crime.

        The massive amount of violence and crime is very organized, and in many geographies in Latin America, the cartels are the de facto governing authority. They do challenge and corrupt police forces and sometimes even national governments. It is a truly horrid state of affairs.

        Collapse
    2. Brendan Bossard

      Good point about the importance of not playing favorites when it comes to immigration policy. The underlying problem is that we have made immigration too complicated. It is simple to me: let good people in and kick bad people out. The Devil is in the details, of course; but for goodness sake, stop creating artificial ceilings and placing a Rube Goldberg maze of tripwires!

      Collapse
      1. Emma

        Who is good and bad? IMHO no man shoukd be able to claim refugee status during war. Go fight.

        Collapse
        1. Brendan Bossard

          Have you lived in a war-torn country, or do you know anyone who has come from one?

          Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Jay Larson

      Who obstructed an even better bill by then President Bush.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ed P

        The difference between how Reid handled the 2007 bill and Boehner (not Ryan, excuse me) the 2013 bill is very enlightening actually.

        Reid sponsored the 2007 bill, a negotiated compromise between Ds and Rs. He brought it to the floor the first time and it failed badly, not getting even 40 votes to end debate. At the urging of President Bush, Reid re-introduced the bill, only for it to fail a second time with 45 votes for cloture. The bill was denied in bi-partisan fashion after the Senate Majority leader opposite the Presidents party put in a good faith effort to get it passed.

        Meanwhile Boehner refused to give the 2013 that had passed the Senate in bipartisan fashion 68-32 any floor vote at all in the House.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Wilhelm

    If any group deserves special consideration, right now it would be Ukrainians. But as someone pointed out, that would require that the U.S. *have* an immigration policy.

    Nice piece of work, Harvest.

    Collapse
    1. Emma

      Why are they special? Make these men and women stay and fight.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Wilhelm

        Should children fight? Seniors? Disabled? Conscientious objectors?
        No, not everyone should be expected to fight.

        Collapse
    2. Martin Tatuch

      We don't have a niche appropriate for most persons fleeing Ukraine. TPS (temporary protective status) is available for persons already in the United States, but not outside. The vast number of Ukrainians (predominantly women and children) will want to return to Ukraine once it is safe, so they need temporary refuge, not permanent status. The Uniting for Ukraine program is useful because it does not take numbers from others who have been awarded permanent refugee status. Unfortunately, beneficiaries are subject to the same delays in processing. Since these people will only be temporary, it would be helpful to give them temporary work authorization upon entry.

      Collapse