After Crisis of Unprecedented Migrant Arrivals, U.S. Cities Settle into New Normal
Asylum seekers receive assistance at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in New York City. (Photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)
At the recent Republican National Convention, Texas Governor Greg Abbott took credit for bringing the immigration debate to Democratic leaders: “I took the border to them,” he said. When his state in April 2022 began busing thousands of asylum seekers and other migrants to cities far from the Texas-Mexico border—dropping them off often with little to no warning—it struck many as a crisis. Chaotic scenes took place at city shelters and dropoff points, some of which—such as outside Vice President Kamala Harris’s residence in Washington, DC—had clearly been chosen for political reasons. Tent encampments sprouted on the streets of Chicago, Denver, New York, and other so-called sanctuary cities, which spent billions of dollars to provide basic necessities. The situation threatened to “destroy New York City,” Mayor Eric Adams famously warned last September.
Politically, the arrivals forced a rift within the Democratic Party, exposing the Biden administration on its most politically vulnerable issue and prompting wide bipartisan support for tougher border restrictions, including blanket denials of access to asylum for certain migrants. “Those buses will continue to roll until we finally secure our border,” Abbott said at the Republican convention. And indeed, city leaders in Chicago already are bracing for the prospect that Texas will bus up to 25,000 new migrants to the city before the start of the Democratic National Convention there in August.
Even as the busing of migrants has continued, cities have started to put the crisis in the rearview mirror. In the more than two years since the beginning of unprecedented arrivals, many cities have seemed to settle into a new normal. Fewer than 1,000 migrants per week sought shelter in New York City in July, the mayor’s office said this week, the fewest since October 2022. Local governments and nonprofits have made progress responding to newcomers’ initial needs by relying on new approaches and, in part, imposing restrictions on access to shelters. Now, the cities have entered a new phase for the immediate response, but border arrivals’ integration over the medium and long term remains a challenge. Local and state governments also are facing deep budget constraints, after spending massive sums on the lodging, feeding, and care of the arrivals while receiving only minimal reimbursement from the federal government.
Those policy responses may be all the more important if the record encounters witnessed at the U.S.-Mexico border over the past two years marked not a one-time surge but a fundamental reshaping of the patterns of irregular immigration and the resulting need for the government to more efficiently process cases. Most arrivals today are swiftly processed by federal authorities, with those permitted into the country pending a future immigration court hearing heading almost immediately to interior cities rather than spending extended amounts of time in border communities. Unlike in the past, many recent border arrivals are coming without friends or family in the United States upon whom they can rely. Cities could be tested again if recent election-related unrest in Venezuela leads to new largescale emigration from the country, as some analysts expect.
The more than 119,000 migrants bused from Texas as of July are only a portion of the several hundred thousand to have settled in interior cities. New York City says that since 2022 it has received more than 200,000 migrants, which would be the largest number by far, followed by Chicago and Denver (about 40,000 each) and, to a lesser extent, Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Boston. Secondary destinations may be emerging in California, Utah, and Florida, as migrants leave initial stopping points to meet up with family or friends or in search of more favorable opportunities.
This article reviews how interior cities have adapted to the rise in migrant arrivals and examines the challenges they continue to face.
Asylum seekers and other migrants arriving at the border without authorization typically receive critical initial assistance from organizations operating there before heading to their final destinations, often far away. Historically, this relocation happened gradually and organically, and often with the assistance of local nonprofits. What is different about the past two years is the orchestrated transportation of border arrivals by state governments, mostly Texas and, to a lesser extent, Arizona and Florida. The situation has also been affected by the sheer number of arrivals, with a record 2.5 million encounters at the Southwest border in fiscal year (FY) 2023, many coming without a strong social or familial network already in the United States. Given the scale and profile of recent arrivals, some observers have argued the federal government should take responsibility for deciding where to send them and, based on those decisions, duly compensate the receiving states and localities. This would be somewhat similar to the government’s process for refugees resettled from overseas. But absent a clear federal response, and with few examples of best practices to follow, cities have begun adapting policies within the constraints of their political environments and existing capacities, resulting in patchwork approaches.
