Research on the integration of refugees in the United States has uniquely focused on the experience of persons resettled with the refugee label. Yet many, if not most, refugees resettled in the United States have been ordinary migrants, persons whose departure from home was discretionary not compelled, but to whom the refugee label was affixed for political reasons. By contrast, the same body of research has ignored the experience of persons who exited home because of compulsion but arrived in the United States as self-settlers, a population consisting of persons granted asylum (the legal equivalent of refugee) and the still larger number of de facto refugees, whose quest for asylum has been denied. Correcting this deficiency, this paper contrasts the experiences of Vietnamese and Salvadoran immigrants to the United States, populations that fled violence, arrived simultaneously in the United States in large numbers, and have since grown in parallel fashion. Although most Vietnamese and Salvadorans arrived after passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, which defined eligibility for refugee recognition in universalist terms, the United States only granted de jure recognition to Vietnamese, denying legal protection to de facto refugees from El Salvador. This paper analyzes the history behind that decision, shows how it affected subsequent immigration and naturalization patterns, and considers long-term impacts on integration.
BattistiD. 2019. Whom We Shall Welcome: Italian Americans and Immigration Reform, 1945–1965. New York: Fordham University Press.
7.
BeyerG. 1992. “Affirmative Asylum Adjudication in the United States.” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal6 (2): 253–84.
8.
BeyerG. A.1991. “The Evolving United States Response to Soviet Jewish Emigration.” International Journal of Refugee Law3 (1): 30–59.
9.
BeyerG. A. 1994. “Reforming Affirmative Asylum Processing in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities.” American University Journal of International Law & Policy9 (4): 43–74.
10.
BlumC. P.1991. “The Settlement of American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh: Landmark Victory for Central American Asylum-Seekers.” International Journal of Refugee Law3: 347.
11.
Bon TempoC. J. 2008. Americans at the Gate: The United States and Refugees During the Cold War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
CaldwellP. E.2000. “NACARA: Minotaur or Midas.” Southern Methodist University Law Review53: 1560–98.
13.
CappsR.NewlandK.FrazzleS.GrovesS.AuclairG.FixM.McHughM., et al.2015. The Integration Outcomes of U.S. Refugees: Successes and Challenges. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
14.
CoffinoE. 2006. “A Long Road to Residency: The Legal History of Salvadoran & (and) Guatemalan Immigration to the United States with a Focus on NACARA.” Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law14: 177.
15.
ConnorP.2010. “Explaining the Refugee Gap: Economic Outcomes of Refugees versus Other Immigrants.” Journal of Refugee Studies23 (3): 377–97.
16.
CoutinS. B.2011. “Falling Outside: Excavating the History of Central American Asylum Seekers.” Law & Social Inquiry36 (3): 569–96.
17.
CoyleG.1989. “Statement, Chief of Staff, INS.” Hearings, Processing of Soviet Refugees: Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International Law of the Committee on the Judiciary. House of Representatives, 1989.
18.
DemmerA. C. 2021. After Saigon's Fall. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
DinnersteinL. 1982. America and the Survivors of the Holocaust. New York: Columbia University Press.
20.
DonatoK. M.FerrisE.. 2020. “Refugee Integration in Canada, Europe, and the United States: Perspectives from Research.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science690 (1): 7–35.
21.
EcksteinS. E.2022. Cuban Privilege: The Making of Immigrant Inequality in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
FederalR.1998. (November 24). “Suspension of Deportation and Special Rule Cancellation of Removal for Certain Nationals of Guatemala, El Salvador and Former Soviet Bloc Countries.” Proposed Rule V 63: 226.
23.
FitzGeraldD. S.ArarR.. 2018. “The Sociology of Refugee Migration.” Annual Review of Sociology44 (1): 387–406.
24.
GarcíaM. C. 2006. Seeking Refuge: Central American Migration to Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
25.
GarcíaM. C. 2017. The Refugee Challenge in Post-Cold War America. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
GoodmanA. 2025. “Left in Limbo: The Fight for Temporary Protected Status and the Illiberal Effects of Liberal Policymaking.” In Mastery and Drift: Professional-Class Liberals Since the 1960s, Brent Cebul, Lily Geismar, 219–36. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
HainesD. W. 2007. “Refugees.” In The New Americans: A Guide to Immigration Since 1965, edited by WatersM.UedaR., 56–69. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
HamlinR.2012. “Illegal Refugees: Competing Policy Ideas and the Rise of the Regime of Deterrence in American Asylum Politics.” Refugee Survey Quarterly31 (2): 33–53.
