By Alex Maroño Porto
Last week’s news that police arrested and charged a 15-year-old migrant with assault and attempted murder put a spotlight once again on the Stratford Arms Hotel on the Upper West Side, one of the more than 200 emergency shelters that have opened across the city to accommodate an influx of over 118,000 asylum seekers who have arrived in New York in the past two years. Since it opened last summer, the shelter has been a target of complaints and at least one law enforcement action when police seized unregistered vehicles from outside the shelter.
On top of the negative news reports, migrant families at the Stratford Arms are now receiving notices that their time there is up. The notices are due to Mayor Eric Adams’s policy, announced in October, to limit to 60 days the time migrant families with children can stay in a shelter before they must reapply to remain in place or get moved by the city to another shelter assignment.
Among those who received notice recently is Yelismar, a 30-year-old mother of three, who said she came to Texas with two of her daughters from her native Venezuela, a country ruled by authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro and plagued by a deep economic crisis. After leaving Caracas, Yelismar said she traveled through Colombia and the dangerous Darien Gap — a stretch of jungle at the Panama border where dozens of migrants have died – and crossed into the U.S. at Ciudad Juárez on September 6, 2023. From there, she took a plane to New York, where she and her two daughters were assigned to the Stratford Arms, formerly used as a residence hall for the American Musical and Dramatic Academy, at 117 West 70th Street.
Yelismar and her children have lived there for five months. “I thank God that I am not on the street and that we are not sleeping cold in a station,” she told the Rag, in an interview in Spanish last Sunday as she left the shelter to get food. “Here we have a roof over our heads and a bed to sleep and rest.” Like several other asylum-seekers interviewed, she declined to give her last name. (The Rag is identifying all those interviewed for this story by their first names only.).
But the notice Yelismar received from the city says her 60 days are up at the Stratford on March 26. By that date, she must reapply for shelter unless she can find a permanent housing solution on her own, a herculean task in a city with a severe rental housing crunch, especially for those who are not allowed to legally work. “I do not not have the money to rent because I still did not get the work permit,” Yelismar said. Currently, she’s claiming asylum.
The influx of asylum seekers has overwhelmed the city’s shelter system and its “right to shelter” policy, prompting the Adams administration to put limits on shelter stays: 30 days for single migrants and 60 days for families.
That policy has been targeted by nonprofits that provide aid to the migrants, and by City Comptroller Brad Lander, who says shelter limits constitute “one of the cruelest policies to come from City Hall in generations, evicting families from shelter in the middle of winter.” Two state politicians, Assembly member Catalina Cruz of Queens, and Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal of Manhattan’s West Side, are pushing a law to prohibit Adams’s 30 and 60-day shelter limits.
David, a 33-year-old Venezuelan father of three at the Stratford Arms, said he understands that the city’s shelter system should be a temporary solution for migrants. “You have to see the shelters as an impulse, and when you already have an opportunity and some stability, you should leave the shelters and give the opportunity to others,” he said in an interview in Spanish. Like Yelismar, David has been given notice that his time at the Stratford Arms expires on March 23. And like Yelismar, David said finding housing on his own is daunting when his asylum claim leaves him in legal limbo. “It would be positive if they would help us migrants with the papers. That is the key. Without papers, it is hard to rent,” he said.
Going through the shelter application process again could even lead to a family separation. José, one of David’s children, is 21, and as an adult, he could be reassigned to a different shelter after March 23. Last time, his mother requested that the family be placed together, but José is unsure this will happen again. Splitting them, José said, would have a deep emotional impact on the family. “We have never been separated and we do not want to be separated,” he said in Spanish.
Currently, the family is housed in three different rooms at the Stratford, with each parent sleeping with one of José’s two younger siblings, while José has a room of his own. “We have not decided yet if we are going to apply again [for shelter rooms]. We will see what we will do. Because we do not want to go back to living in the shelter, we want to have our own place, too,” he said.