Drawing from their ethos of welcoming immigrants, many cities quickly triaged arrivals and built on initial services over time. As cities such as New York and Denver began to feel overwhelmed and their capacities were stretched thin, authorities placed limits on services and in some cases even sought to discourage migrants from coming, using social media and even messaging trips to the U.S. border and beyond to discourage arrivals. During a trip to Latin America last fall, Adams, the New York mayor, warned that migrants were being given false information that an easy life awaited them in his city.
Once the initial chaos abated, cities adapted in different ways, with some commonalities and clear distinctions.
Housing and Shelter Limits
Housing is the most visible need of newly arrived migrants, and its provision can raise the most vexing political, fiscal, and capacity challenges. In New York City, for example, the focal point became the city’s universal right to shelter, which derived from a 1979 consent decree in the Callahan v. Carey case and was based in the state constitution’s guarantee of shelter to all who are homeless. Housing and immigrant-rights groups claimed arriving migrants were eligible under the consent decree, forcing the city to house newcomers in existing homeless shelters, temporary lodging facilities, and hotels. The right to shelter, city officials argued, became a magnet for migrants, especially those without established U.S. connections.
The situation soon became unsustainable. Months of negotiations between city officials and housing advocates concluded in March, when a judge approved a mediated settlement resulting in temporary changes to the right to shelter. The changes, which took effect in April and apply to migrants who arrived in the city after March 15, 2022, allow shelters to cap stays at 30 days for single adults (age 24 and above) and 60 days for individuals ages 18-23 and families. There are exceptions to the time limits, and early reporting found that 118 out of 192 applications for exemptions (61 percent) were approved. While adults must prove they are making strides towards self-sufficiency or meet an exemption to remain, families can reapply. Given these data, it is plausible to assume this new rule will only apply to a small number of people. Still, the changes are likely to have meaningful impacts. People who are not granted an exemption must find a place to live, which can further limit how they can get to work or their children attend school.
Chicago, Denver, and other cities have enacted similar shelter restrictions. In Chicago, shelter stays are limited to 60 days, though people can apply for extensions for extenuating circumstances. With a reduction in migrant arrivals, in April, Denver began closing shelters and instituted a 72-hour limit on stays (while also offering longer-term assistance to a small group of migrants, as described below). The high costs have made temporary housing the prime candidate for slashing, but critics warn this could be devastating for migrants and increase visible homelessness.
Consolidating Access to Assistance
Beyond shelter, cities faced major challenges meeting migrants’ basic needs such as for food or hygiene products, and assistance navigating transportation, education systems, legal services, and applications for public benefits. As buses of migrants became a regular occurrence, city leaders, nonprofits, and volunteers provided as many services as possible to as many arrivals as they could. Over time, cities refined their approaches, which continue to evolve with the changing situations.
Chicago’s extensive network of services, largely offered by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), has played a critical role. Since arrivals ticked up, city officials have been meeting migrants at the main bus depot and transporting them to temporary shelters, where they are assisted by NGOs. New York set up similar service centers, including Project Open Arms, which was started in August 2022 to support newly arrived school-age migrants entering the education system. Another New York service center was created in May 2023 and served more than 150,000 people in its first year, and an asylum application help center opened in June 2023. These networks cover a wide array of needs and aim to reach the most people possible.
In contrast, Denver—which has received the largest number of migrants relative to its population—in April shifted its approach to provide more intense services to a smaller number of people. The Denver Asylum Seekers Program is specifically designed for migrants who arrived in Denver prior to April 10, 2024 and who did not enter via the CBP One app (which since May 2023 has been the primary way that migrants can schedule appointments at ports of entry, after which they may go on to seek asylum).