29.
HamlinR. 2021. Crossing: How We Label and React to People on the Move. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
30.
HamlinR.WolginP. E.. 2012. “Symbolic Politics and Policy Feedback: The United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees and American Refugee Policy in the Cold War.” International Migration Review46 (3): 586–624.
31.
HathawayJ. C. 2021. The Rights of Refugees Under International Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HathawayJ. C.FosterM.. 2014. The Law of Refugee Status. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
HeinJ.1993. “Refugees, Immigrants, and the State.” Annual Review of Sociology19 (1): 43–59.
34.
HeltonA. C.1984. “Political Asylum Under the 1980 Refugee Act: An Unfulfilled Promise.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform17 (2): 243–54.
JassoG, D.MasseyM.RosenzweigM.. 2006. “The New Immigrant Survey 2003 Round 1 (NIS-2003–1) Public Release Data.” Funded by NIH HD33843, NSF, USCIS, ASPE & Pew. http://nis.princeton.edu.
37.
KhuuT. V.BeanF. D.. 2022. “Refugee status, Settlement Assistance, and the Educational Integration of Migrants’ Children in the United States.” International Migration Review56 (3): 780–809.
38.
KralyE. P.Abbasi-ShavaziM. J.Torres ColónL. L.ReedH. E.. 2023. “Social Consequences of Forced and Refugee Migration.” Annual Review of Sociology49 (1): 129–53.
39.
LipmanJ. K. 2020. In Camps: Vietnamese Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Repatriates. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
40.
LoescherG.ScanlanJ. A.. 1998. Calculated Kindness. New York: Simon and Schuster.
41.
MartinD. A.1995. “Making Asylum Policy: The 1994 Reforms.” Washington Law Review70: 725.
42.
MeissnerD.1982. “Statement.” Hearings, October 14 and 16, 1981. Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
43.
MeissnerD.1988, January. “Reflections on the Refugee Act of 1980.” In . The New Asylum Seekers: Refugee Law in the 1980s: The Ninth Sokol Colloquium on International Law, pp. 57–66. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
44.
MeissnerD.1989. “Statement,” Hearing, March 9, 1989, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 225–40.
45.
NasawD. 2021. The Last Million: Europe's Displaced Persons from World War to Cold War. New York: Penguin.
46.
RobinsonW. C.1998. Terms of Refuge: The Indochinese Exodus and the International Response. New York: Zed.
47.
RodriguezL. A.1999. “Understanding the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act.” Journal of International and Comparative Law5 (2): 501–18.
U.S. Catholic Conference. 1986. The Orderly Departure Program: The Need for Reassessment. Unpublished report, November. A. Blair Dorminey Files, Box 1, Ronald Reagan Library.
50.
TherP. 2021. The Outsiders: Refugees in Europe Since 1492. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51.
TranV. C.Lara-GarcíaF.. 2020. “A New Beginning: Early Refugee Integration in the United States.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences6 (3): 117–49.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1990. Refugee Program: The Orderly Departure Program from Vietnam. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
55.
U.S. House of Representatives. 1982a. Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications of U.S. Immigration and Refugee Resettlement Policy, Hearings and Staff Reports, Committee on Foreign Affairs. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
56.
U.S. House of Representatives. 1982b. Refugee Issues in Southeast Asia and Europe and International Issues on Drug Enforcement and Administrative Law, Committee on the Judiciary. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
57.
U.S. Senate. 1982a. Refugee Problems in Southeast Asia: 1981, Staff Report, Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy of the Committee on the Judiciary, January 1982. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
58.
U.S. Senate. 1982b. United States as a Country of Mass First Asylum, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy of the Committee on the Judiciary, July 31, 1981. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
59.
U.S. Senate. 1990. Central American Migration to the United States: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs of the Committee on the Judiciary, July 1989. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
60.
WaibsnaiderM.2006. “How National Self-Interest and Foreign Policy Continue to Influence the US Refugee Admissions Program.” Fordham Law Review75: 391.
61.
WiesnerL.1988. Victims and Survivors: Displaced Persons and Other War Victims in Viet-Nam, 1954–1975. New York: Westport.
62.
ZolbergA.SuhrkeA.AguayoS.. 1989. Escape from Violence: Conflict and the Refugee Crisis in the Developing World. New York: Oxford.
