This post is by Shelby Negosian, a third year student at Washington University in St. Louis, who is studying Environmental Analysis with a double minor in Legal Studies and Geospatial Science. She is interested in environmental tort law, and has a particular interest in environmental justice and immigration.

The intersections between environmental and immigration law are perhaps not immediately apparent, but these intersections are real and ever more prominent under the Trump Administration.

The number of internally and externally displaced people has been increasing exponentially. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) found that there were over 117 million displaced people in 2023. In a single decade, the number of refugees tripled from 11 million in 2013 to 37 million in 2023, and is only expected to increase due to climate change. While climate change--through disaster, hunger, and conflict--is forcibly displacing people, legal systems are not keeping up.

The United States is the single largest contributor to climate change, accounting for 17.24% of greenhouse gas emissions from 1851 to 2023. Under President Trump, these numbers are poised to get even worse, as the President plans to roll back landmark environmental legislation, invest more in fossil fuels, and gut regulatory agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency.

Unsurprisingly, damage from climate change is concentrated in the poorest, most vulnerable parts of the world. In 2010, Haiti experienced a 7.0 magnitude earthquake that killed approximately 300,000 people, injured another 300,000, and left over one million homeless. Approximately 60% of the nation’s administrative and economic infrastructure was destroyed. A month after the Haitian earthquake, Chile experienced an 8.8 magnitude earthquake and a tsunami. However, only 500 were killed and destruction of property was limited. The difference? The level of vulnerability.

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) distinguishes hazards from natural disasters, “A hazard can only become a disaster once it impacts on society or community. A hazard is natural, disasters are not.” Hazards are natural and oftentimes unpreventable. But disasters are the social effects caused by these hazards. And this is why Chile experienced less of a disaster than Haiti. Chile had strict building codes that ensured its buildings were properly reinforced, and a robust support network that allowed the country to more quickly recover. In contrast, Haiti had staggering socioeconomic vulnerabilities leading up to the earthquake, which exacerbated its effects.

The International Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found that natural disasters are rising in frequency, intensity, spatial extent, and duration due to climate change. Human-made mechanisms are increasing the frequency and strength of “natural” disasters. But these natural disasters are not equally distributed across the world. The IPCC clarifies that the development pathways of various nations will determine their vulnerability to natural disasters. Specifically, lower-income countries disproportionately face a higher risk of climate disasters.

Sadly, the countries most responsible for climate change are turning away climate refugees. On July 1, 2024, a U.S. federal appellate court denied asylum to Roni Cruz Galicia based on his membership in a “particular social group” of climate refugees from Guatemala, holding that “climate refugee” was not a legally cognizable term. See Cruz Galicia v. Garland, No. 23-1910 (1st Cir. 2024). Additionally, in January, the White House proudly revoked Sec 5. Executive Order 14013, Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration. This executive order, issued by President Biden, bolstered refugee resettlement programs through the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). The order funneled federal dollars to USRAP, assisted humanitarian support, and helped ensure that vulnerable populations, including women, children, and sexual and gender minorities, received enhanced and targeted support. The intersectionality that this initiative represented and the acknowledgement that assisting refugees is a fundamental aspect of United States foreign policy is now being dismantled by the current administration.

UNHCR has identified climate change as a contributing factor to the refugee crises because it facilitates the “spread and severity of new and re-emerging diseases; food insecurity and famine; increasingly scarce habitual land and potable water; exposure to exploitation and trafficking; as well as to human, material, economic or environmental losses, including lost incomes, homes, livelihoods and even lives.” Confronting climate inequities and providing sanctuary to climate refugees are mechanisms to invest back into the community and build up infrastructure to combat climate change. UNHCR, as well as the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, has offered legal guidelines for climate refugees seeking resettlement or asylum. To withstand climate change, our country needs to build up these legal systems and invest in our infrastructure.

As it stands, the United States has offered no meaningful method of relocation from climate disasters, despite exacerbating the problem. Immigration policies must be more inclusive and comprehensive to encompass the growing number of climate refugees. This administration needs to recognize the inextricable nature of immigrants and refugees to the history of our country, rather than vilifying and deporting the very people we have a duty to protect. There needs to be a policy framework to protect vulnerable communities in the environmental and immigration law sectors. For starters, “climate refugee” should be recognized as a legally protected group. A well-founded fear of persecution must include natural disasters, which are socially constructed and disproportionately impact marginalized communities. The federal government should invest in resettlement programs and loss and damage infrastructure, support organizations that provide on-the-ground assistance to refugees, and confront the intersectionality apparent in forced displacement. But the most important step to combatting the exponentially increasing rate of climate refugees is to divest from fossil fuels. The sectors of immigration and environmental law are inseparable. The current administration may not rise to this task, but eventually, the task will rise to us.

Originally posted on the Asylumist: www.Asylumist.com