How Texas Compares on Refugee Resettlement

Texas has a complex and sometimes contradictory record when it comes to treating and welcoming refugees. On one hand, it has historically been one of the top states for refugee resettlement in the United States. On the other, its state leadership has often expressed resistance to refugee admissions, creating a divided landscape between welcoming communities and restrictive state policies.

Texas has resettled more refugees than any other state for much of the past two decades. Its large economy, diverse population, and existing immigrant communities have made it a practical destination for many resettlement agencies. Cities like Houston, Dallas, and Austin are home to strong nonprofit networks and local organizations that help refugees with housing, employment, education, and integration.

However, Texas state officials, particularly governors, have taken a more adversarial stance in recent years. In 2015, then-Governor Greg Abbott attempted to block the resettlement of Syrian refugees, citing security concerns. In 2020, Texas became the first state to opt out of refugee resettlement under a Trump-era executive order (later blocked by a federal judge). This tension between state-level leadership and local efforts has created inconsistencies in how refugees experience life in Texas.

By contrast, states like California, Minnesota, and Washington have taken a more actively supportive approach, with policies that expand access to healthcare, legal aid, and social services for refugees. These states often collaborate closely with resettlement agencies and community organizations to promote long-term integration.

Internationally, the U.S. offers more infrastructure for long-term refugee integration than many other nations. Refugees in the U.S. are eligible for a path to permanent residency and citizenship, and receive initial assistance for housing, employment, and language training. However, the U.S. refugee cap has fluctuated dramatically, especially under recent administrations, and some states (including Texas) have pushed back against even modest refugee intakes.

In contrast, countries like Canada and Germany have maintained more stable and often more generous refugee programs in recent years. Canada’s private sponsorship model, for instance, allows citizens to directly support refugee families, fostering strong community ties. Germany accepted over one million refugees during the 2015-2016 crisis and has heavily invested in long-term integration despite political backlash.

Meanwhile, countries closer to conflict zones—such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey—host the largest number of refugees per capita, often with fewer resources and less support from their central governments. Compared to these nations, Texas and the U.S. as a whole have far more capacity, but at times less political will.

Texas has both the infrastructure and the community support to welcome refugees effectively. However, political resistance at the state level often complicates its position. Compared to other U.S. states, Texas stands out for its scale but not always for its policies. And on the global stage, while the U.S. offers opportunities for long-term resettlement, it lags behind countries like Canada in consistency and behind frontline nations in willingness to take immediate humanitarian responsibility.