Hello Neighbors! Investigations of Housing and Social Cohesion of Afghan Refugees in the United States by Pamanee Chaiwat A dissertation accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture Dissertation Committee: Mark L. Gillem, Chair Arijit Sen, Advisor Hajo Neis, Core Member Howard Davis, Core Member Yizhao Yang, Institutional Representative University of Oregon Fall 2024 2 © 2024 Pamanee Chaiwat This work is openly licensed via CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 3 DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Pamanee Chaiwat Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture Title: Hello Neighbors! Investigations of Housing and Social Cohesion of Afghan Refugees in the United States Resettlement gives refugees a chance to restart and gain a normal life in a foreign land. For Afghan refugees, however, their unfamiliarity to American culture and norms, negative media portrayal, or perceived competition for limited resources may cause them to be socially isolated and bring about perceptions of otherness among neighbors. This may result in lowering neighborhood efficacy or community cohesion. While social cohesion has been gaining more ground in academic migration research in the last decade, limited research has paid attention to resettlement countries. To date, there is no published study on social cohesion in U.S. refugee-receiving cities. This leaves an underexplored gap of understanding regarding the spatial impact on social life and social cohesion in U.S. resettlement communities. In this examination, I employ a mixed-method approach including document analysis, interviews, surveys, and observations. I present two case studies: Sacramento, CA and Eugene, OR focusing on the housing experiences and social life of Afghan refugees. The framework is built upon theories of social cohesion in conjunction with refugee integration and the built environment. The investigation is centered around space and spatial qualities that promote social interactions and the relationships among community members. 4 This study seeks to determine how refugees make their presence in everyday residential and public spaces. The findings suggest that 1) a sense of belonging, privacy and control, and perceived crowding are key attributes of living places that promote both intergroup and intragroup interactions on daily basis; and 2) increased freedom of mobility has resulted in a dispersed residential pattern which positively associates with improved spatial integration. Ultimately, this study provides data-driven suggestions on housing and socio-spatial transformations for a refugee-receiving city. Keywords: Afghan refugees, U.S. refugee resettlement, refugee housing, refugee integration, social cohesion, social connections 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express sincere appreciation to Professor Mark Gillem who has been supportive of my career goals and who worked actively to provide me with the protected academic time to pursue those goals. I thank the committee members. Professor Hajo Neis has been working closely with me on various papers and refugee-related projects since the first year of my PhD journey. He has put trust in me more than I can ask for. His diligence and optimism, even in difficult times, have kept me working hard on this challenging topic. Professor Howard Davis has always been motivating throughout my journey. His critical feedback helped shape my research direction, making it more practical and accomplishable. Professor Yizhao Yang has been a true inspiration, bringing and sharing her expertise from both architecture and planning disciplines. Besides her crucial comments and suggestions, she has helped me find a path both in motherhood and academic life. Professor Arijit Sen’s ingenious work has encouraged me to pursue this research topic despite the challenge of bridging refugee studies and architecture scholarship. His meticulous critiques have helped scope the work leading to a pragmatic approach to the study. Each of the members of my dissertation committee provided me with extensive personal and professional guidance and taught me a great deal about both scientific research and academic life. This work would not have been possible without the support from the University of Oregon. The Promising Scholar Awards provided financial support for four years of my PhD studies as well as allowing me the opportunity of teaching experience. Pin Julaphong Thai Student Scholarship also provided additional funding. In addition, the study was financially supported in part by the Tokyo Foundation for Policy Research and Sylff 6 Association through the Oregon Sylff Fellowship 2021-2022 and Sylff Research Grant 2023- 2024. I am grateful to all of those with whom I have had the pleasure to work with during this study including individual research participants and refugee resettlement organizations. Especially, many thanks are due to the Ibrahimi family, my research assistants whose language competency and familiarity with the needs and ideas of the studied community have helped me during fieldwork and data analysis. I also thank the members of the Afghan communities in Sacramento and Eugene for their valuable input. I truly appreciate the courage and trust to share parts of their life despite any trauma. I am grateful for Afghans’ hospitality that welcomed me and my research team throughout the data collection and follow-ups. Equally important, I thank my friends at the University of Oregon and beyond. Our overlapping paths have made this lengthy PhD journey much more memorable and meaningful. I thank Annina Cizdziel for always supporting my work and helping me with every task I asked. Nobody has been more important to me in the pursuit of this project than my family. I would like to thank my parents and my brother, whose love and guidance are with me in whatever I pursue. Most importantly, I wish to thank my supportive husband and loving son for walking every step of this journey with me. Mahmut, thank you for never giving up on me. You have been fighting with me all along, from the start point and beyond the finish line. Kamil, I hope you are proud of me and my work. Thank you for being so patient while I work on this dissertation. 7 To those whose homes are too far to return and To those who dare to build their new home in a foreign land. 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 21 Research Questions .................................................................................................... 23 Scope of the Study ...................................................................................................... 25 Purpose and Significance ............................................................................................ 26 The Structure of the Dissertation ................................................................................. 28 CHAPTER II TOPICAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 31 Refugees and UNHCR ................................................................................................ 32 US Refugee Resettlement ............................................................................................ 37 History and Policies ........................................................................................ 37 Public Opinion on Refugee Intake ................................................................... 43 Post 9/11 changes in Refugee Policies, Attitudes, and Biases ........................... 46 Process of Refugee Resettlement in the U.S. ................................................... 50 Afghanistan ................................................................................................................ 55 Diversity and Ethnic Conflicts .......................................................................... 57 Demographic Characteristics .......................................................................... 60 Refugees from Afghanistan .............................................................................. 61 Architecture and a Typical House in Kabul ..................................................... 64 Political Situation after 9/11 ............................................................................ 73 The Taliban’s Return to Power in 2021 ........................................................... 78 Afghan Refugees in the United States .......................................................................... 81 Afghan Communities in Various U.S. States .................................................... 85 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 89 10 Chapter Page CHAPTER III LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 91 Refugee Integration Theory ......................................................................................... 93 Employment .................................................................................................. 95 Education ....................................................................................................... 96 Health ........................................................................................................... 98 Housing .......................................................................................................... 100 Social Connections ..................................................................................................... 110 Social Capital and Social Connections ............................................................. 101 Social Cohesion .............................................................................................. 117 Spatial Dimension of Resettlement ............................................................................. 123 Community From and Social Connectedness .................................................. 124 Spatial Qualities of Places in Resettlement Cities ............................................. 127 Housing and Sociability .................................................................................. 129 Landscape of U.S. Refugee Resettlement .................................................................... 132 U.S. Scenarios and Refugee Housing .............................................................. 136 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 142 CHAPTER IV: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 145 Research Design ......................................................................................................... 145 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 148 Populations ..................................................................................................... 151 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................... 153 Recruitment and Sampling Strategy ................................................................. 155 Roles of the Researcher and Research Assistants ............................................ 156 11 Chapter Page Case Studies .............................................................................................................. 157 Eugene, OR .................................................................................................... 158 Sacramento, CA .............................................................................................. 161 Methods ..................................................................................................................... 165 Document Analysis and Archival Research ..................................................... 165 Interview with Community Leaders ................................................................. 166 Interview with Professional and Resettlement Agencies ................................... 167 Interview with Afghan Refugees ...................................................................... 168 Neighborhood Walk ....................................................................................... 169 Community Surveys ........................................................................................ 170 Observations .................................................................................................. 172 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 173 Research Quality ............................................................................................. 174 Limitations and Research Biases ...................................................................... 175 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 177 CHAPTER V: HOUSING, NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SOCIABILITY ............................ 179 Housing Typology and Location ................................................................................. 180 Sacramento Case Study ................................................................................... 180 Eugene Case Study .......................................................................................... 198 Cross Case Study Comparison ......................................................................... 210 Housing Access and Ownership ................................................................................. 214 A short-term Apartment .................................................................................. 214 Being Hosted by Locals ................................................................................... 218 12 Chapter Page Owning a Home ............................................................................................. 221 Temporarily Staying with Other People ........................................................... 224 Unit Analysis .............................................................................................................. 225 Apartment Unit ............................................................................................... 225 A Detached House ......................................................................................... 227 Other Factors .............................................................................................................. 232 Gender Norms ................................................................................................ 232 Customs and Beliefs ........................................................................................ 235 Household Unit: Individual vs Family ............................................................ 236 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 237 CHAPTER VI: BEYOND HOUSING ........................................................................... 239 Religious Places .......................................................................................................... 239 Sacramento Case ............................................................................................ 240 Eugene Case ................................................................................................... 245 Ethnic Businesses ........................................................................................................ 251 Sacramento Case ............................................................................................ 252 Eugene Case ................................................................................................... 255 Park and Public Spaces ............................................................................................... 257 Sacramento Case ............................................................................................ 257 Eugene Case ................................................................................................... 259 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 261 13 Chapter Page CHAPTER VII: FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 263 Emerging Patterns ....................................................................................................... 263 Cluster of Houses ............................................................................................ 264 Little Pocket Parks ........................................................................................... 268 Home-Based Business Places .......................................................................... 272 Two Guest Lounges ........................................................................................ 276 Floor Seat ........................................................................................................ 280 Shoe Place ...................................................................................................... 283 Layers of Curtains ............................................................................................ 286 Evaluation of Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 289 Answers to the Research Questions ............................................................................ 293 CHAPTER VIII: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ............................ 297 Recommendations for Future Works ........................................................................... 298 Methodological Challenges and Recommendations .................................................... 300 Evaluation of Concepts ............................................................................................... 302 Concluding Thoughts ................................................................................................. 306 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 311 Appendix A Approval on Human Subjects Research ................................................... 311 Appendix B Consent Forms ........................................................................................ 312 Appendix C Recruitment Materials ............................................................................. 334 Appendix D Interview Questions ................................................................................ 341 Appendix E Surveys .................................................................................................... 344 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................... 349 14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1. Depiction of the Religious Persecution against the Huguenots ........................... 32 2.2. Global Displacement (as of December 2022) .................................................... 36 2.3. Selected global events and US refugee policies and laws ................................... 38 2.4. Refugee admission by region and selected key events ........................................ 42 2.5. American opinion-polling regarding refugee resettlement .................................. 44 2.6. U.S. refugee screening process .......................................................................... 52 2.7. Historic Silk Road and the Present Afghanistan .................................................. 56 2.8. Political Timeline of Afghanistan ....................................................................... 57 2.9. Ethnolinguistic groups in Afghanistan ................................................................ 58 2.10. Afghan migration timeline ................................................................................. 63 2.11. Traditional houses and new constructions staggering on the hills of Kabul ........ 65 2.12. Traditional Courtyard House and a Contemporary Courtyard House ................. 67 2.13. Typical Floor Plans of Traditional Courtyard House in Kabul ............................. 68 2.14. View of Interior Elevation from a Courtyard ....................................................... 69 2.15. Two Types of Courtyard Houses in Kabul .......................................................... 70 2.16. Ariel View of Kabul with Mid-Rise Apartment Buildings .................................... 71 2.17. Example Layout of four 2-bedroom Apartment .................................................. 72 2.18. A Living Room with Afghan Style Floor Seat ...................................................... 72 2.19. Refugee camps around Afghanistan’s border ...................................................... 76 2.20. Displaced Afghans by Country at the End of 2020 ............................................. 77 2.21. UNHCR estimated of where newly displaced Afghans could go in 2021 ........... 79 15 Figure Page 2.22. World map representing governments that have pledged to facilitate free travel of designated Afghans ............................................................................................ 80 2.23. Numbers of admitted Afghan refugees and immigrants with SIV ........................ 82 2.24. Afghan Evacuees’ route ..................................................................................... 83 2.25. Summary of DoD support to provide temporary housing and sustainment on eight DoD installations as of July 2022 .............................................................. 84 2.26. Afghan Immigrants in the United States ............................................................. 86 2.27. The map shows where Afghan evacuees were resettled ..................................... 87 2.28. Hossein Mahrammi and his family came from Kabul to the U.S. on SIVs ........... 88 3.1. Mapping Literature. ........................................................................................... 91 3.2. The Indicator of Integration Framework. ............................................................ 94 3.3. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs ............................................................................ 95 3.4. Four Dimensions of Housing. ............................................................................ 102 3.5. Links between Housing and Health. .................................................................. 106 3.6. Community Social Capital Model. ..................................................................... 113 3.7. Domains of Social Cohesion. ............................................................................. 119 3.8. Relationships Among Social Environmental Factors and Asylum-seekers’ mental health, well-being, and flourishing. .................................................................... 123 3.9. Freedom Village, Hamtramck, MI. ..................................................................... 137 3.10. West End Apartment in South Portland, ME. ...................................................... 138 3.11. Kateri Park Apartment in Portland, OR. ............................................................. 140 3.12. Lawrence Apartment in Portland, OR. ............................................................... 140 4.1. Research Design. ............................................................................................... 146 4.2. Summary Income Range of Survey Respondents ................................................ 153 16 Figure Page 4.3 Summary Educational Level of Survey Respondents ........................................... 153 4.4 Eugene’s City Zoning Map. ................................................................................ 159 4.5. Eugene’s Diversity Map. .................................................................................... 160 4.6. Sacramento’s City Structure. .............................................................................. 161 4.7. Sacramento’s Diversity Map. ............................................................................. 162 4.8. Two-dimension View of Urban Diversity. .......................................................... 163 4.9. Map of Sacramento showing Population with Afghan Heritage by zip code. ...... 164 4.10. Research Assistants and Afghan Community Leader in Sacramento ................... 167 4.11. Afghan Hospitality during Interviews at a Participant’s Home ............................ 168 4.12. Neighborhood walk with Research Participants ................................................. 169 4.13. Screenshots of the community survey on mobile device .................................... 170 5.1. Locations of Residential Sites, Sacramento Case. ............................................... 181 5.2. Photos of S1 and Figure and Ground Map ......................................................... 183 5.3. Photos of S2 and Figure and Ground Map ......................................................... 184 5.4. Photos of S3 and Figure and Ground Map. ........................................................ 185 5.5. Photos of S4 and Figure and Ground Map. ........................................................ 186 5.6. 4-Bedroom unit Floor Plan. ................................................................................ 187 5.7. Unit Layouts, One-Bedroom and Two-Bedroom ................................................ 187 5.8. Photos of S5 and Figure and Ground Map ......................................................... 190 5.9. Photos of S6 and Figure and Ground Map ......................................................... 191 5.10. Photos of S7 and Figure and Ground Map. ........................................................ 192 5.11. Photos of S8 and Figure and Ground Map. ........................................................ 193 5.12 Photos of S9 and Figure and Ground Map ......................................................... 194 17 Figure Page 5.13 Photos of S10 and Figure and Ground Map ....................................................... 195 5.14 Photos of S11 and Figure and Ground Map ....................................................... 196 5.15. Floor Plan of a Four-Bedroom House ................................................................. 197 5.16. Locations of Residential Sites, Eugene Case ....................................................... 199 5.17. Photos of E1 and Figure and Ground Map. ........................................................ 200 5.18. Photos of E2 and Figure and Ground Map. ........................................................ 201 5.19. Photos of E3 and Figure and Ground Map. ........................................................ 202 5.20. Duplex Floor Plan .............................................................................................. 203 5.21. Photos of E4 and Figure and Ground Map. ........................................................ 205 5.22. Photos of E5 and Figure and Ground Map. ........................................................ 206 5.23. Photos of E6 and Figure and Ground Map. ........................................................ 207 5.24. Photos of E7 and Figure and Ground Map. ........................................................ 208 5.25. Photos of E8 and Figure and Ground Map. ........................................................ 209 5.26. Advertisement and Signage of Real Estate Services for Afghans. ......................... 221 5.27. Home Gathering of Afghan Men ........................................................................ 222 5.28. Home Gathering of Afghan Men at Patio and in a Living Room ......................... 223 5.29. Men and Women cluster in groups by their gender ........................................... 225 5.30. Apartments with a semi-open concept kitchen .................................................. 226 5.31. Front garage gives more privacy to the living quarter ......................................... 227 5.32. Women go back and forth between kitchen and other areas .............................. 228 5.33. Men go upstairs without passing women’s gathering ......................................... 229 5.34. Unlike the courtyard that is reserved for females, men can also use backyard .... 230 6.1. Location of Mosques and Islamic Center in Sacramento .................................... 240 18 Figure Page 6.2. Exterior of SALAM and the main prayer hall ...................................................... 241 6.3. Reception Hall and the Community Center ........................................................ 242 6.4. Exterior and Interior of Imam Abu Hanifa Masjid ............................................... 243 6.5. Exterior and Interior of Masjid Aisha .................................................................. 244 6.6. Location of Religious Places Observed in Eugene ............................................. 245 6.7. Eugene Islamic Center ....................................................................................... 246 6.8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day and Eid Prayer ............................................ 247 6.9. Advertisement of the Event and Eid Celebration at the Pavilion .......................... 247 6.10. World Refugee Day at First United Methodist Church ....................................... 248 6.11. Emphatic Dinner at Presbytery at Cascade ......................................................... 249 6.12. Location of Afghan Stores in Sacramento ........................................................... 252 6.13. Storefronts of Afghan Businesses ........................................................................ 253 6.14. Inside Afghan Grocery Stores ............................................................................. 253 6.15. Afghan Furniture and Carpet Stores ................................................................... 254 6.16. Afghan Clothing Stores ...................................................................................... 254 6.17. Afghan Cuisine and Manti Food Truck ............................................................... 255 6.18. Eid-al Adha celebration at William B. Pond Picnic Facilities. ............................. 257 6.19. Religious Celebration and Community Picnic. ................................................... 258 6.20. Afghan families hiking and picnicking. .............................................................. 259 7.1 Emerging Patterns and Language .......................................................................... 263 7.2 The Impacts of Transition Space at the Entry and Level of Privacy ........................ 290 19 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Polls on support for the United States taking in refugees ....................................... 43 2. Changes of life patterns in houses of a traditional courtyard house and a contemporary courtyard house in Afghanistan ................................................... 66 3. Comparison of concepts and parameters of traditional and contemporary courtyard houses ............................................................................ 67 4. How experiences of adversity, loss, and trauma may impact resettlement ............. 99 5. Survey responses “What is important in a neighborhood?” ................................... 104 6. Place and its contribution to well-being during resettlement ................................. 129 7. Social forms of integration through socio-spatial dimension .................................. 133 8. Participant population details ............................................................................... 151 9. Recruitment method details .................................................................................. 155 10. Summary characteristics of the two case studies ................................................... 157 11. Data collection methods and sequences ............................................................... 165 12. Summary of typology and location, Sacramento Case ........................................... 180 13. Summary of typology and location, Eugene Case .................................................. 198 21 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION With more than fifty years of US refugee resettlement programs to draw upon, many researchers investigate integration outcomes and their measurements. Local refugee agencies offer employment, education, and health strategies to promote self-reliance, upward mobility, and competency in these domains. However, housing for these populations largely depends upon affordability and availability rather than promoting social connections. American cities, including metropolitan, suburban and rural areas, become more diverse upon the arrival of immigrants as well as refugees (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011; Lee, Iceland, & Farrell, 2014; Lichter, 2012; Perez & Hirschman, 2009). The unprecedented number of immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers contribute to the changes in spatial distributions as well as how their network impacts their settlement and residential concentration. Due to this reason, prioritizing affordability and availability, populations often settle in a dwelling unit or an area which, may not fit to their cultural needs and socialization norms. These differences in environment-behaviors altogether with perceptions of competition for limited resources, racial tension, and discrimination not only negatively impact the physical and mental health of first-generation immigrants and refugees (Szaflarski & Bauldry 2019) but also impede an integration process of a refugee and the cohesion of the receiving community overall. The topic of involuntary migrants, such as refugees and asylum seekers, and housing has always been closely associated as Flatau et al. (2015) elaborate “[h]ousing plays a fundamental role in the journey of refugees following resettlement in a host country”. Scholars investigate refugees and housing in many areas. For example, housing 22 pathways and access (see Forrest et al 2012; Mullins & Jones 2009; Rose 2019); housing affordability (see Murdie 2004; Carter & Osborne 2009) and impacts on health and well- being (see Ziersch et al., 2017), psychology of refugee homes (see Fozdar & Hartley, 2013); housing and integration (Phillips 2006). While social cohesion has been gaining more ground in migration research in the last decade, limited research has paid attention to resettlement countries. Despite being the world’s leader in this humanitarian action, no social cohesion study has addressed US refugee-receiving cities thus far. This leaves an unexplored gap of spatial integration and transforming places for a better social cohesion in US resettlement communities. In the field of architecture and urban design, it is essential to understand the place- people effects, which can bridge the gap between socio-residential patterns in relation to socio-spatial connections. Nevertheless, designing a place that facilitates interactions for an increasingly diverse community has been largely neglected as an area of study and there is a lack of supporting evidence as to place value. This leaves social connectedness and social cohesion to happen organically, if at all. This study thus explores a relationship between the built environment and social interaction outcomes in refugee-receiving neighborhoods. The study aims to 1) evaluate roles of housing and their impacts on social behavior; and 2) investigate refugees’ place-making, their mobility, and its effects on their socializations within their ethnic group as well as others. The study leverages the lived experiences of Afghan refugees to address the research question and investigate the socio- spatial needs of the different cultures. These are vital to developing an understanding of how neighborhood morphology, urban design, residential typology, and architectural design impact social behaviors. The research provide evidence-based suggestions that can be applied to design of housing and neighborhoods to better achieve cohesion within refugee-receiving communities. 23 This introduction chapter first discusses the research questions. Then, it is followed by the scope of study, lines of inquiries, research aims and objectives, the significance, and limitations. Finally, it outlines an organization of the dissertation. 