Make Refugee Status Conditional?

Former Lebanese President Michel Aoun recently called for the revocation of refugee status of Syrians in Lebanon, arguing that the presence of most Syrian refugees was no longer justified, given the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, which brought an end to more than 14 years of civil war.

Can the United States take a lesson from this?

Lebanon hosts 1.5 million Syrians, of whom about 700,000 are currently registered as refugees with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The relatively low number reflects the Lebanese government’s request that UNHCR cease registering Syrians as refugees back in 2015.

Revoking the refugee status of Syrians in Lebanon would, according to Aoun, oblige the Lebanese government “to radically change its policy, not to limit itself to voluntary return programs, to immediately implement repatriation programs for Syrian refugees, and to carry them out.”

As of mid-July 2025, over 700,000 Syrians have crossed back to Syria from neighboring countries since the fall of the Assad regime in December, including close to 200,000 from Lebanon. On July 1, 2025 UNHCR and the Lebanese government launched the “Voluntary Return to Syria” program. By the end of that month, 17,000 people had already registered to return.

So, with Assad gone, what’s next for Syrian refugees in the United States? 

From FY 2011 through the first three months of FY 2025, 53,607 Syrians have been resettled in the United States.

Although revoking the refugee status, let alone the green cards, of Syrians on U.S. soil does not seem realistic, the U.S. could consider further shifting focus towards providing proximity help for refugees in their own regions, and facilitating returns instead of any resettlement option. Congress could also consider issuing refugees conditional residence, good for some limited period of years, instead of the current practice of giving them permanent residence one year after their arrival (making them eligible for citizenship four years later). Auch a change would make the refugees’ return to their homelands more practical if conditions were to change within that period, before they were granted permanent residence or citizenship.

Resettlement is one of UNHCR’s “durable” solutions. It allows refugees to relocate to a third country which has “agreed to admit them with a legal status ensuring international protection and ultimately permanent residence.”

Per U.S. immigration law, resettled refugees must apply for a green card (permanent residence) one year after arrival and can apply for citizenship four years later (counting their first year in refugee status toward the five-year count for citizenship). Green cards offer almost all the benefits of a U.S. citizenship except for the right to vote and hold public office.

Syrian refugees resettled recently (3,603 during the first three months of FY 2025; 11,274 in FY 2024; 10,781 in FY 2023; 4,556 in FY 2022; and 1,246 in FY 2021) are unlikely to have obtained U.S. citizenship and many not yet have adjusted their status to lawful permanent residents.

While it is highly unlikely – and for some, ill-advised – that resettled Syrians in the United States would see their refugee status revoked, let alone their green cards, the whole purpose of resettlement is once again under scrutiny.

Most refugees flee to neighboring countries close to their homes in the hope of returning when possible. Why bring people away from their cultural and familiar surroundings by resettling them in the U.S.? According to Oxford economics professor Paul Collier, refugees need a “haven that is proximate, so that it is easy to reach and from which it is easy to return once a conflict ends.” 

Collier and his colleague, Oxford refugee scholar Alexander Betts, argue that there are more effective ways to help refugees and address what they see as a failing system. In their book, Refuge: Rethinking Refugee Policy in a Changing World, they call for a fundamental transformation of refugee policy that is truly fit for the twenty-first century. They believe more effort should be directed toward addressing the refugee crisis closer to its main source and call to “Help refugees help themselves”. Collier explains: “We have responsibilities towards refugees but the way to fulfill these responsibilities is not to take a lucky few out of those contexts but to do things that work for all.” (Emphasis added.)

Instead of pushing for more permanent resettlement, the United States (and the international community) should put more emphasis on proximity help and, ultimately, return. Resettlement far away is not the answer, except for the very few who truly need care they cannot get in their host country or require protection from imminent dangers there. 

Years ago, I suggested why not 2-year conditional green cards for refugees? Instead of giving resettled refugees permanent residence, why not give them two-year Conditional Permanent Residence? U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) explains the conditional process:

A conditional permanent resident receives a green card valid for 2 years. In order to remain a permanent resident, a conditional permanent resident must file a petition to remove the condition during the 90 days before the card expires. The conditional card cannot be renewed. The conditions must be removed or you will lose your permanent resident status.

The two-year period allows for a reevaluation of cases after which either permanent residency status is granted or an order for removal issued. This two-year non-renewable green card is currently given to, among others, aliens married to a U.S. citizen. To remove the conditions on a green card based on marriage, aliens need to prove to authorities that they entered the marriage in good faith and did not get married to evade U.S. immigration laws.

In refugee matters, reevaluation of cases some years (maybe two, maybe more) after resettlement in the United States could be helpful on many levels. It would afford an extra layer of vetting and could help uncover false persecution claims that went through the cracks or spot early radicalization trends. It could also help reveal real motivations (including opportunistic stands) and determine whether the integration process is well under way.

Furthermore, a conditional window might be a chance for refugees themselves to reconsider their stay. Refugees might find life in the U.S. too hard or too different, or simply feel homesick. The situation in their home countries could have also evolved, as we’ve seen with Syria, making return possible.