Adult children are not the only ones impacted by the 60-day policy. Asylum-seekers with children who are still minors may also be relocated to different shelters, distancing them from the public schools their children have been attending. Yelismar, whose two daughters are enrolled in a school close to the Stratford, said that this policy would further complicate their academic and social integration in the city. “Taking them out of school to put them in another one sets the child back,” she said. “It is complicated because we do not know where we will be sent.”
Single mother Zenayda, 38, with two minor daughters, said she traveled from her native Salvador to escape harassment of her daughters, who were being threatened. From Reynosa, Mexico, she crossed into Texas, and she got to New York on a plane. The city assigned her to the Stratford Arms three months ago. “I have found it nice being here, because even they [the daughters] tell me that the laws are followed here, so in that aspect, we are more than fine,” Zenayda said in Spanish.
But now, like dozens of other asylum-seekers, she will have to reapply for shelter on March 20. “I do not complain, I will always be grateful for the support we have received,” she said. “But there is a feeling of distress, because we do not know what will come next.”
The news of last week’s arrest of a 15-year-old Stratford Arms resident didn’t catch Zenayda by surprise. She said that he used to cause trouble in the shelter and even harassed one of her daughters, grabbing her by the arm twice. What scared her the most, she said, is that he apparently was able to hide a weapon in the shelter without building security or his parents noticing it. “How did he manage to have a weapon here?” she said. “He got crazy outside, and I can’t imagine what would happen if he got crazy here, with so many children around.”
A self-defined “fighter,” Zenayda separated from her daughters’ father a decade ago. “I feel like some doors have closed on me, but they tell me it is just the beginning and recommend that I stay calm,” she said “Sometimes I backslide and say ‘I will not be able to make it,’ but we trust in God. He has never abandoned us and brought us this far.”
Javier and Yadera, a 40-year-old couple from Venezuela, echoed Zenayda’s determination. They had just arrived at the Stratford Arms Sunday morning, February 11, with their 14-year-old son. Previously, the family lived in a shelter on 47th Street in Brooklyn; they said their son commuted from there to Washington Heights’ Gregorio Luperon High School every morning because of lack of space in schools near the Brooklyn shelter.
The Stratford’s rooms, unlike in Brooklyn, come with basic kitchen appliances, including a small refrigerator and a microwave oven, they said. They live in two separate rooms, one for Yadera and their child and one for Javier. “Rooms are small,” said Yadera, in Spanish. “But they are comfortable,” Javier added. Currently, they said, they are waiting for a work permit that will allow them to leave the shelter system and pay for their own housing.
“We thank God and the government for still supporting us, and we hope that at least we obtain the work permit to become independent,” said Javier. “The 60 days [policy] is affecting us, because if within a period of two months you do not find anything, how are you going to find a place to rent? It is a lot of money.”
Subscribe to WSR’s free email newsletter here.
Thank you for these interviews, plus good context. Very helpful if we want to contact council members etc. 60 days is not enough for a family, combined with the bureaucratic obstacles to moving on – people are lining up at 11pm or sleeping on sidewalks overnight to get those next step papers, because the “apps” are so backlogged. And for families with kids in school – could shelter moves be (optionally) tied to the school year, or at least the weeks around semester starts and ends? A terrible situation. But the voices of families shed light. Thank you.
I don’t disagree with you but as a point of clarification, I am fairly sure that once a child is enrolled in an elementary school, they are entitled to stay there through graduation as long as they still live in NYC. I know several wealthy families who rent very briefly or “borrow” an address to get into a preferred school, then resume using their actual address out of the zone once their child is enrolled. This policy was put in place for kids in the shelter system who were being moved around so they could have some continuity. So it should apply here.
Not that this solves a lot. But it is somewhat helpful to these families.
Technically they can stay in their existing school, but practically they cannot if they are moved to new shelters that are an hour or more away from the schools. A lot of the families are getting reassigned to shelters more than an hour, sometimes two, from their schools. There has been a lack of coordination across agencies for the response to this effort, and so the teams running the shelters don’t talk to the Education Dept to even know where the children are enrolled in school before reassigning them housing. Metrocards have been challenging to come by, and so paying for the transit has also been challenging.
Think what you want….but…they shouldn’t have been allowed to stay here in the first place. There are thousands of people waiting to come to the US legally, and these people just come here illegally and we have to pay for them on top of it.