Denver’s new program provides case management, access to legal services, connections to employers, and rental assistance. The city estimates that about 800 migrants are eligible. Those who arrived in Denver after the cutoff date or who entered via a CBP One appointment are still eligible for humanitarian services offered by city nonprofits, such as work authorization clinics, but not the wraparound assistance. This approach coordinates extensive resources for a specific group of migrants seen as the most vulnerable, even if relatively small. The full effects of Denver’s new approach are not yet known, though previous efforts by other agencies to provide temporary rental assistance have not had the desired long-term effect, with some families unable to afford rent once assistance stopped.
Overfocus on Work Authorization?
Asylum seekers and others who arrive at the U.S. border without authorization are typically not eligible to apply for a work permit until their application for asylum is submitted, and despite major strides in processing applications, the wait time is still several months. A common rallying cry from city and state leaders has been for the federal government to issue work authorization quicker. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) increased efforts to make migrants aware they could apply for work permits by using a targeted media campaign and providing educational materials for interior cities. In April, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a temporary final rule extending the validity of work permits from 180 to 540 days, thus reducing the risks of people’s employment authorization documents expiring while awaiting reauthorization. Cities, too, have focused on assisting migrants fill out work permit applications, with many even making applying for work authorization a condition for exemption from shelter-stay limits.
Without these changes, far fewer people would likely be authorized to work, thus making them more reliant on city supports or working in precarious situations. Yet the single-minded focus on work authorization as a guarantor of migrants’ self-sufficiency is somewhat short-sighted. Newly arrived migrants, regardless of how they entered, require support while awaiting work authorization and often afterwards, too.
The average employment authorization processing time as of June was three months (see Figure 1). For those eligible to apply right away—including beneficiaries of the humanitarian parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, or CBP One entrants—many still require assistance filing the application and must wait for it to be processed. Even those who obtain a work permit are not guaranteed employment, nor will their income necessarily be sufficient to afford rent and other living expenses in pricey cities.
Figure 1. Average U.S. Employment Authorization Processing Time, by Month, November 2022-June 2024
Source: Authors’ analysis of various months of application processing data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), “Immigration and Citizenship Data,” accessed July 30, 2024, available online.
Given lags in processing work authorization and limited medium-term services such as extended shelter or cash assistance, migrants often turn to informal, under-the-table employment. In New York and other cities, for example, news organizations noted a rise in newcomers, presumably without work authorization, earning money delivering food and doing other gig work. Working without authorization is risky; it puts workers at the mercy of employers or others, and could have negative impacts on migrants’ future immigration applications.
Still, absent more support at the federal level, advocating for work authorization has remained a constant refrain.
Thus far, the cost of migrant services to cities has far outpaced reimbursements through the federal government’s Shelter and Services Program (SSP), which is the only vehicle for offsetting those expenditures. The New York City comptroller estimates the city spent nearly $4.6 billion for shelter and services for newly arrived migrants through May 2024. Chicago’s leaders estimate the city spent nearly $434 million for food, shelter, and other services between July 2022 and July 2024. And Denver incurred between $216 million and $340 million in costs for food, education, housing, and other services from December 2022 to May 2024, according to the Common Sense Institute’s estimates.
Congress has provided funds for newly arrived migrant services nearly every year since 2019. In FY 2024, lawmakers appropriated $641 million for SSP, less than the $800 million awarded the year prior. FY 2024 funds are being delivered in two tranches: one through direct allocation, the other through a competitive grant process. The first slice, for $300 million, was released in April; 60 percent went to local governments and other recipients in border states and 40 percent to those in the interior (see Figure 2). Some of the largest recipients in the U.S. interior were in New York ($39.7 million, or 14 percent of the total), Illinois ($19.3 million, or 7 percent), and Colorado ($9.7 million, or 4 percent). The second tranche of funding is set to be awarded by October.
Figure 2. Receipt of Initial Tranche of Shelter and Services Program Funding, by State Amount and Share of Tranche, FY 2024
Source: U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “FY24 Awards from the Shelter and Services Program,” updated May 1, 2024, available online.
