Abstract
The authors of this paper aim to create a framework of policy analysis to demonstrate assimilation processes of incoming refugees into society and how enacted policies are as much a response to transnational events as they are subject to public opinion, instead of rational principles or public values. The main objective is to outline the manner in which the conjunction of various policies may serve as the structure of institutional inclusion or exclusion in the United States. By looking at the context of refugees’ reception of a major metropolitan city, such as Los Angeles, California, over the lens of the four most recent presidential administrations, the authors analyze and compare the response of the host city over time in adopting and implementing policies. Since these policies could benefit the potential integration of refugees, specifically as it pertains to health, education, and economic self-sufficiency, this study seeks to determine how socially inclusive or exclusionary the policy framework is in each administration.
Using secondary data from the National Conference of State Legislatures, the authors categorize the types of policies within the above-mentioned social and economic indicators to examine the assumptions about inclusivity of migrants in a vast field of changing migration policy that obviates the challenges of assimilation into society. This is especially relevant as local governments tend to lack a clear direction when these policies are implemented because there is little to no consideration for the ramifications for certain sub-populations, such as refugees. Moreover, some of these sub-populations regularly include individuals who enter the country in vulnerable conditions and their admission is based on criteria contingent upon a fluctuating national mood, the lack of attention to the consistent and uniform application of these laws has the potential to design and implement policy that fails to establish successful mechanisms for social inclusion.