Why does it do no good to point out that it’s perfectly legal to come in, surrender yourself to the authorities, and seek asylum?
These are not “illegal” immigrants. And as long as the law is not changed they will not be.
If you’re not going to change the law (and it’s now the republicans who refuse to do that) then isn’t the better approach to get them work permits so they can take some of the millions of open jobs we have here (8.8 million at the last count).
Oh, if you really like inflation? Deport every undocumented immigrant. You’ll get inflation like you’ve never seen. You may not see much by way of fresh food on the shelves, you may not be able to retain a contractor to renovate your home, you may not be able to hire someone to care for your elderly relative, but you’ll have inflation. Bigly.
Your point makes no sense. You’re basically saying, let everyone come and just get them all work permits. What’s the point of having borders, or an immigration department, or TSA, then? Just let everyone come in, including enemies of the US/criminals, as long as they get work permits. That’s just plain dumb.
Yes, the laws need to be changed, but we can’t just allow people to walk in freely, pay for their housing, their food, their cell phones, while we wait for laws to be changed.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), immigrants are “inadmissible” to the United States, and they are criminally liable under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) if they enter the United States at a “place other than as designated” Stepping over a section barbed wire of your choosing is not the same as claiming asylum at a designated port of entry and so is very much illegal.
Further your claim that deporting immigrants will result in “inflation like you’ve never seen” is also demonstrably false. Undocumented labor actually pushes wages down for many of the sector of manual labor where these people will be competing for jobs.
Your first point misstates the law.
Your second point is hopelessly self-contradictory.
This incorrect. The law says “at the border”. It does not say at a legal crossing.
Title 8 of the U.S. Code identifies federal criminal offenses pertaining to immigration and nationality, including the following two entry-related offenses:
“Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the United States. It applies to people who do not enter with proper inspection at a port of entry, such as those who enter between ports of entry, avoid examination or inspection, or who make false statements while entering or attempting to enter. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both.
“Illegal Re-Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1326 makes it a crime to unlawfully reenter, attempt to unlawfully reenter, or to be found in the United States after having been deported, ordered removed, or denied admission. This crime is punishable as a felony with a maximum sentence of two years in prison. Higher penalties apply if the person was previously removed after having been convicted of certain crimes: up to 10 years for a single felony conviction (other than an aggravated felony conviction) or three misdemeanor convictions involving drugs or crimes against a person, and up to 20 years for an aggravated felony conviction.
Yelismar has lived there, with her three kids, for 5 months. That’s 150 days. Now she needs to re-0apply or move somewhere else.
With all due respect to these migrants – they come to a foreign (to them) country, illegally, and they get a roof, a bed, food, phone, medical care, etc.
They are not citizens of the US. Yet they get, free, more than US citizens in similar condition do not get.
There are hundreds of thousands of our veterans that do not get these benefits.
A country, or a city, that does not take care of its own, but rather give it to ones who did not earn it, is a country, or a city, that betrays its own.
She entered LEGALLY as an asylum seeker. The only way to stop this is for Congress to do its job and change the law and then enforce the change. If we’re lucky, we’ll live long enough to see this happen. Hope springs eternal.
You’re supposed to apply for asylum BEFORE coming to the US unless you had a legal reason to be in the US.
Unless she arrived at a DHS designated port of entry she entered illegally. I don’t understand why people conflate. The law is very clear. You seem to conflating two different issues. Further people form Venezuela have to apply for asylum before arriving,
Armchair lawyers abound in WSR. Clearly if she could not claim asylum because she entered illegally they would not let her enter on probation or hear her case.
What the poster stated is the current regulation under a Biden administration order that was blocked by the 9th Circuit but stayed during appeal. I’m not aware whether that appeal has been decided yet.
There is also no need to be condescending to another poster who you referred to as an “armchair lawyer”. If one doesn’t have to be a lawyer to sit on the US Supreme Court as an associate justice, then I think WSR readers can tolerate the opinions of anyone in the comments section without denigrating them.