In addition to being paltry compared to the costs, SSP funds can only be used for services for migrants during their first 45 days after release from federal custody at the border. While it may be helpful to cover outlays associated with immediate needs, SSP is not suitable for medium- and long-term expenses outside of the 45-day period, such as for housing. Given this disconnect, a group of Democratic senators has urged appropriators to establish a new fund specifically for destination reception needs as part of the FY 2025 DHS appropriations. This fund would complement SSP funding, providing specific resources for migrants’ medium-term needs including housing, health care, and workforce development. As of this writing, the proposed DHS appropriations bill in the House did not include SSP money and no companion bill has been introduced in the Senate.
As Some Destinations Veer Left, Others Tack Right
New York, Chicago, and Denver became top destinations in part because of the Texas busing, but also through word of mouth and migrants’ tendencies to converge where they can find connections. Although these cities were generally categorized as receptive, they took on a different posture when resources ran thin, encouraging migrants not to come or to move elsewhere. Denver, for instance, purchased bus tickets for migrants to go to other U.S. cities. New York offered to pay for airfare, even internationally.
While other cities—including Dayton, Ohio; Detroit; and Pittsburgh—voiced a willingness to welcome some of the border arrivals, seeing in them a ready workforce and solution to population decline, they have as yet offered few policies encouraging this migration.
Elsewhere, some cities and states have doubled down on efforts to discourage asylum seekers and other unauthorized migrants from coming. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law SB 1718, which since July 2023 has mandated the use of the E-Verify system for confirming work authorization, required hospitals to inquire about patients’ immigration status, and criminalized the transport of unauthorized immigrants into the state. Since the law went into effect, many Florida businesses have reportedly faced worker shortages, especially in the construction and agriculture sectors that typically rely on migrant labor.
Texas, too, has moved towards criminalizing unauthorized migrants and migrant-serving organizations. In an unusual legal battle, state Attorney General Ken Paxton has accused the El Paso aid organization Annunciation House of human smuggling and sought to shut down its shelter and service program after nearly 50 years of operation. Similar attempts have been made against other migrant-serving organizations in Texas, including Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley and Team Brownsville. Through the sweeping SB 4, Texas also aimed to deputize all state and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration law; the law also imposes civil penalties for crossing the border without authorization. A federal appeals court has blocked the law’s implementation for now.
These enforcement-focused efforts, occurring alongside other jurisdictions’ provision of services to newly arrived migrants, showcases the stark divergence over immigration at the state level and underscores how polarized the issue remains.
Planning for an Uncertain Future
The roles of cities and states in responding to irregular migrant arrivals have become paramount. Over the last two years, some governments, particularly at the local level, have sought to provide services to newcomers, while others at state levels have created a chilling effect for unauthorized immigrants. Interior cities have seemed to adapt to their new normal, but the question of whether the situation is sustainable still looms.
Although irregular border arrivals have fallen sharply in 2024, amid rising Mexican enforcement and the Biden administration’s new policy further limiting access to asylum when border encounters hit a particular level, it is unclear if this lull will continue. Many cities have reduced shelter capacity and reframed their policies in response to lower numbers. However, it is plausible to assume they will be better able to respond if large numbers of migrants arrive again, since they did once before.
The outcome of the November election may offer new or different challenges. If Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump returns to the White House, his administration is likely to rescind or let expire programs for migrants with liminal statuses—including parole for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, as well as various grants of Temporary Protected Status—which would mean many migrants lose authorization to work and become at risk of deportation. This would create problems for individual migrants and their communities, as well as employers and service providers. Trump has promised a massive deportation campaign and other aggressive enforcement, which could lead to standoffs with “sanctuary” cities and an adversarial relationship. If Harris, the likely Democratic nominee, wins, the current Biden policies are expected to continue, with an emphasis on providing liminal statuses to more subsets of the unauthorized population, and quicker and longer-term work authorization. Shifts in Congress may lead to the possibility of more durable statuses for some immigrants holding temporary statuses, such as evacuees from Afghanistan and displaced Ukrainians. No matter the change in November and the federal policies that follow, more resources are clearly needed for receiving cities to meet the continued needs of recently arrived migrants.
