Coronavirus and Migration around the World: How the U.S. Response Stacks Up

Countries around the world have taken different approaches to migration policy as the coronavirus pandemic continues to impact every aspect of our lives. Policy changes in the United States have significantly restricted immigration, especially for children and asylum-seekers, and fostered dangerous conditions in detention facilities. Many European nations have employed a different approach, putting the health needs of vulnerable migrant populations, especially children, at the forefront of their policy-making. Responses in Europe, especially Portugal’s temporary expansion of social services, provide a guide for U.S. immigration policy as the pandemic continues to threaten the health and safety of immigrant children and families around the world.

The Unites States’ Restrictive Response

Among the most restrictive of the COVID-related policy changes in the United States is a ban on processing any individuals seeking asylum, including unaccompanied children. Turning away asylum-seekers puts their lives at risk by forcing them to languish in or return to unsafe situations. It also increases the potential spread of the virus in the communities to which they return, many of which may not have sufficient healthcare infrastructure to deal with large-scale outbreaks.

Though the overall number of individuals currently housed in immigration detention centers has decreased in the US, the decrease is not due to the release of vulnerable detainees. In fact, the government has affirmatively refused to release vulnerable populations from ICE detention. By May 27, 1,327 detainees across 54 facilities had tested positive for the coronavirus, and limited testing means the numbers are likely much higher. Reports confirm that ICE is failing to provide detainees with sanitation products and PPE, putting them at risk.

The United States has also failed to consider the economic needs of undocumented immigrants and their families in the initial coronavirus relief efforts. Congress failed to extend cash payments to undocumented immigrants and their families, even if some of their family members were citizens. Immigrants hold many of the jobs considered “essential,” including those in the agricultural, medical, and service industries, but are still not receiving necessities such as adequate PPE and hazard pay. Additionally, with unemployment at record highs, even those who are eligible for unemployment benefits may be reluctant to apply, as policies like the public charge rule make families fearful that those benefits will negatively impact their ability to obtain green cards.

Positive Policy Shifts in Europe

In March 2020 Greece requested support via the EU Civil Protection Mechanism following the sudden increase of refugees and migrants at its external borders. In response to the request, 14 European countries offered nearly 70,000 items of assistance. Photo © Greek General Secretariat for Civil Protection.

A number of European nations have taken a somewhat less-restrictive approach to immigration. Though nowhere near perfect, their policies better consider the health and safety of immigrants, including unaccompanied children.

Starting in mid-March, Greek officials began moving the most vulnerable people out of the densely populated and often unsanitary refugee camps on the islands and into temporary housing on the mainland. Thirteen other European Union members agreed to take at least 1,600 unaccompanied children from Greek refugee camps. Though the process of moving children has been slowed by efforts to contain the virus, Germany has taken in 50 children so far and has plans to resettle up to 500 more. Luxembourg has resettled 12 children. In both nations, children will go through a two-week quarantine before moving on to a more permanent placement.

Other European nations emptied their immigration detention facilities by releasing those in custody in recognition of unsanitary conditions and the inability of individuals to properly socially distance. As the detention facilities closed, immigrants and asylum-seekers were permitted to stay with family and friends or were moved to reception centers run by non-governmental organizations. In Germany, many refugees were moved from reception centers for refugees to hotels and hostels with empty rooms. Spain is an exception; the country did not make any attempts to empty detention facilities in Ceuta and Melilla, two cities administered by Spain in Morocco, leaving immigrants in dangerous conditions there.

Portugal’s Unique Response

In stark contrast to the United States, Portugal temporarily extended social services for asylum-seekers and those applying for any sort of immigration status, providing them with many of the same resources available to citizens. These services include access to healthcare, welfare benefits, the ability to have bank accounts, and the opportunity to make work and rental contracts. Though only temporary, access to these services will help keep vulnerable individuals, including unaccompanied children, healthy and safe during these difficult and unpredictable times.

Portugal also made efforts to move immigrants out of detention facilities and into temporary housing that was more sanitary and provided better access to healthcare services. When coronavirus started to spread in the new facilities, officials responded by increasing testing efforts and moving some migrants to even less-crowded temporary housing, such as empty apartments typically used by summer tourists.

Recommendations for U.S. Policymakers

While some countries are using coronavirus as an excuse to close down borders and stop the movement of vulnerable people seeking protection and safety, other countries, such as Greece, Germany, and Portugal, are taking a public health approach. Though these approaches have not been without their own shortcomings, they demonstrate that there are pragmatic, meaningful ways to provide immigrants with the health services and social systems they need to navigate the pandemic. The United States should follow the lead of other nations, creating policies and legislation that focuses on the health and safety of immigrants and asylum-seekers, both at our borders and within the country. By centering on health and safety concerns, and on the best interests of children, the United States can create more humane policies that protect the most vulnerable populations. 

Written by Madeline Padner, the Young Center’s Policy Intern – Summer 2020. Ms. Padner is a Law and Public Policy Scholar at Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law.