I’m glad some of these commenters were not in charge when my great-grandparents came to the US…or I bet the forebears of the people who post such xenophobic comments. Good for ya’ll that your relatives won the immigrant lottery. However, like many lottery winners, you don’t know how to spend your good fortune.
WE ARE A NATION CREATED AND SUSTAINED BY IMMIGRATION.
Sustained by “legal” immigration yes. That’s an important distinction that you seemed to have omitted from your all caps proclamation.
You simply can not compare end of the 19th century immigration in the US to the situation that’s going on today. That’s absurd.
My parents came from Italy (separately) in 1950. My dad was here illegally & was deported. He had to wait 7 years before he could immigrate legally. He had a job waiting for him and a place to live. Totally different from today. Borders are open.
Correct you are.
We are a nation created and sustained by immigrants.
The big difference now is that these so called asylum seekers are here illegally, vs your great-grandparents, who came here legally.
And what do you mean by “lottery winners”?
For every lottery winner there are tens of thousands immigrant who came in by the book.
And nobody here posted any xenophobic comments. We need to take care of our own first. We don’t.
It’ll be nice if you chose your words accordingly.
BTW – glad your great-grandparents came here, as did mine, 6 generations ago.
“6 generations ago” does not make you or your family any more American than those recently arrived. My use of “lottery winners” was to signify “fortunate”.
I repeat, we are a nation created and sustained by immigrants. Be a part of the solution, not fan the flames of xenophobia.
“So-called asylum seekers?” Unless you’re an immigration attorney, or an attorney, generally (and something tells me you’re neither), or have interviewed every single “alien” in NYC to assess for asylum eligibility, you have no basis to claim they’re not legitimate asylum seekers. Who died and made you the arbiter of who’s worthy of (and has a legitimate claim of) asylum?
And what makes anyone here the expert on whether someone is a ‘so-called asylum seeker’ versus an actual asylum seeker as defined by international law?
The law leaves that to the adjudication branch of the immigration services, not to you. And until that’s done, it’s legal to come and be here as an asylum seeker.
And guess what? The Jewish wave from the Pale of Settlement and the Italian wave from Southern Italy and Sicily came because non-governmental criminal gangs (Cossacks and Mafia) ran the show and drove them out.
They were the equivalent of today’s Central Americans who flee when gangs seek to impress their teenage sons.
The law the GOP refuses to vote on would address this in every respect. It would tighten the definition of ‘asylum,’ streamline the administrative/adjudicatory process, and properly fund the process.
Those who arrived during the Jewish and Italian waves of immigration did not become a public charge. Not for one day after arrival. They did not receive free shelter and food. They came to stay with relatives, who typically sent them tickets to cross the Atlantic. They worked hard and that’s how they eventually raised above poverty. Many in this new wave of migrants or asylum seekers paid thousands of $$ to cross into the US and now rely on free everything, including cell phones and credit cards from our government. This is unsustainable. We can’t expect a portion of the population who pays taxes to support unending influx of migrants in addition to our own needing assistance.
Our legal immigration laws also could be improved. As Farid Zaharia said on his CNN Sunday segment, the gold standard of immigration is set by Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who take in people based on how they score. The points are awarded for young age, knowledge of English, education and professional skills. These immigrants will contribute to our country’s progress in science, economic prosperity and diverse culture. There is nothing hateful or racist in applying logic and common sense to immigration policies.
Those who arrive today, in NY and a couple of other states only, become public charges because of state laws requiring that all be helped irrespective of origin.
But the reason that my great grandparents could work on arrival here was that the law didn’t require issuance of work permits. If it had then they’d have been in big trouble. Or they’d have gone to Cuba or Argentina or South Africa.
The people here work hard when they’re allowed to. And even when they can’t get formal papers they’re working the delivery routes and cleaning your elderly relatives’ bed pans.
Nothing makes the average person an expert. All we have is data. And data show 90% of those who see the judge in their cases get DENIED asylum. Even pre-surge (pre-2018), the rate is 80-85%.
Knowing, now, the a priori probability of something with 90% certainty, and continuing to run policies as if that’s not the case — while gaslighting the public and making it pay for it– is not just demagoguery, it’s sheer insanity.
