Hierarchies of Compassion: The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis and the United States’ Response

Hierarchies of Compassion:The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis and the United States' Response Tazreena Sajjad (bio) Introduction Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, more than 6.8 million refugees have been forced to cross borders into neighboring countries.1 A further 7 million people have been displaced internally within the country, while approximately 13 million are estimated to be stranded in war-affected areas, unable to leave due to heightened security risks, destruction of civil infrastructure, and lack of resources or information on where to find safety and accommodation.2 These numbers exceed the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' (UNHCR) initial estimate that 4 million Ukrainians would flee the conflict—making the Ukrainian situation the largest displacement crisis in contemporary Europe since the Bosnian War.3 As Ukrainian civilians flee the Russian onslaught, a majority of them have found refuge in eastern and central Europe, as well as in some parts in western and southern Europe. The largest recorded numbers of Ukrainians are in the Russian Federation (2.3 million), Poland (1.3 million), Germany (971,000), Czech Republic (415,859), Italy (159,000) and Spain (137,637).4 Significant numbers of Ukrainians are also now in the UK, the Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Romania, Austria, Bulgaria, France and Switzerland.5 Outside of Europe, Turkey, already hosting 3.7 million Syrians and over 320,000 other refugees and asylum-seekers,6 has absorbed 145,000 displaced Ukrainians.7 The high rates of refugee acceptance, particularly in Europe, have been facilitated by specific measures taken by both the European Union (EU) and acts of solidarity by private citizens and civil society organizations. While geographical proximity to Ukraine, Russia's aggressive measures and the long history of tensions between Russia and the rest of Europe explain to a great extent the high numbers of Ukrainians finding sanctuary in European countries, their ease of entry, and the marked difference in their treatment by state policies, border authorities, and private citizens, offer a sharp contrast to the experiences of Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis, Eritreans, and other asylum-seekers from the Global South in Europe. This notably different response has also highlighted issues of racism in refugee acceptance, and more broadly, the assumed race-neutrality and violence of border management systems.8 Following the Russian invasion, the United States has also expressed a strong message of solidarity to Ukrainians in crisis: committing to taking in one hundred thousand refugees,9 temporarily easing regulations at the U.S.-Mexico border for entry in the early days, and creating a multi-pronged process to welcome the newly displaced. This article acknowledges that as in Europe, geopolitical reasons, for example, the threat Russia poses to NATO countries and to the global world order have shaped the United States's generous response to Ukrainians in End Page 191 crisis. In fact, geostrategic considerations have long shaped U.S. refugee policy, particularly during the Cold War. At the same time, the paper argues that similar to the European case, racialized preferences embedded in the immigration system, policy responses, and in the public imaginings of the 'Self' and the 'Other,' are critical to understanding the public outpouring of support, the speed at which policies were implemented to assist the new arrivals, and the overall U.S. response. These preferences have been clearly evident when comparing the Ukrainian experience at the U.S. border and the ways in which the American public has signaled their welcome compared to the ongoing social and political reactions to Central American, Caribbean, African, and other asylum-seekers. The experiences of the Ukrainian reception also present a notable contrast to that of Afghan arrivals who were evacuated to the United States following the 2021 military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Furthermore, the relative ease with which Ukrainians have been able to receive humanitarian parole compared to Afghans, for instance, also offers yet another clear example of differential treatment. This article concludes that while geopolitics, domestic advocacy for welcoming certain groups of refugees, and waves of nativism and xenophobia have historically shaped and continue to influence United States's acceptance of refugees and asylum-seekers, the contrast presented by the Ukrainian case continues to reflect the established...