U.S. Refugee Resettlement by State — Refugee Statistics Series (1)

Introduction

Refugee protection in the United States is often discussed in federal terms: presidential admissions ceilings, international obligations, and national security screening. Yet the lived reality of refugee protection is profoundly local. Refugees are not resettled into an abstract nation-state but into specific states, cities, and communities, each with differing capacities, political climates, and social infrastructures. This article examines U.S. refugee resettlement through a state-by-state statistical lens, analyzing where refugees are placed, why those patterns persist, and what they reveal about the structure and equity of the American refugee system.

The analysis focuses on finalized Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 data, covering refugee arrivals between October 1, 2023, and September 30, 2024. During this period, the United States admitted approximately 100,000 refugees nationwide, marking a continued recovery from the historically low admissions of the late 2010s. While all fifty states and the District of Columbia received refugees, the distribution of arrivals remained highly uneven.

I. National Distribution and Federal Framework

Refugee admissions are authorized at the federal level under the Refugee Act of 1980, which incorporates the United States’ obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. However, federal authority does not dictate uniform geographic distribution. Instead, placement decisions are coordinated through a network of national resettlement agencies, state governments, and local affiliates, taking into account factors such as housing availability, employment prospects, family reunification, and community support.

As a result, refugee resettlement in practice reflects structural inequalities between states. Some states possess long-established resettlement infrastructures and political support for refugee programs, while others participate only minimally. Statistical analysis thus provides insight into how refugee protection responsibilities are shared—or concentrated—within the federal system.

II. High-Receiving States and Concentration Patterns

FY 2024 data shows that a small number of states absorbed a disproportionately large share of refugee arrivals. California received the largest number of refugees, with just over 10,000 arrivals during the fiscal year. Texas followed closely, resettling approximately 9,600 refugees, while New York received roughly 7,300. Washington, Ohio, and Pennsylvania each admitted between 5,000 and 6,000 refugees, and Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Illinois completed the group of the ten highest-receiving states.

Collectively, these ten states accounted for more than half of all refugees admitted nationwide. This concentration reflects both capacity and path dependency. States that historically invested in refugee resettlement infrastructure—such as language services, employment placement programs, and public–private partnerships—continue to receive larger numbers, reinforcing their central role in the national system.

III. California as a Case Study

California’s position as the leading refugee-receiving state illustrates both the strengths and strains of concentrated resettlement. The state hosts a dense network of resettlement agencies and long-established refugee and immigrant communities, which facilitate family reunification and early integration. Its diverse labor market also supports initial employment outcomes for newly arrived refugees.

At the same time, California’s high housing costs and pressure on urban infrastructure complicate long-term integration. While arrival numbers remain high, securing stable housing and upward mobility has become increasingly difficult, particularly in metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and the Bay Area. California’s experience demonstrates that numerical capacity alone does not resolve the deeper challenges of durable integration.

IV. Mid-Tier States and Strategic Expansion

Beyond the largest hubs, a group of mid-tier states resettled between approximately 1,000 and 3,000 refugees each in FY 2024. States such as North Carolina, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado, Virginia, and Tennessee fall within this category. These states often combine lower housing costs with active faith-based and nonprofit resettlement networks.

In several Midwestern states, refugee resettlement has been framed not only as a humanitarian obligation but also as a response to labor shortages and population decline. This strategic expansion suggests that refugee protection and local economic revitalization are not mutually exclusive, though success depends on sustained investment and political support.

V. Low-Volume States and Structural Constraints

A number of states received fewer than 500 refugees during FY 2024. These states are disproportionately located in parts of New England, the Mountain West, and the Deep South. Lower arrival numbers are typically linked to limited resettlement infrastructure, fewer local affiliates of national agencies, political resistance, or gaps in language and healthcare services.

Importantly, low numerical intake does not necessarily equate to poor integration outcomes. In some smaller programs, limited arrivals allow for more individualized support and stronger community engagement. Nevertheless, the persistent underutilization of certain states raises questions about whether the national system effectively distributes responsibility in proportion to capacity and need.

VI. Policy Implications of Uneven Distribution

State-by-state refugee statistics expose structural tensions within the U.S. refugee system. Heavy reliance on a limited number of states increases pressure on housing, education, and social services in those jurisdictions, while other states remain marginal participants. At the same time, although placement decisions are federally coordinated, the financial and administrative burdens of integration fall largely on state and local governments.

This imbalance highlights the need for stronger federal–state coordination, expanded resettlement infrastructure in underrepresented states, and policy incentives that encourage broader participation without coercion. Without such measures, geographic inequality in refugee protection is likely to persist.

VII. Conclusion: Geography as a Measure of Protection

Refugee resettlement statistics are often treated as administrative data, but they also serve as a measure of how responsibility is shared within a federal system. California’s continued leadership, Texas’s rapid growth, and the quieter expansion of resettlement in parts of the Midwest together illustrate a system that is adaptive yet uneven.

Ultimately, the question raised by state-by-state refugee data is not simply where refugees go, but how protection is operationalized across jurisdictions. As global displacement continues to rise, the sustainability of the U.S. refugee system will depend not only on admissions numbers, but on whether responsibility for protection is distributed in a way that is both equitable and durable.

Bibliography

• U.S. Department of State, Refugee Processing Center. Refugee Arrivals by State and Nationality, Fiscal Year 2024 (final data).

• Office of Homeland Security Statistics. Annual Flow Report: Refugees, FY 2024.

• Refugee Council USA. FY 2024 Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Analysis.

• UNHCR. Global Trends: Forced Displacement 2024. Geneva, 2024.