These migrants are being given appointments starting in 2030 and beyond just to get asylum process started. It can take five, six or more years before a final decision is made on an asylum claim.
Even when a ruling is made persons can appeal to federal courts which often means another decade or so before anything is “final”.
These “migrants” aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. And they know it…..
When your great-grandparents came to the US, were they given luxury hotel accommodations in pricey, desirable neighborhoods? Free healthcare? Three meals a day? Laundry service? All paid for by local taxpayer money?
Probably not.
No, they were not.
I agree the handouts are not sustainable, but the comparison is difficult because the great grandparent immigrants could work. Therefore they could support themselves.
The practice where immigrants are not working while living on a taxpayer dime was not in place when your great-grandparents came to US. This situation is simply not sustainable. It’s a sign of our times, where things no longer make sense…
I would like to see our homeless vets get the care these aliens who illegally entered our country are getting instead. The city and state “leadership” are upside-down, however.
I’ve never been inside the Stratford Arms, but considering the families are being put in 2-3 separate rooms I’d be interested in knowing what size the rooms are are. I don’t understand the point of moving migrant families with school age children every 60 days. Can’t they share smaller accommodations, which would then make room for other families? It makes more sense then sending them back out on the street.
Mayor Adams should just sue Gov. Abbott for the cost of all the migrant housing and services, then bus the migrants back to the Lone Star State from whence they came, unless they have other resources elsewhere. And deport any migrants with criminal records. We’ve all had enough!
It’s not Abbott’s fault. The migrants have indicated that they want to leave Texas for other states like NY. If Abbott didn’t put them on buses, they would make their own way to their preferred destinations.
Adams has already begun legal action against bus companies that transport “migrants”.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/04/adams-sues-texas-bus-companies-00133869
https://nypost.com/2024/01/07/metro/texas-gov-abbott-claims-adams-should-sue-biden-not-bus-companies-over-migrant-crisis/
Texas may not spring to mind as a hotbed of legal scholars, but Governor Greg Abbott is an attorney (Vanderbilt law school), and likely has forgotten more about constitutional law than Adams (who isn’t an attorney).
Adams can sue anyone he wishes because city’s legal department is funded by taxpayers, not himself. This regardless if suits have merit or not.
Why should Texas bear the brunt of a border policy they oppose and that New York City residents support as evidenced by who they elect on a local, state and fedral level?
Why is it the responsibility of Gov. Abbott and Texas to take care of these people? They didn’t do any more or less than NY to encourage them to come to the US. This needs to be addressed on the national level. If we are going to allow this influx of people they need to be spread all arpund the country.
For background, please note:
NYC residents/families who become homeless and receive shelter through City DHS are placed in small rooms in hotels or if fortunate, in apartment-type “residences”. Similarly, depending upon family size and configuration, they may be split in different rooms. Hotels do not have cooking.
NYC families are also placed where there is availability – including in other boroughs far from where they were living. This also means long commutes to their school.
Actually, in some ways, migrant families in the City’s homeless system are getting “better” or “more” services than actual NYC families in the City’s homeless system.
And IMO some elected officials etc are more concerned about migrant families – but not so interested in NYC families who are homeless, in dire straits.
It seems to me that it would be fair for Senator Hoylman-Sigal to canvass constituents about what they think?
He did not run for office specifying this as a policy priority.
As there are differences of opinion on this issue and major budget implications, he should be discussing….
My comment also was “unpublished.” In a linked article, Hoylman is quoted saying that it was unfair to move the families every 60 days, because it prevents them from putting down roots. I pointed out that shelters are by definition temporary residences, and therefore there should be no roots. No one in a shelter should have the expectation of living in the same shelter or neighborhood permanently.
(Trying again, since my comment went unpublished, i.e., censored.)
Because Holyman and Lander are about virtue signaling and spending taxpayer money without paying mind to constituent sentiment.
I’m supportive of large-scale legal immigration. But it’s just bonkers that a neighborhood where raising a single kid is astronomical, is paying for free housing for so many large families. And our elected representatives insist we must be doing more of this.