Two years after the beginning of the crisis, U.S. cities far from the Southwest border have implemented an array of programs and found their footing after early, chaotic days. But the services provided have mostly been a reaction to immediate demands, rather than in anticipation of longer-term needs. Even as the number of new migrants fluctuates, their arrival in interior cities should be acknowledged as a sustained phenomenon requiring capacity to assist them on an ongoing basis. The federal government has largely declined to take the lead in developing mechanisms for assisting border arrivals’ onward movement and appropriately compensating cities that receive them. A change of course would be beneficial not only for those migrants but for the host cities as well.
Sources
Beaty, Kevin. 2024. Newly Settled Immigrants Are Being Evicted and in Some Cases Ending Up Back in the Streets. Denverite, May 2, 2024. Available online.
Bojorquez, Manuel. 2024. Florida’s Immigration Law Brings About Significant Unintended Consequences, Critics Say. CBS News, January 12, 2024. Available online.
City of Chicago. 2024. Cost Dashboard. Updated July 10, 2024. Available online.
---. N.d. New Arrivals Timeline. Accessed July 22, 2024. Available online.
City of Denver. N.d. Community Partners: Denver Asylum Seekers Program - FAQ. Accessed July 22, 2024. Available online.
Craig, Tim. 2023. Some States Spurn Migrants. The Rust Belt Wants Them. The Washington Post, December 8, 2023. Available online.
Eng, Monica and Carrie Shepherd. 2024. Chicago Braces for Potential Surge of Thousands of Migrants. Axios Chicago, July 23, 2024. Available online.
Kramer, Marcia and Dick Brennan. 2024. New York City Homeless Advocates Agree to Modified Right-to-Shelter Law Amid Migrant Crisis. CBS New York, March 15, 2024. Available online.
Marcelo, Philip. 2024. NYC Is Beginning to Evict Some People in Migrant Shelters Under Stricter Rules. Associated Press, May 22, 2024. Available online.
Mathurin, Desiree. 2024. Here’s How Denver’s New, Pared-Down Asylum Program Is Starting to Work. Denverite, April 25, 2024. Available online.
National Immigration Forum. N.d. Five Things to Know About Texas’ SB 4. Accessed July 24, 2024. Available online.
New York City Comptroller. 2024. Accounting for Asylum Seeker Services: Fiscal Impacts. Updated June 13, 2024. Available online.
NYC Health + Hospitals. 2024. NYC Health + Hospitals Celebrates One-Year Anniversary of the Arrival Center for Newly Arriving Asylum Seekers. Press release, May 22, 2024. Available online.
Office of Ed Markey, U.S. Senator for Massachusetts. 2024. Markey, Warren, Durbin Lead Call to Establish a New ‘Destination Reception Fund’ to Supplement Local Efforts, Support New Arrivals. Press release, May 23, 2024. Available online.
Office of the Texas Governor. 2024. Texas Apprehends Over 516,000 Illegal Immigrants. Press release, July 19, 2024. Available online.
Sanchez, Sandra. 2024. Texas Attorney General Going After 3rd Border Nonprofit that Helps Migrants. The Border Report, July 25, 2024. Available online.
Summers, DJ. 2024. The Ongoing Cost of Denver Migrants. Greenwood Village, CO: Common Sense Institute. Available online.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2023. DHS Supports Interior Cities by Educating Qualified Noncitizens on Work Permit Eligibility. Press release, September 6, 2023. Available online.
---. 2024. Temporary Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of Employment Authorization and Documentation for Certain Employment Authorization Document Renewal Applicants. Federal Register 89 (68): 24628-24676. Available online.
Zea, Tibisay. 2023. A New Underground Gig Economy Is Booming in New York City as Migrants Wait for Work Permits. PRX and WGBH, The World, September 28, 2023. Available online.