1.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH DESIGN This study explores the relationship between the built environment and social interactions outcomes in refugee-receiving neighborhoods. This study is centered around two research questions: 1) How do physical environments, locations, and spatial patterns encourage social bonds and social bridges? 2) How can housing promote refugee integration and social cohesion? The investigation focuses on spatial roles that assist residents to overcome biases and mitigate conflicts which create a stronger and more cohesive community. The examination of refugees’ experiences is essential to understand how spatial conditions affect refugees’ perception of a city and encourage meaningful bonding and bridging interactions. Therefore, this dissertation comprehensively investigates the two questions through the following five inquiries. 1. What are the local refugee housing placement policies or strategies, if any? How has it been implemented? What are the placement criteria and how have they directed spatial patterns in a city? 2. What characteristics of housing impact refugee interactions with their neighbors? How do they encourage social bonds and social bridges? 3. What dimensions of urban forms encourage social interactions and how have they contributed to public space participation and refugees’ integration at both a neighborhood and a city scale? 24 4. How has a city’s segregation history contributed to the spatial pattern? How do refugees create their place in a host society? What are their residential choices? 5. How do socio-spatial environments promote integration which can benefit social, economic, and environmental aspects of a U.S. receiving city? Based on the research questions above, I post the correspondent hypotheses. These hypotheses focus on architectural aspects of users’ satisfaction and residential stability, housing typologies and characteristics, urban morphology and transportation, influence of historical urban patterns and settlement, resettlement experience and refugees’ well-being. In order to compare how the spatial characteristics of a receiving city impact the social behaviors of a refugee, I employed cross-sectional comparative case studies: Sacramento, CA and Eugene, OR. The Sacramento Case offers an exploration where there are established Afghan communities with a high number of Afghan immigrants and refugees. The Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA Metro Area has the highest percentage (0.8 percent) of Afghan immigrant population in the nation. In contrast, the Eugene Case investigates a recent refugee-receiving city without an established Afghan community. With the stark differences in population size and settlement timelines, the two cases allow me to compare and contrast the settlement pattern of the studied population. Uncovering similarities and differences of living experiences and social outcomes is the key findings of the study. Because of this reason, I designed the study with the following variables: • Independent variable: Different neighborhood morphologies, housing typologies, and urban form • Dependent variable: Neighborhood experiences and social outcomes after the resettlement • Controlled variable: Post 9/11Afghan refugees 25 1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY While many studies define refugees as a sub-type of immigrants, their unique nature of migration and displacement mean that refugees have their own way of place making and stronger cultural attachments. These qualities influence their changes in living environment and participation in public space. Despite their immigration or refugee statuses, the term ‘refugee’ used in this dissertation refers to “people forced to flee their own country and seek safety in another country” (UNHCR, n.d.). In this study, I define research participants as Afghan refugees who seek safety in the U.S. post 9/11. Their status may include but are not limited to: refugee, Special immigrant Visa (SIV), parolee, asylee, etc. I purposely chose Afghan refugees as an actor of investigation for three main reasons. 1) Potential biases on Afghan communities due to post-9/11 media portrayals and the polarized politics stemming from prolonged US military presence in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Afghan community has experienced the exacerbation of Islamophobia and discrimination against Arab and Muslim sentiments in recent years (Itaoui & Elsheikh, 2018). Nonetheless, it is also important to note that Afghan refugees did receive some positive welcomes, especially from veterans and Republicans (CBS News/YouGov poll, April 17- 20, 2021 cited in Solender, 2021). 2) Afghans possess high cultural distance, including cultural norms, world views, attitudes, perceptions, and ideas, to stereotypes of Americans, Afghan refugees in the U.S. report that their unfamiliarity with American culture makes it difficult for them to get to know their neighbors (Peñaloza, 2021). 3) It is highly possible to expect significant numbers of Afghan immigrants and refugees coming to the U.S. for many years to come. The Taliban takeover in 2021 marked the beginning of mass human displacement and migration (UNHCR, 2022). 26 Despite Americans becoming more heterogeneous, these biases and differences may inform their interactions, which is crucial to understanding a process of conflict mitigation and the formation of social bridges. As we anticipate a rising number of Afghan immigrants and refugees in the U.S., it is vital to understand how to encourage their integration and promote community cohesion, not only economically but also socially. The fall of Saigon resulted in 100,000 refugees admitted in 1980s to a million Vietnamese immigrants in the United States 20 years later and more than 2 million at present. The potential of a similar phenomenon occurring from American occupation and conflict in Afghanistan cannot be overstated. 1.3 PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE This study focuses on U.S. refugee resettlement programs and housing practices. It intersects three theoretical domains: refugee integration, social relation, and built environment. Specifically, an examination of spatial roles i.e., residential patterns, mobility, and architectural characteristics, that influence social outcomes and everyday experiences is the center of this dissertation. These aspects can promote or impede neighborhood cohesion and refugee integration processes. Therefore, an examination of refugees’ everyday experiences is essential to understand how spatial conditions affect refugees’ perception of a city and encourage meaningful bonding and bridging interactions. Moreover, there is a large knowledge gap regarding refugees and their social life in the U.S. To date, there is no published study on social cohesion in an American refugee resettlement city. An increasing number of refugees worldwide, along with exacerbated tension between refugees and a host community, have prompted many scholars to investigate social cohesion in a receiving community in order to propose policies and 27 interventions. Much research on the topic has been conducted on displaced populations and refugee camps (See Acosta & Chica, 2018; Harb & Saab, 2014; Betts et al., 2023; Fajth et al., 2019). Limited research has paid attention to resettlement locations such as Australia (see Fozdar, 2012; Dandy & Pe-Pua, 2015; Bansel et al., 2016; Nathan et al., 2010), the United Kingdom (see Harris & Young, 2009; Rutter, 2015), Eastern Europe (see Tawat, 2016), and Canada (see McLellan, 2004; Costigan et al., 2022). This dissertation contributes to the growing published social capital literature. I hope this study will help bridge the knowledge gap and expand current academic thinking to also cover architectural and urban design aspects of a refugee-receiving city. This study adds to the discourse a significant depth of understanding of the built environment and its impacts on social relationships that promote better local integration of a globalized community. Equally important, this profile of refugees’ social ties provides policy makers and program providers with a much greater understanding of their relational context in which refugees reconstruct their lives in the United States. As transdisciplinary research, this study will support integrative and sustainable practices of housing and refugee resettlement in order to arrive at a more connected society in the time that senses of place and belonging are eroding. The feeling ‘home’ goes beyond housing to include community. This is fundamental to everyone, but especially to involuntary migrants such as the studied population. The objective of this study is to present the physical challenges that a receiving city considers and responds to during the resettling of refugees. This comparative case study analysis will result in the development of assertions and propositions that may form the theoretical underpinning for a revised or expanded understanding of how the built environment supports the social lives of hosts and refugees in a receiving community. 28 Ultimately, I aim to provide a design strategy for housing and urban design that encourages an integration process. 1.4 THE STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION I organize this dissertation into eight chapters. This chapter introduces the research problem of housing, refugees in the U.S., and social sustainability issues. It also presents a scope of the study and lines of inquiry, research significances, and the organization of this dissertation. Chapter II provides a background of the studied population and information on U.S. refugee resettlement. It explores a brief history of contemporary migration in Afghanistan and the process that the studied group, Afghan individuals, undergo in order to gain admission into the United States as well as current U.S. refugee policies. In Chapter III, I present a literature review of the three theoretical concepts: refugee integration, social relation, and built environment under the scope of U.S. refugee resettlement and housing practices along with their implications on policies and practices. These theories lay the theoretical foundation of this study. In Chapter IV, Research Methodology, I present a research design, methodology, and details of two case studies: Sacramento, CA and Eugene, OR. In this chapter, I detail the studied population, recruitment methods, ethical considerations, and limitations. Chapters V and VI highlight results from the two case studies. In Chapter V, Housing, Neighborhood, and Sociability, I discuss the impacts of housing access, ownership, housing typologies and locations and their influences on research participants’ experience and their sociability. Additionally, I note other factors such as gender, cultural comfort, beliefs, and life priorities that influence living experience and social life. Chapter VI, Beyond Housing, explores a broader landscape of social spaces. I confer Afghans’ 29 mobility and sociality that encourages social bond and social bridge activities. The exploration includes parks, ethnic stores, and mosques. In Chapter VII, I present findings of the study. I propose seven culturally based patterns informed by A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction (Alexander et al., 1977). Then, I offer my evaluations of the research hypotheses and my answer to the two research questions. Lastly, Chapter VIII discusses methodological challenges and recommendations for future works along with concluding thoughts. 