A Survey of Immigration Models and Refugee Protection Schemes and their Consequences: The Case of Ukrainian Refugees
Authors: van Kampen Catherine , Zechenter Elizabeth M , Romma Sophia Murashkovsky , Powell Robert Jeffrey 
Published: January 2023

After its illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea in 2014 and continued military support for separatists in the Donbas, Russia escalated its war against Ukraine in February 2022 with direct ground attacks by Russian military forces on Ukraine's eastern, northern and southern borders,
a blockade of Ukraine's coast and aerial attacks throughout the country. Millions of Ukrainians fled, including thousands of international students residing in Ukraine. Countries around the world responded to the resulting refugee crisis with varying policies. Many of Ukraine's neighboring
countries enacted model immigration laws and developed various support schemes. Some governments, such as in Poland and the European Union (EU), immediately granted Ukrainian refugees the right to live, work, obtain access to education and receive benefits comparable to those to which their
own citizens are entitled and created a generous and protective immigration model that attempts to prevent human trafficking and other forms of exploitation. Other countries geographically removed from the conflict used different models, including some with a private sponsorship component
that, despite the best of intentions, may in retrospect be exposing refugees to the dangers of human trafficking and exploitation.<br/> Ukrainian refugees – also referred to as internally displaced persons (IDPs) if still remaining in Ukraine or as parolees if attempting to enter
the United States (US) – seeking entry into the United Kingdom (UK) or US are required to find a private sponsor who accepts financial responsibility for them during their stay in their host country. In the UK, private sponsors are paid a monthly stipend, while in the US, private sponsors
are not paid but actually contract with the US government to be financially responsible for the persons whom they are sponsoring. By contrast, Ukraine's neighbors, including Poland, with notably less economic and fiscal resources than either the UK or the US, have no private sponsorship requirement.<br/>
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukrainians have been a vulnerable population subjected to human trafficking – a situation exacerbated by Russia's current war against their country. In the first weeks of the war, credible firsthand and in-real-time reports by Ukrainian-
and Russian-speaking attorneys and human rights advocates quickly emerged that describe Ukrainian women refugees utilizing online dating platforms, social media sites and online chat rooms to find private sponsors in the UK and the US. While this government policy requiring private sponsorship
appeared to be a prudent means for vetting refugees, burden-sharing and shifting the hosting costs away from taxpayers and governments' ledgers, the policy has unintended consequences. Refugee and human trafficking experts state that the private sponsorship requirement compels Ukrainian refugees,
90-plus percent of whom are women and children, to 'market' themselves – often online – to potential private sponsors in the UK and US, thereby exposing themselves to human traffickers. This policy has potentially – albeit unintentionally – increased, exacerbated and
even facilitated the human trafficking of Ukrainian refugees, an already vulnerable population experiencing a precariously heightened risk for physical, sexual and economic exploitation due to their growing desperation for physical safety.<br/> This article, written from the practitioners'
perspective, discusses how the private sponsorship requirement for Ukrainian refugees is potentially increasing the risk of human trafficking for an already at-risk population, unnecessarily jeopardizing their safety and further stripping them of their human dignity. The unintended consequences
of private sponsorship demonstrate that such a requirement in a wartime scenario is ill-conceived, inappropriate and dangerous public policy and, dare it be said, potentially exploitative.