The UWS has plenty of couples who have a child in a one bedroom apartment. Having a second child is simply out of the question, if they intend to remain in the city.
It’s pretty insulting to parents struggling to make it work here to see the local activist class insist we need to give unlimited free hotels to huge numbers of young families who are clearly taking advantage of our asylum system. What a terrible message to send to taxpayers.
Don’t get me wrong, we need and I want immigration. Legalize millions of immigrants. But the massive expense on the backs of an overtaxed citizenry is not appropriate.
While it is true that for most raising two kids in Manhattan, let alone the UWS is nearly impossible. It’s also true the UWS is home to some of the wealthiest zip codes in NYC. Should migrants only be housed in poor neighborhoods?
Yes, given we all pay for it, it stands to reason that we should demand the most cost-effective outcome. And the politicians – as fiduciaries of our money and executors of our will – should deliver it, or find another job.
Or do you insist on paying more for something you can get much cheaper down the street?
The wealth of the zipcode has ZERO relevance. They don’t pool money just from the UWS and UES to pay the exorbitant rates at the Stratford Arms – they take it out of public resources paid for by even the poorest of NYers.
At this rate sadly this is what it will take to get Trump and the maga ilk to get elected. When NY’ers get squeezed left right and center via taxes for substandard services and to heavily subsidize even non-citizens something has to give. Too bad bodies like the city council is made of performative artists than people who give a damn about New Yorkers.
If you’re not happy with our current elected leaders, why wouldn’t you want a change? Isn’t that the point of elections?
Huh? Trump and MAGA are the reason we didn’t pass a bipartisan immigration reform bill.
Not true. The so called immigration bill contained $100bn for Ukraine and $10bn to help the Arab world.
A big part of the problem is that typically, fewer than 20% of eligible New York voters vote.
David age 33 has a son, age 21?
Great context. Great profiles. Sorry for the negative comments. Some people have too much time on their hands. We are all humans! No one has a say where they are born.
The US asylum process is being totally abused by these “economic migrants,” who are not who our asylum process was designed for. Our asylum laws were designed for refugees of specifically-defined categories of targeted persecution, not those simply seeking to make a better life in the US rather than their home country. I say this as someone who is sympathetic to their plight and who has handled pro bono asylum cases in front of the DHS, but who nonetheless sees that what is occurring now is an unprecedented, illegal and conscious abuse of the US asylum process that is harming real refugees trying to get cases heard and costing billions of tax payer dollars that could go to improving the lives of our own citizens who are in dire need themselves.
The whole ‘immigrant situation’ in New York that’s been going on for months and is a total disorganized mess should never have happened. Pathetic. These misadvised people deserve respect help to get settled and LOVE … One can only imagine the lack of information they’ve had to deal with .. And living on the streets.. In the freezing cold. It’s beyond belief. Where are all the millions of dollars that have apparently mostly disappeared that they were supposed to have been assigned to help them and their children get organized and find work .. There needs to be some serious oversight in getting this mess sorted out ASAP.
They’re owed nothing unless they’re here legally. Also, as required by almost every other country, immigrants should not be a drain on resources, especially when we have so many veterans, elderly and other citizens/legal residents that are in need of assistance.
Loved the article with interviews with migrants. The comments make many valid points but overall are disheartening. I’m with Eric, who recalls our history as a nation of immigrants.
Does anywhere know where on the UWS I can donate clothes that will be given free to immigrants?
Contact Council Member Gale Brewer.
There was a pop-up store at the church on 86th and West End – not sure of the status
Discussion of debit card pilot.
Note that a debit card is not restricted like food stamps SNAP card.
https://nypost.com/2024/02/19/opinion/inside-mayor-adams-migrant-debit-card-boondoggle-no-bid-bank-gets-50-million-border-crossers-up-to-10000-each/
First: Mayor Adams, I hope you get kicked out of New York for good!
Second; Let these people work! They are ready and able so put the process on full speed to get them working papers and let the MAGA whiners shut up.
Whatever the laws say arguing them is splitting hairs. They were not set up to guarantee complete support services to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people at a time and place of their choosing and honoring them like they were is ludicrous.