31 CHAPTER II TOPICAL BACKGROUND This chapter presents social and historical contexts that provide a broader view of the research problems. Four topics are discussed as follows: First, I present a definition of the term ‘refugee’ and related terms. This provides a common nature and general qualities of the studied population and distinguishes them from economic immigrants. Additionally, I offer an evolution of various global agencies that support refugee and displaced populations as well as the current state of worldwide displacement and refugee problems. Second, I supply information on U.S. refugee resettlement programs and their pathways to arrive in the U.S. I present a comprehensive history and policies for receiving refugees from the 1900s to the present, involving refugees from various countries. Then, I discuss historical and contemporary public opinions on these programs along with discussion of the change in perception towards refugees post 9/11. Third, I give an overview of the sociopolitical circumstances of Afghanistan and demographic information pertinent to this research. Furthermore, I highlight the multiple waves of Afghan migrations and discuss socio-political circumstances that hinder these expatriations. This helps illustrate the characteristics of each wave of migrants along with an understanding of the political dynamic in Afghanistan of the last 50 years. Lastly, I describe details of Afghans in the U.S., which are the target population of the study, including admission processes and pathways of Afghan refugees, SIVs, and asylum seekers after 9/11, I also discuss the situation after the Taliban took over in 2021. Furthermore, I explain Afghans’ destinations in the U.S., as well as some Afghans’ customs and norms that might pose potential challenges upon their resettlement in the U.S. 32 2.1 REFUGEES AND THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES The term refugee comes from the French word réfugié, which specifically referred to the exodus of French Huguenots to Protestant countries, including Protestant England, the Netherlands, and Germany (Marriam-Webster, n.d.). Multiple waves of religious violence and persecution between 1560 to 1760 created a contentious period in European history (The Huguenot Protestant, n.d.). Although Henry IV of France promulgated the Edict of Nantes in 1598, which granted a large measure of religious liberty and civil rights to the Protestant Huguenots for nearly a century, its revocation in 1685 caused over 400,000 French Protestants to leave France in exile (Brain, 2021). Over time, the word refugee has become commonly used. For the purposes of this study, I use the term ‘refugee’ to refer to “…anyone who was forced to flee to a place of safety, often because of danger or persecution because of religious or political beliefs…” (UNHCR, n.d.) regardless of their legal status. Their status may include but is not limited to Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), parolees, asylum seekers, or refugees, etc. Figure 2.1: Depiction of the Religious Persecution against the Huguenots (The Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre), vers 1572-1584 by François Dubois (Musée cantonal des Beaux-Arts de Lausanne) 33 Prior to the end of World War II, there was no clear legal distinction between refugees and immigrants until the term was defined and protected under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol (What is the difference, 2022). During WWI, displaced peoples did not have international recognition until the League of Nations' Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees introduced the Nansen Passport. Nansen Passports were internationally recognized and effective from 1922 to 1938, granting rights to half a million people to settle in a new country (History of UNHCR, n.d.). During WWII, conflicts uprooted and displaced millions of people across Europe. This led to the formation of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), which was active between 1943 to 1947. The UNRRA assisted displaced persons and refugees with social welfare and repatriated them after the end of the war. However, despite the works of UNRRA, the international community was acutely aware of the refugee crisis following the end of WWII. Succeeding UNRRA, the United Nations established the International Refugee Organization (IRO) in 1946. The organization was the first international agency to deal with all aspects of refugees’ lives. IRO operations ceased in 1952 (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.), and it was then replaced by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which was founded in 1950. UNHCR acts as the guardian of the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which consolidate previous international laws and guidelines with respect to refugees and provides the most comprehensive codification of the refugees’ rights. Despite its initial focus on Europeans uprooted by wars, UNHCR quickly moved to assist and expand its responses to crises around the world. UNHCR’s responses to an uprising in Hungary in 1956 shaped the way humanitarian organizations would deal with refugee crises and resettlement efforts in the years to follow (History of UNHCR, n.d.). 34 In 1958, UNHCR was tasked to deal with Chinese refugees in Hong Kong while simultaneously handling Algerian refugees who had fled to Morocco and Tunisia in the wake of Algeria’s war for independence (History of UNHCR, n.d.). This was in addition to numerous refugee crises throughout Africa’s decolonization in the 1960s. These responses marked the beginning of a wider, global mandate in refugee protection and humanitarian assistance. In 1967, the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees was ratified to remove the geographical and temporal restrictions of UNHCR under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The 1967 Protocol was made to address the “new refugee situations that have arisen since the Convention was adopted and the refugees concerned that may therefore not fall within the scope of the Convention” (Protocol relating to the Status, 1966). The following are definitions of different categories that UNHCR assists: • Refugee: someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Refugee status is given to applicants by the United Nations or by a third-party country. According to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by its 1967 Protocol, a refugee is a person who is: 1) outside their own country; 2) has a well-founded fear of persecution due to his/ her race, religion, nationality, member of a particular social group or political opinion and; 3) is unable or unwilling to return. 1 • Asylum seeker: a person who has fled from his or her own country due to fear of persecution and has applied for (legal and physical) protection in another country but has not yet had their claim for protection assessed. A person remains an asylum seeker until their protection ‘status’ has been determined. • Internally displaced person (IDP): someone who is living inside the borders of their own country but is unable to safely live in their own home or region. 1 The American Migration Council (2021) notes that the international definition of a “refugee” encompasses only a subset of the entire population of forcibly displaced individuals. Individuals who are not defined as “refugees” may be forced to leave their homes for reasons other than “a well-founded fear of persecution.” For instance, as of 2020, there were 3.9 million Venezuelans displaced abroad who did not qualify as either refugees or asylum seekers. 35 • Stateless persons: someone who does not have a nationality recognized by any country. Stateless persons have great difficulty crossing borders and are often marginalized, not having equal access to health care and opportunities in work and education. • Returnees: refugee or internally displaced person who has returned to their country or area of origin to remain there permanently. However, they are not yet fully reintegrated into their community. A returnee loses their refugee status once they return. (UNHCR.org, 2024) The 1951 Refugee Convention is underpinned by several fundamental principles, including non-discrimination, non-penalization, and non-refoulement. Most notably, the core principle of non-refoulement asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This has become a customary rule of international law which strives to ensure that everyone can exercise their rights to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another state. Thus, there are three internationally recognized durable solutions for IDPs and refugees: 1) to return home voluntarily 2) to integrate locally 3) to resettle in a third country The convention also lays down standards for the treatment of refugees. This includes access to the courts, primary education, work, and the provision for legal documents including a refugee travel document in passport form. While UNHCR estimates that over 70 percent of refugees will eventually be able to return to their home country, in reality, many refugees end up spending prolonged time in exile, awaiting to return home (UNHCR, 2022). According to UNHCR, only seven percent of refugee populations worldwide are projected to need resettlement; and only just one percent has access to resettlement annually (Finding durable solutions, 2021). 36 In 2001, UNHCR States Parties issued a declaration reaffirming their commitment to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, and they recognized that the core principle of non-refoulement is embedded in customary international law (Declaration reaffirming principles, 2001). Currently, UNHCR is made up of 149 States Parties (out of 192 nations). The organization operates in over 130 countries. Figure 2.2: Global Displacement (as of December 2022) (UNHCR, 2023) As of 2022, UNHCR reported that there were 108.4 million forcibly displaced people worldwide. The number rapidly increased from 82.4 million in November 2021. This number includes 35.3 million refugees, 5.4 million asylum-seekers, and 62.5 million IDPs. More than two-thirds of all refugees under UNHCR’s mandate come from just six countries: the Syrian Arab Republic (6.8 million), Ukraine (6 million), Venezuela (4.1 million), Afghanistan (2.6 million), South Sudan (2.2 million), and Myanmar (1.1 million). Third Country Solutions for Refugees: Roadmap 2030 (2022) reports a large gap between resettlement needs and actual annual departures. Thus, the organization commits to expanding resources and assistance for sustainable resettlement to incrementally increase the capacity to resettle 10,000 more departures annually. The Roadmap states that “2019 [is] the starting point, the Strategy sought a cumulative total of over 1 million refugees being resettled by the end of 2028. 220,000 refugees” (p.14). 37 2.2 U.S. REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT The United States has a long history and tradition of offering refuge to those fleeing violence and war. Even prior to the formalization of the resettlement process, “initial migration to the North American English colonies was primarily refugees fleeing oppression and persecution. The Pilgrims’ search for a place to freely practice their religion lies at the very root of American identity” (Haines, 2015, p.1). 2.2.1 History and Policies U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) details their history in their Refugee Timeline (2023). Over the last century, the United States has implemented multiple Presidential directives and policies which opened doors to many refugee groups. The U.S. Congress first created the Bureau of Immigration to oversee immigrants, displaced persons, and refugees in 1891. The Bureau of Immigration and the Bureau of Naturalization were merged into the United Immigration and Naturalize Services (INS) in 1933. After the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, President Truman authorized a Presidential Directive on Displaced Persons, which expedited their admission into the U.S. within the existing framework of immigration law. The President further urged Congress "to pass suitable legislation at once so that this nation may do its share in caring for homeless and suffering refugees of all faiths” (Truman, January 7, 1948). Later that year, Congress passed the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, which allowed refugees to enter the U.S. within the limitations of the existing quota system. The law required that admitted displaced persons find a place to live and a job that would not replace a worker already in the country. While the Act aimed to address the nearly seven million displaced persons in Europe impacted by World War II, only around 350,000 displaced persons were admitted 38 before it expired in 1952. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) then came into effect in 1952, restructuring contemporary immigration law. Figure 2.3: Selected global events and US refugee policies and laws (illustration: author, 2022; data source: refugee timeline, USCIS, retrieved September 2022a) After 1952, there were several laws and refugee programs that addressed specific displaced persons and refugee groups under a specific event. Such laws included: • The Refugee Relief Act of 1953 addressed refugees from communist regimes. • The Hungarian Escape Program between 1956-1958 addressed Hungarian refugees specifically. • The Azorean Refugee Act of 1958 provided shelters for Portuguese earthquake victims. 39 • Cuban Refugee Programs and the Airlifts after the Cuban Revolution in 1959. • The Hong Kong Parole Program between 1962-1966 authorized Chinese refugees who had fled to Hong Kong to enter the U.S. Additionally, the passage of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 allowed Congress to provide monetary assistance to refugees fleeing from communist countries during the Cold War. It also allowed nearly 20,000 refugees to enter the U.S. under the Attorney General’s parole authority between 1960-1965. Between 1921 to 1965, the U.S. used the National Origins Formula to set immigration quotas for people from the Eastern Hemisphere based on national origin. The 1965 Amendments to INA marked an important step which abolished the National Origin Formula from US immigration policy. Consequently, the amendment established a preference category for conditional entrants: • Aliens in noncommunist countries who had fled a communist country. • Aliens from the Middle East who were unwilling to return due to persecution or fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion. • People who were uprooted by catastrophic natural calamities as defined by the president. The INA marked the first time Congress provided a permanent basis for the admission of refugees. While the Act initially set preference categories applied only to Eastern hemisphere countries, Congress passed further legislation in 1976 and 1978 that made the status available to all refugees. Despite many pre-existing policies and long-established humanitarian programs, the U.S. only joined the UNHCR States Parties in 1968 after the enactment of the 1951 Refuge Convention and 1967 Protocols. With the fall of Vietnam in April of 1975, the U.S. 40 faced the challenge of resettling hundreds of thousands of Indochinese using a Refugee Task Force and temporary funding. This was even though the Indochinese Immigrants and Refugees Act being enacted in 1975. These challenges triggered Congress to standardize resettlement services for admitted refugees and pass the 1980 Refugee Act. This Act incorporates the definition of "refugee" as used in the UNHCR Protocol. It also provides for the regular and emergency admission of refugees and authorizes federal assistance for the resettlement of refugees and other legislative purposes. The 1980 Refugee Act created a uniform and comprehensive policy to proactively address refugee admissions by: • Removing the geographic and ideological limits on the definition of “refugee” • Providing the first statutory basis for asylum. • Creating the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to oversee resettlement programs under the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). As numbers of people requesting asylum increased, INS opened the “Asylum Officer Corps” in 1991 in seven locations across the U.S.: Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA; Chicago, IL; Arlington and Houston, TX; Newark, NJ; and Miami, FL. The year after its creation, more than 100,000 people filed for asylum. The INS administered refugee admissions until the USCIS was established and began operations in 2003. Following 9/11 and the subsequent creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002, the INS divided into three organizations: the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). At present, USCIS is the primary agency that oversees and administers refugee and asylum affairs in cooperation with DoS, HHS, and other agencies. The 1980 Refugee Act provides the legal basis for today’s U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). Under this Act, the President, in consultation with Congress, sets the 41 annual numerical ceiling of refugee admissions and the allocation of these admissions to refugees coming from various parts of world. The numbers of refugees admitted to the U.S. have fluctuated significantly over the years, reflecting the varying priorities of presidential administrations (Ward & Batalova, 2023). Since the enactment of the 1980 Refugee Act, the United States has admitted more than three million refugees for humanitarian reasons. The State Department and DHS are the primary agencies that assess the viability of different refugee populations for admission, as well as the capacity of U.S. government officials to process them. Currently, there are nine national resettlement agencies working with the Department of State (DoS) to implement refugee intake and placement. After resettling, these populations receive initial assistance from ORR, under HHS. The support for new arrivals includes, but is not limited to: financial and medical assistance, case management services, language classes, job training, housing availability, school availability, and employment services (US Refugee Admissions, n.d.). The duration of assistance varies by location and local agencies. Ultimately, agencies provide support which aim to help refugees become self-sufficient. Figure 2.4 illustrates numbers of refugees admitted in conjunction with the selected key events. The inception of the Refugee Act marked the all-time high of refugee intake whereby more than 200,000 refugees (largely from Vietnam, Cambodia, and other Southeast Asian countries) were admitted into the U.S. within a single fiscal year. This stands in striking contrast to the Trump administration’s refugee ceiling of 18,000 during the 2020 fiscal year. The all-time low of admitted refugees was in 2021, with only 11,411 admissions. 42 Figure 2.4: Refugee Admission by Region and Selected Key Events (Illustration: Author, 2022; Based graph of Refugee Admission by Region: Refugee Processing Center, 2022) Key Facts about Refugees to the U.S. (2019) by PEW provides the following details: From fiscal years 1990 to 1995, an average of about 116,000 refugees arrived in the U.S. each year, with many coming from the former Soviet Union. However, refugee admissions dropped off to roughly 27,100 in fiscal 2002, a new low at the time, after the U.S. largely suspended admissions following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Refugee admissions rebounded from this low point [nearly a decade later]. From fiscal 2008 to 2017, an average of about 67,100 refugees arrived each year. Half or more of refugees during this time came from Asia, with many from Iraq and Burma (Myanmar)… Since fiscal 1980, 55% of refugees have come from Asia, a far higher share than from Europe (28%), Africa (13%) or Latin America (4%) … Krogstad, 2019 In addition to its refugee programs, the U.S. also grants protection for immigrants from selected countries through Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for a specific period of time. The status protects immigrants from deportation and permits them to legally live and work in the U.S. As of 2022, immigrants from 15 designated countries are eligible for TPS: 43 Afghanistan, Burma, Cameroon, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen. While TPS offers safety for people from these designated countries who may be in danger if they return to their country of origin, the program is temporary and does not offer a path to a lawful permanent resident status like those receiving a refugee status (USCISa, 2022). 2.2.2 Public Opinion on Refugee Intake Year Country/Region Number or type of refugees described in question % Approve /Support % Disapprove /Oppose 2022 Ukraine Up to 100,000 2018 Honduras/Centra l American countries Several thousand 2015 Syria At least 10,000 1999 Kosovo Several hundred ethnic Albanian refugees from Kosovo 1979 Vietnam Many Indochinese refugees/so-called boat people 1958 Hungary 160,000 1947 Europe 10,000 1946 Europe More Jewish and other European refugees than allowed by law 1939 Germany 10,000 refugee children Table 1: Polls on Support for the United States’ Taking in Refugees (Source: Gallop, 2022) Researchers point out the consistent opposition of American public opinion to admissions of large groups of refugees fleeing war and persecution throughout the past eight decades (DeSilver, 2015; Jones, 2015). In Americans Again Opposed to Taking in Refugees, archived polls from 1938 reported a strong opposition to refugees escaping dictatorships in Europe (67%). In 1947, most Americans opposed the U.S. government’s policies to receive European refugees who had been uprooted by WWII (57%). Nonetheless, the U.S. accepted more than 400,000 displaced Europeans that year (Jones, 2015). The prolonged period of the Cold War between 1947 to 1991 also brought about many waves of refugees, yet the anti-refugee sentiment persisted. For example, when 26 16 24 33 32 66 37 51 78 67 72 57 55 57 30 60 43 21 0% 50% 100% 44 nearly 200,000 Hungarians had fled their country, the 1958 poll reported only a minority of Americans approved a plan to accept them (33%). On the other hand, ethnic Albanians from Kosovo received a more positive response. The 1999 poll reported a mostly positive percentage of support regarding the U.S. decision to take them in (66%). Greater public support can be found for the more recent Ukrainian refugees, with most Americans supporting their reception due to the ongoing invasion from Russia (69%) (Lipka, 2022.) For refugees from Southeast Asia, only a minority of Americans approved the decision to admit them after the end of Vietnam War (34%). By the end of 1990, the U.S. had admitted nearly 600,000 refugees from the region. Similarly, Syrian refugees also received a low support rate at 37 percent despite the global media attention, whereas 49 percent say they are welcome to their community (Jones, 2015). Figure 2.5: American opinion-polling regarding refugee resettlements (Source: Gallup (Hungarians, July-August 1958; Albanians, May 1999); CBS/New York Times (Indochinese, July 1979; Cubans, June 1980); Pew Research Center (Syrians, April 2017; Afghans, September 2021)) 45 In 2017, PEW presents divided public feedback on the U.S. government’s responsibility to accept various groups of refugees (see Figure 2.5). While opinions remain divisive and present some opposition to the admission of many refugee groups, the recent Afghan refugees have received relatively positive support (56%) favoring their admission compared to other previous refugee groups (PEW, 2021). Still, the number is far below the 78 percent approval rate of Ukrainian refugee (Younis, 2024) Since the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, many American opinion-polls about Afghan refugees have reported conforming results showing more than 50 percent of responses supporting the admission/resetting of Afghan refugees. Nevertheless, this percentage