HRES-1375-119
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Ted Lieu (D-CA)
What it does
This is a simple House resolution (H. Res.), meaning it would express the sense of the House of Representatives but would not create new law, appropriate funds, or impose any legal obligations. It would reaffirm U.S. commitment to refugee protection, call on President Trump to lift the current suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, and urge the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services to uphold international humanitarian leadership. The resolution also recognizes World Refugee Day (June 20) and the 75th anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Who benefits
Refugees and asylum seekers currently stranded abroad — including the more than 100,000 conditionally approved refugees and 22,000 deemed "ready for departure" — who could benefit if the resolution's calls to action were heeded. Afghan allies held at Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar. Religious minorities in Iran and the former Soviet Union eligible under the Lautenberg-Specter Program. Refugee resettlement agencies and NGOs whose funding and operational environment could improve. LGBTQI+ refugees abroad. Communities in the U.S. that host refugees and benefit from their economic participation. Indirectly, frontline refugee-hosting countries in the developing world that bear the majority of the global refugee burden.
Who is hurt
This resolution carries no binding legal force, so it does not directly impose costs or restrictions on any group. To the extent it is seen as a political rebuke of current executive policy, it may be viewed negatively by those who support the current administration's immigration and refugee restrictions. Domestic workers in sectors where refugee labor competes could view expanded resettlement as a concern, though this resolution does not itself change admissions levels. Taxpayers who oppose increased foreign assistance spending are not directly affected, as the resolution does not appropriate funds.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States has a legal obligation under the Refugee Act of 1980 and the 1951 Refugee Convention's non-refoulement principle to maintain a functioning asylum system, and that the current indefinite suspension of refugee admissions leaves more than 12,000 people with booked flights — many of whom sold belongings in preparation — stranded without recourse. They further argue that the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program advances national security by vetting and integrating allies, and that a Department of Health and Human Services study found refugees contributed an estimated $581 billion in government revenue between 2005 and 2019, demonstrating a net economic benefit.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a simple House resolution carries no legal weight and amounts to a political statement rather than a substantive policy remedy, making it an ineffective vehicle for the changes it calls for. They contend that the President has broad, court-affirmed discretion over refugee admissions and entry restrictions — as upheld in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) — and that Congress's proper recourse is legislation, not non-binding resolutions. Critics may also argue that the resolution's preamble contains one-sided characterizations of executive actions, such as labeling the Afrikaner resettlement prioritization "politically motivated and unjust," which undermines its stated goal of reaffirming a bipartisan commitment.
Constitutional context
The President's authority to suspend or restrict refugee admissions derives from the Immigration and Nationality Act and has been broadly upheld under the Reception Clause (Art. II, §3) and Commander-in-Chief powers. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Supreme Court applied rational basis review to entry restrictions and upheld broad presidential discretion. The resolution's assertion that asylum is a "protected right" under domestic and international law implicates the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI, cl. 2) and the question — left partly unresolved after Medellín v. Texas (2008) — of whether treaty obligations like the 1951 Refugee Convention are self-executing and directly enforceable in U.S. courts.
Checks and balances
This resolution does not shift power between branches; it expresses the legislative branch's sense of policy preference but imposes no binding obligation on the executive, which retains full discretion over refugee admissions under existing statutory and constitutional authority.
Historical precedent
Congress has passed similar non-binding resolutions affirming refugee commitments in prior sessions, including resolutions marking World Refugee Day, though none have compelled changes to executive refugee admissions policy.