VIRTUAL London.

Abstract

View film

​​Cities, especially those that have faced population loss and austerity measures as a result of neoliberal policies, may engage in welcoming work to support refugees and immigrants as part of efforts to revitalize their cities. For this welcoming work, local and county governments (LCGs) may have an office or implement a plan dedicated to new Americans; they do not just provide lip service but deploy monetary resources. Utilizing a qualitative research approach including document review, interviews, and a focus group, I examine how urban planning impacts the refugee experience in two rust belt cities. I explore how the official welcoming work and other public-sector support are perceived and experienced by refugees, in comparison to the unofficial support offered by grassroots refugee-run groups. While LCGs attempt to support refugee communities through offices and plans dedicated to them, they miss the mark. On the other hand, refugee-led community organizations, while not perfect, are more effective at serving refugee communities as their work shares some principles and modalities of insurgent planning. Welcoming work by LCGs is done in a way that ostracizes refugee communities, even as they have good intentions and invest resources. A lack of collaboration and leadership from refugees themselves prevents buy-in to the welcoming work. This results in perpetuation of harmful rhetoric, with cities seeing refugees as a way of “saving” or “revitalizing” their cities, rather than being places where refugees have the tools and support to flourish in their new homes.