varies largely depending on the contentious political atmosphere at the time of polling as well as other potential factors. In August 2021, PBS reports that “73% of Americans support allowing Afghan refugees to come into the US.” Similarly, a survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research states that “72% of Americans say they favor the U.S. granting refugee status to people who worked with the U.S. or Afghan governments during the war in Afghanistan, if they pass security checks.” This poll gave a special condition to differentiate general civilians from Afghans who worked with the US or Afghan governments. The approval rate drops to 72% when asking about “others who fear living under Taliban rule” (Knickmeyer et al., 2021). Despite general positive responses to Afghan refugee admission into the U.S., only a small fraction expressed confidence in the US refugee screening process. PEW (2021) reports: …about one-in-ten Americans say they are very confident that the government is conducting adequate security screening of refugees arriving in the U.S. from Afghanistan; 31% say they are somewhat confident, 27% say they are not too confident and 28% say they are not at all confident that the government is 46 adequately screening refugees.” In the meantime, fear of international terrorism remains high at 41 percent, on top of a rising perceived threat from domestic terrorism at 49 percent PEW explains that partisan differences may influence reasoning behind polarized opinions on refugee issues. The author elaborates that factors such as political and religious beliefs potentially impact their views on the refugee intake more so than household income or educational levels. Except for a respondent’s gender and immigration background, demographic differences have modest impact (Lipka, 2022). 2.2.3 Post 9/11 changes on Refugee Policies, Attitudes, and Biases The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks left the U.S. and the world feeling both sorrow and fear. This urged governments around the world to safeguard their nations, making anti- immigration measures the centerpiece of efforts to combat terrorism. In the months following 9/11, the U.S. Congress passed the 2001 Patriot Act, established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002, and enacted the Real ID Act in 2005. These changes reflected a pivotal move in U.S. immigration reform to increase counterterrorism measures. Boudless states, “Instead of viewing immigration through a lens of economics and foreign policy, the United States came to view immigration mostly through a lens of security and risk” (Boundless, 2023). With intensive security measures placed on refugee programs and a vetting process being implemented, some scholars argue that these measures have curtailed the rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants, leaving vulnerable populations in exacerbated danger. These measures may have unintended consequences which undermine refugee protection and even the public safety of US allies (Barkdull et al., 2012; The migration-related legacy, 2021). Similarly, Human Rights Watch (2002) opposes the severely strict security measures, stating that: 47 …governments introduced measures that seriously eroded their obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and undermined the fundamental right to seek and enjoy asylum, as stipulated in the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights]… Not only did doors close to Afghan refugees in neighboring countries, but also further afield. According to UNHCR, Afghan refugees arrived in countries as distant and geographically dispersed as Australia, Cambodia, Cuba, and Iceland in 2000. In 1999 and 2000, the number of Afghans who sought asylum in Europe nearly doubled, with Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom receiving the largest numbers of applications. Fears of a mass influx of Afghan refugees after September 11, prompted several countries to introduce harsh policies. (HRW, 2002, p.634). In the United States, the Patriot Act (2001) has expanded the definition of terrorism to cover domestic terrorism and allowed government access to personal records held by third parties. Additionally, the Real ID Act (2005) has elevated the terrorism related admissibility bar. These applications have delayed the resettlement of some refugee groups. For example, Karen refugees, who aided the pro-democracy U.S. support group in Myanmar, were left waiting in camps for years because they provided “material support” to an anti-Myanmar government group (Barkdull et al., 2012, p.110). A similar situation could have happened to Afghan refugees who worked to support U.S. forces as well. In addition to policy changes and public concerns over national security, attitude towards immigration and refugees are worsened by the American mainstream media which often frame refugee resettlement as a threat to national security. This misperception has negatively impacted refugees’ daily life, even after their resettlement in the U.S. A national survey conducted in 2020 by the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) and Refugee Council USA finds that: …When asked to identify the main false ideas about the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), the top misconception identified by respondents – 82 percent of refugees and 88 percent of non-refugees – was the idea that “refugees pose a security risk to US citizens.” This false idea impacts the lives of refugees and their ability to integrate. When asked about their main challenges, 30 percent of refugee 48 respondents identified “false understandings or misperceptions of refugees in the news” and 30 percent identified “false understandings or misperceptions of refugees in their community.” (Center for Migration Studies, 2021) Based on aggregate time trends, Schüller (2012) argues that the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks resulted in rising xenophobic aggression and anti-Muslim sentiments in the U.S. as well as many European countries. His empirical study demonstrates “increased worries about immigration by around 38 to 44 percent” (p.9). In accordance with Schüller, Barkdull et al. claim that negative attitudes towards refugees and immigrants may have resulted in acts of discrimination based on country of origin. They state: …Incidents include U.S. law enforcement arrests or detentions of hundreds of Arabs and Muslims on suspicion of terrorist affiliation (e.g. Johnson, 2004). In general, anti-immigrant sentiment has been increasing across the United States, with many bills, filed in state legislatures that contain restrictive policies towards immigrants (Chang-Muy & Congress, 2009). Post 9/11 xenophobia and the ubiquitous politics of race and ideology unfortunately affect America’s willingness to accept refugees, its treatment of then once they are here, and its support for the public and private agencies that assist them. (Barkdull et al, 2012, p.111) Furthermore, refugees’ screening and broad interrogations based on country of origin was ineffective. The Office of the Inspector General of DHS reported that the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERs), which operated between 2002-2011, created restrictions and challenges to travelers from North Korea and Muslim-majority countries. DHS recommends focusing on specific information about individual security threats rather than general information based on a country of origin (Boundless, n.d.) Along the same line, a study from the Migration Policy Institute underlines the abuse of immigration power by U.S. counterterrorism authorities to arrest and/or detain foreign nationals by their country of origin, especially those who are Muslim and people from Arab and South Asian countries (Chishti & Bolter, 2021). Schüller explains the situation in the US as follow: 49 … aggregate time trends suggests that anti-Muslim sentiments and xenophobic aggression increased considerably among the US population in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (2003) reports over 700 incidents targeting Arab Americans or perceived as such, including several murders. Human Rights Watch (2002) and Gould and Klor (2012) refer to data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR), showing a 16-fold increase in the reported total number of hate crimes against Muslims from 2000 to 2001. (Schüller, 2012, p.4) Negative attitudes towards immigration are not unique to U.S. immigration, but are also found in other countries including Canada, the UK, Australia, Sweden, and Germany. Schüller (2012) elaborates on the escalating negative attitudes towards immigrants among native German residents. This increasing trend is particularly pronounced among low- educated individuals’ responses. Despite its undeniable general misconceptions and negative unintended outcomes, these policies changes have modernized US immigration and refugee programs to ensure its efficiency and public safety (CMS, 2021). Rather than using counter-terrorism measures to reverse well-established refugee and human rights protection standards, it is essential to consider national security and refugee protection as complementary imperatives. Donald Kerwin, an Executive Director of the Center for Migration Studies of New York explains: Refugees and migrants can also make crucial contributions to the struggle against terrorism. Indeed, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement and intelligence experts recognized the need to engage communities in which terrorists might attempt to hid, to draw on immigrants as a source of intelligence and support, and to enlist them in counterterror efforts (Kerwin and Stock 2007, 418- 19). They insisted (correctly) that immigrant communities have a strong interest and incentive to cooperate in responding to a shared threat. Not only do the members of these communities overwhelmingly reject extremist ideologies and terrorism, but they bear the brunt of hate crimes and vilification by anti-immigrant extremists following attacks. In fact, tips from commit or family members helped to expose one-quarter of the 330 cases of persons changed with jihaish terrorist offense in the United States since 9/11 (Bergan 2016, 101-02) (Kerwin, 2016, p.94) 50 As the number of refugees worldwide has risen from 12.1 million at the time of the 9/11 attacks to 43.4 million as of the end of 2023, the need for a more robust U.S. refugee program has never been greater. Considering the advanced screening processes ensuring national security, it is hopeful that the Unites States will return to its historical place as a world leader to safely welcome refugees. 2.2.4 Process of Refugee Resettlement in the US For refugees seeking resettlement in the US, the first step is to register with UNHCR to verify their refugee status. This registration process normally should be undertaken in the country to which they have fled. After an initial screening, UNHCR then determines their refugee status under international laws and identifies appropriate durable solutions for each individual case. Once identified as refugees in need of resettlement, they are referred to a U.S. Department of State Resettlement Support Center (RSCs). The RSC then conducts further screening to ensure these refugees meet U.S.-designated processing priorities and satisfy U.S. resettlement criteria. International Rescue Committee (IRC) explains the eligible criteria as follow: • Meet the definition of a "refugee" as determined by U.S. government officials. • Be among those refugees determined by the President to be of special humanitarian concern to the U.S. • Be otherwise admissible under U.S. law. • Not be firmly resettled in any foreign country. In addition, The United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) sets three principal categories through which individuals can seek the resettlement admission program: 51 Priority One. Individuals with compelling protection needs or those for whom no other durable solution exists. These individuals are referred to the United States by UNHCR, or they are identified by a U.S. embassy or a non-governmental organization (NGO). Priority Two. Groups of “special concern” to the United States, which are selected by the Department of State with input from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), UNHCR, and designated NGOs. Currently, these groups include certain persons from Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. Priority Three. The relatives (parents, spouses, or unmarried children under 21) of refugees who are already settled in the United States. The U.S.-based relative must file an Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) and must be processed by DHS. (An Overview of U.S. Refugee Law and Policy, 2021) On August 2, 2021, DoS announced a new Priority Two Designation for certain Afghan nationals and eligible family members. This new group includes those who work/worked in some capacity for the U.S. Government, U.S. government-funded programs or projects in Afghanistan supported through a U.S. government grant or cooperative agreement, U.S.-based non-governmental organizations, or U.S.-based media organizations. It also includes eligible Afghan nationals referred by a relevant American citizen. This creates a pathway for people who may not meet the minimum time-in-service for a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) to be resettled in the U.S. After the registration steps, RSCs, through cooperative agreements with the U.S. Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, helps each prospective refugee prepare their case to the DHS. They compile refugee’s personal data and request background security checks from U.S. national security agencies including the National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, and the Department of Defense. USCIS officers conduct interviews to confirm that the individual qualifies for resettlement under a designated refugee processing priority. 52 Figure 2.6: US refugee screening process (source: Migration Policy Institute, Refugee Council USA, DoS) Applications for refugee resettlement can be denied for a variety of reasons including criminal histories, past immigration violations, alleged connections to terrorist 53 groups, or communicable diseases. Applicants cannot appeal the decision unless new or previously unavailable information arises. Resettlement programs also give priority to vulnerable families who have been targeted by violence. The application review process typically takes up to 36 months and is followed by further security checks after arrival in the U.S. Individuals who pass the security and medical checks and receive formal approval from USCIS are eligible for resettlement. RSCs send biographical information of refugees selected for resettlement to the nine domestic resettlement agencies and organize travel to the United States in coordination with the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Preparation for travel: Prior to a departure from a country of temporary protection, refugees sign an agreement to pay travel costs back to the US government. They attend a brief class about what to expect during migration, American culture, US laws, and health benefits. Officials then conduct a final screening before departure. Arrival in the U.S.: Case workers from resettlement agencies usually welcome refugees at the airport. The domestic resettlement agencies, many of them faith-based organizations, handle resettlement logistics and consult with local authorities to determine where the refugee will live. However, refugees cannot choose to live in any state of their choice. Only when possible, they may be placed in a city where they have relatives or there is an established community from their home country or nationality. Other considerations include the cost of living and access to medical services. Getting on their feet: The State Department’s Reception and Placement Program provides funds to cover refugees’ rent, furnishings, food, and clothing for an initial 90-day period. The Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Department of Health and Human Services provides longer-term cash and medical assistance, along with other social services 54 such as language classes and employment training to support the integration of refugees into local communities. Parents are informed about schooling options and caseworkers help to enroll children in school. Aid agencies may help ensure each child has a backpack, notebooks, and other school supplies. Adults are encouraged to find a job as soon as possible with support from former refugees and a resettlement agency. Path to citizenship: One year after resettlement, refugees may apply for Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status. If they receive LPR status, they may then petition for naturalization five years after their arrival in the United States. The U.S. resettlement program is designed to force refugees to become self- sufficient as quickly as possible. This approach is simultaneously both beneficial and detrimental to refugees. Self-sufficiency is the end-goal for all refugees who resettle in the U.S. The quicker they achieve self-sufficiency; the easier life will be for them in the long run. However, for some refugees, three to six months is simply not enough time to learn a new language, acclimate to a new culture, and become self-sufficient in a new country. Most take about six months to one year to learn how to adjust to life in America and to begin gaining economic independence. The U.S. resettlement program’s primary focus on refugees’ economic sufficiency deprioritizes promoting social connections and community integration. Even though ORR works to ensure refugee placement is desirable to local governments, without a proper integration framework, the presence of refugees can bring a feeling of ‘otherness’ to a city regardless of their economic contributions. In an interview with three Afghans living in Columbia, SC, Caster narrates: Upon entering the U.S., they were resettled into a low-income apartment complex in Columbia, South Carolina. According to them, their neighbors were primarily African American, Latino, and other refugees. They were disappointed that the social gatherings, at least in their perception, were centered around racial or ethnic boundaries. They had hoped to make a variety of friends like they had back 55 in Kabul, but instead, they found themselves only welcomed by fellow Afghans. They were thankful for the small Afghan community, but they felt isolated from the broader American community… Ibrahim explains: “Here it is really quiet and very slow. We grew up in the middle of Kabul city—it is like New York, busy all the time, very crowded with people. Here you don’t see people on the street, neighbors do not talk to each other. We have a neighbor and a couple of times we said hi and she just ignored us. I don’t think it is because we are Afghani. I think neighbors here just don’t talk to each other. In our culture, you have to have respect for your neighbor. If your neighbor is sick or has a need, you have to try to help them. Even if you are not in a position to help them, still you have to try your best. That’s the culture. I think it comes from the religion.” (Caster, 2023) This interview reflects the common problem many refugees experience. Lack of social connections is cultural shock for many, which consequently may lead to negative feelings as well as impeding any mental health issues and personal well-being. 2.3 AFGHANISTAN The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is a country in Central Asia west of the Himalaya Mountains. It shares a border with six countries: Tajikistan, China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Afghanistan’s strategic location offers many opportunities for trade and transportation. The proximity to the Silk Road, which connects the Middle East, South Asia, and Central Asia, has influenced the development of Afghan culture and its diversity. At the same time, the country’s geographical location also opened doors for invasion and conquests including those by the various Persians Empires, Alexander the Great (330 BCE), the Maurya Empire (250-180 BCE), Arab Muslims (c.10th- c.18th), and Genghis Khan’s Mongols (c.13th). (Afghanistan: Geography and Political History, n.d.) 56 Figure 2.7: Historic Silk Road and Present Afghanistan (courtesy National Geographic) Despite being a landlocked country, rugged mountains create naturally irrigated plains and fertile valleys with flowing rivers suitable for agriculture and human habitation. People have settled in this land since the prehistoric times. At the size of 525, 071 square miles (approximately the same as the State of Texas), Afghanistan is home to a population of more than 42 million (World Bank, 2024). However, prolonged conflicts, persecutions, oppression, and repression have caused more than 8.2 million Afghans to flee the country and at least three million people have been internally displaced (UNHCR, 2023). In terms of religion, the territory has seen many religious shifts due to various changes in regimes. Before the Islamic conquest of Afghanistan, the Afghan people practiced varied religions. The land was the epicenter of Zoroastrianism (c.1800 – c.800 BCE), Hinduism and Sikh (c.1500 - c.1200 BCE), Buddhism (c.260 BCE - c.13th) (Religion in Afghanistan, n.d.; Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan, n.d.; Kumar, 2017). Between c.7th – c.12th, the Muslim conquests of Afghanistan resulted in the Islamization of the population (Muslim conquests of Afghanistan, n.d.). Since then, Islamic values have continued to inform many social norms and practices throughout society (Evason, 2019) 57 Figure 2.8: Political Timeline of Afghanistan (Their Story is Our Story, n.d.) Modern Afghanistan emerged from a long history of shifting regional powers and foreign invasions that interfered with Afghans’ governance. The country has witnessed numerous military campaigns, from the ‘Great Game’ in Central Asia between the British Empire and the Russian Empire (1830s-1920s); USSR invasions and infightings (1970s- 1990s), and the recent US-led coalition (2001-2021). In 2021, the Taliban returned to power after taking over Kabul and overthrowing the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Even though the UN still provides humanitarian support, the Taliban government remains internationally unrecognized (United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), 2024). 2.3.1 Diversity and Ethnic Conflicts Afghanistan is mostly a tribal society comprising multiethnic and numerous ethnolinguistic groups. Among the 19 ethnic groups, Pashtuns are the largest (52%) followed by Tajik and Hazara (32%) and Uzbek (8%)2 and minorities of Aimaq, Turkmen, Baloch, Pashai, Nuristani, Gujjar, Arab, Brahui, Qizilbash, Pamiri, Kyrgyz, Sadat, and others. Each ethnic group has distinct histories and rich cultures. Figure 2.9 shows where the various ethnolinguistic groups are roughly located. 2 The percentage is estimated based on native mother tongue (WorldData, 2024). 58 Figure 2.9: Ethnolinguistic Groups in Afghanistan (Source CIA World Fact Book, 1997) Although the people of Afghanistan share some culture and practices across ethnic groups, the national culture is not considered to be uniform. In rural areas, ethnic affiliation often plays a pivotal role as an organizing principle in Afghan society (Blood, 2006). It is, however, not much different in an urban setting. In Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, ethnic associations have informed urban segmentation and ethnic clustering. Sarwari and Ono (2023) explain that a customary lifestyle of hierarchal kinship values contributes to ethnic clustering because people prefer to live among their relatives and