2

EU countries have been talking about an agreement wherein the burden of refugees will be shared across many countries, not just the ones on frontier. For example, refugees that come to Italian shores could be settled in Germany, Sweden etc. There was also a proposal for a system under which countries who do not want to take refugees in could pay money instead.

Do US states have any such system? Have they tried to discuss it? Texas, for example, has been sending migrants by bus to democratic-ruled cities. But is there a formal framework?

Improve this question
2
  • 2
    Are you asking about refugees or migrants? UNHCR has very specific definitions for these terms. Your title talks about refugees; your question mentions both refugees and migrants.
    – shoover
    Commented Jan 2 at 18:55
  • @shoover US law also defines "refugee" and "asylee" in some detail, largely in line with the refugee convention, and the US refugee system in fact includes a mechanism to distribute refugees around the country. This does not apply to asylees, however, much less other immigrants, and furthermore there is nothing preventing refugees from moving anywhere in the US whenever they can. Your point is very well taken, though, since refugee numbers are strictly limited; the people sent from Texas to New York are most likely asylum applicants or otherwise awaiting a hearing before an immigration court.
    – phoog
    Commented Jan 14 at 0:59

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5

Do US states have any such system?

No.

Have they tried to discuss it?

It's been discussed, but never very seriously, because freedom of movement within the U.S. is a core root concept of the American legal system.

Improve this answer
5
  • 2
    Freedom of movement is also essential in the EU... although de jure this does not apply to the non-EU citizens. Perhaps, what is more important in Europe is who pays for various social services for refugees, which are more limited in the US.
    – Wag the mainstream media dog
    Commented Jan 2 at 6:46
  • 1
    @RogerV. the US states can't even restrict drivers licensed in other states from driving on their roads, even if they happen to be too young to drive by the laws of the state in which they are driving. The 14th amendment's equal protection clause pretty much guarantees that if you can legally move or reside in 1 state, you can can do it in all 50 states.
    – wrod
    Commented Jan 2 at 13:19
  • 1
    @wrod makes sense - Europe can restrict such movements (at least formally), because every EU state has its own immigration system. However, the main point for EU, I suppose, is not where the immigrants physically reside, but where they apply for social benefits and jobs.
    – Wag the mainstream media dog
    Commented Jan 2 at 14:31
  • @RogerV. the social benefits get complicated because some are administered by the states (even if it's the Federal money). I think some states put limits on who can get them to prevent people from moving in just for the benefits. Like they can require a year of residency before eligibility or something like that. It doesn't restrict travel. It just restricts when the residency legally starts. But the immigration policy is constitutionally the purview of the Federal government.
    – wrod
    Commented Jan 2 at 19:06
  • 1
    @RogerV. In the U.S., immigrants generally, and refugees in particular, are eligible for very few social benefit programs. And, given the chance to work, they generally pay more in taxes than they receive in government services.
    – ohwilleke ♦
    Commented Jan 2 at 20:26
2

Question:

Do US states have any such system? Have they tried to discuss it? Texas, for example, has been sending migrants by bus to democratic-ruled cities. But is there a formal framework?

No.

Months before the American Revolution ended at Yorktown, Virginia 1781, the United States organized itself under the failed Articles of Confederation 1781-1789. This failed attempt at self government in the United States is rather similar to the modern E.U. in it's properties. It created a rather loose collection of independent states with a weak federal government unable to directly raise taxes and where important decisions require unanimous agreement. Primary federal revenue came from import levy's or unreliable funds donated by the States by unanimous agreement; otherwise the federal government had no income.

While this was an important stepping stone in the United States it was ultimately replaced by the United States Constitution 1789. Under the Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: The Federal Congress has full authority over immigration, and does not require consultation with individual states. The State's representatives speak for the states in Congress and reach a majority consensus rather than a unanimous consensus required by the Articles of Confederation or the current E.U.

And while few Americans who desire swift action on pressing needs would consider the U.S. Constitution an expedient or efficient governance. It has proven with effort to be workable, which is better historically from an American vantage than our experience under the articles of confederation.

Making this leap of organization in the United States was rather difficult. It required years of failed governance, federal financial defaults, and a rather clandestine campaign by the leading and most admired man in the country at the time, George Washington.

Europe which has millennium more history and ingrained nationalism than the United States faced has a more difficult job in making this adjustment to their collective organization. They might decide making such a leap is not in their individual state interests.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .