The record number of asylum seekers reaching the U.S. has put a strain on the border and local welfare systems alike. No longer restricted to border states, the crisis has affected much of the country and is now the top issue troubling American voters.
Despite the urgency of the crisis, neither the White House nor Congress seem capable of properly addressing the issue. But what if there were a way to remove the strain on local resources as cities struggle to manage new waves of migrants? Removing work restrictions for asylum seekers could relieve the fiscal burden that the border crisis has placed on U.S. communities.
One of the largest pull factors for migration to the U.S. is its strong economy and labor market, including for many arriving at the Southern border, indeed immigrants cite economic opportunity as the number one reason they come to the U.S.
Many migrants show up eager to work, but current U.S. policy requires that asylum seekers wait until 150 days after they file their asylum application before they can apply for permission to legally work in the U.S. With asylum seekers ineligible for most federal benefits, they are left to rely on state and community resources to support themselves.
Cities are straining to provide for housing and support costs, and local nonprofits are struggling to meet unprecedented demand. Residents protest that services are being allotted to newcomers rather than locals in need of assistance. New York Mayor Eric Adams complains that the cost of the migrant influx “will destroy” the city, with city leaders from Denver and Chicago chiming in. In Boston, migrants are sleeping at the airport as shelters are filled.
Complaints notwithstanding, border towns remain the most impacted, with the crisis costing California $21.76 billion and Texas $8.88 billion annually. Over three months in 2023, 42,000 migrants were dropped off on the streets of San Diego with nowhere to go. Texas cities Brownsville, El Paso and Laredo had to declare states of emergency due to influxes in 2023. The governors of California, Arizona and Texas deployed the National Guard to manage the crisis.
Absent a serious immigration policy and major reforms, it makes no sense to deny these would-be workers the right to seek out employment.
A recent study by the Department of Health and Human Services lays out the net positive fiscal impact asylum seekers and refugees can have on local economies through tax revenues: $123.8 billion over 15 years. And with the United States at near full employment, manual labor jobs are going unfilled; the risk that migrants will usurp jobs that would otherwise go to citizens seems low.
Of those recently approved for asylum, 79.4 percent are working age, compared to 61.9 percent of the U.S.-born population. Removing barriers to work would allow primarily able-bodied migrants to contribute to local communities rather than draining resources. Indeed, many of the most popular jobs for recent migrants overlap with industries facing labor shortages, including home health aides, cooks and childcare workers.
The current federal policy requiring the nearly six-month wait was enacted in 1996 to deter migrants from fraudulently claiming asylum to gain access to the labor market. At the time, the majority of migrants coming to the U.S. were single men coming from Central America in search of work, and levels of migration, including asylum claims, were substantially lower. The deterrent factor is no longer effective in the face of today’s record-breaking asylum claims, with over 2.4 million migrants entering the U.S. since Biden took office.
There have been efforts to expand opportunities for legal work in the past. In September, the Biden administration, through its extension of temporary protected status to Venezuelan migrants, opened up avenues of work authorization. But this piecemeal approach to the problem does little to address the overwhelming numbers of non-Venezuelans in the United States.
Last week the Biden administration acted to close the border when migration flows reach over 2,500 crossings a day. This, however, does not address the millions of asylum seekers already in the US. In the meantime, Congress should amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow legitimate asylum seekers to apply for work authorization and asylum simultaneously.
Critics of previous employment expansions fear that allowing migrants the right to work presumes their eventual admission into the United States. However, fixes to immigration law can make clear that it does not, while at the same time acknowledging the reality that many of these migrants have no visible means of support.
Temporary work permits can provide support for overburdened communities, benefit local economies and ensure that while in the United States, migrants are gainfully and legally employed.
Katherine Camberg is a research assistant with the American Enterprise Institute.