[Senate Hearing 113-645]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-645
DANGEROUS PASSAGE: CENTRAL
AMERICA IN CRISIS AND THE EXODUS
OF UNACCOMPANIED MINORS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 17, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-466 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
TIM KAINE, Virginia RAND PAUL, Kentucky
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Daniel E. O'Brien, Staff Director
Lester E. Munson III, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Arnson, Cynthia, director, Latin America Program, Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC.............. 48
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee.................... 3
Johnson, Stephen, regional director, latin America and the
Caribbean, International Republican Institute, Washington, DC.. 54
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey.............. 1
Nazario, Sonia, author, Enrique's Journey, journalist, KIND board
member, Washington, DC......................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
``Child Migrants, Alone in Court,'' by Sonia Nazario, New
York Times, April 10, 2013................................. 74
``The Children of the Drug Wars--A Refugee Crisis, Not an
Immigration Crisis,'' by Sonia Nazario, New York Times,
Sunday Review/Opinion, July 11, 2014....................... 76
Shannon, Jr., Hon. Thomas A., Counselor of the Department, U.S.
Department of State, Washington, DC............................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses of Ambassador Thomas Shannon to questions submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez................................. 66
Responses of Ambassador Thomas Shannon to questions submitted
by Senator Tom Udall....................................... 70
Responses of Ambassador Thomas Shannon to questions submitted
by Senator John Barrasso................................... 71
Swartz, Bruce, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC........... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Statement submitted by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.......... 74
Eligibility for Deferred Action, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security....................................................... 80
Few Children Are Deported, by Laura Meckler and Ana Compoy, Wall
Street Journal, July 11, 2014.................................. 81
Number of Aliens Removed or Returned During the Bush and Obama
Administrations................................................ 83
Statement submitted by Jana Mason, Senior Advisor for Government
Relations, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees....... 84
(iii)
DANGEROUS PASSAGE: CENTRAL
AMERICA IN CRISIS AND THE EXODUS
OF UNACCOMPANIED MINORS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 17, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert
Menendez (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez, Boxer, Cardin, Durbin, Murphy,
Kaine, Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Flake, McCain, and
Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee will come to order.
We are here today because we have a humanitarian crisis on
our southern border--now a refugee crisis--which I would argue
requires an emergency response domestically and the urgent
recalibration of our foreign policy. Just as important that we
address this refugee crisis, in my view, it is equally
important that we do not rush to change our laws in a way that
would strip these children of their rights to due process.
In dealing with this crisis, it is imperative that we
understand its root causes and why it is not about America
putting out a welcome mat. It is about a desperate effort by
desperate parents to do what any parent would do to protect
their child from violence and the threat of death.
We have with us two panels of experts who will help us
fully understand the factors that have driven nearly 60,000
unaccompanied children, in the past 5 months alone, to flee
their countries and seek refuge in the United States.
This past weekend, in a piece in the New York Times by
Pulitzer Prize-winning author Sonia Nazario--who is on our
second panel today--wrote about, among others, Cristian Omar
Reyes, a sixth-grader. His father was murdered by gangs while
working as a security guard. Three people he knows were
murdered this year, four others were gunned down on a corner
near his house in the first 2 weeks of the year. A girl his age
was beaten, had a hole cut in her throat, her body left in a
ravine across from his house. Cristian said, ``It is time to
leave.''
Or Carlos Baquedano, a 14-year-old who worked in a dump,
picking scrap metal when he was a boy, making a dollar or two a
day. When he was 9 years old, he barely escaped two drug
traffickers who were trying to rape him. When he was 10, the
drug traffickers pressured him to try drugs and join a gang. He
has known eight people who were murdered, three killed in front
of him. In one case, he watched as two hitmen brazenly shot two
young brothers, execution-style.
These stories are the tragic stories of life-changing
experiences that too many children face in Central America
every day, tens of thousands of children like Cristian and
Carlos, whose stories are unknown, but no less tragic.
For me, as someone who has closely followed Latin America
for decades, the current crisis in Central America is no less
shocking than for anyone else, but it does not come as a
complete surprise. At the end of the civil wars that raged
across Central America in the 1980s and 1990s, we did not pay
enough attention, after the wars, to the region. We did not
remain sufficiently engaged with our Central American
neighbors. We did not work closely enough with them to address
the structural problems of social and economic development or
the societal violence that is fueling today's crisis.
I have complained strongly and argued forcefully that the
years of cuts to the region would come at our own peril.
Besides the deep poverty, we have enormous challenges in
Central America, where we have the confluence of major drug
trafficking as a via to the United States, where we have gangs
that have dramatically increased in El Salvador from 600 to
40,000; then, of course, human traffickers, who take advantage
of those set of circumstances. And the efforts that we failed
to take end up now with the crisis on our southern border.
Year after year, when we have reviewed budgets of this and
past administrations, I have said that our constant cuts to
Latin America and Central America will come at a price. And,
unfortunately, in part, we are seeing that price today. So, we
are going to spend $3.4 billion to deal with the consequences
of the causes in Central America, but we will deal luckily--
luckily, because we have only spent $110 million in five
Central American countries under this proposal, with $300
million to deal with the core issues of citizen security, of
combating the traffickers, of combating the drug cartels, of
combating the gangs; $300 million-$3.4 billion. It would seem
to me that, at some point, we will focus on the core problems
so that we do not have the consequences in our country of the
challenges of the deep issues that are facing Central America
as it relates to citizen security.
Although this hearing is about root causes and how we might
deal with it, let me just take the moment, in personal
privilege, of saying I oppose the changing of the existing law.
There is a reason why that law was passed. It was passed to say
that noncontiguous nations--if you are fleeing 2,000 miles to
try to come to the United States, there may be a greater
probability that you have a real case to be made for asylum,
because you have a credible fear of the loss of your life,
which, under our law, as I hear those who advocate for the rule
of law--I agree--under our law, is very clear.
Now, if you flee 2,000 miles and you were told by the
gangs, ``Join or die,'' if you are raped and you flee 2,000
miles not to ever experience that tragic and traumatic set of
circumstances, you do not come with anything but the clothing
on your back. And when you get here to the United States, you
are going to need a reasonable period of time to be able to
produce the facts to make that case. That does not come with
you.
And so, I understand the desire to accelerate the process,
but accelerating without due process is not acceptable. I
believe the law presently has a series of provisions in it that
would give the administration the wherewithal to accelerate,
but with due process.
So, I support the efforts for the resources that are
necessary to meet the challenge. But, by the same token, those
who just have a different view about what this law was intended
to do, which passed with broad bipartisan support in both
houses of the Congress and signed by a Republican President, is
not something that I, personally, can accept.
Finally, I hope we will hear our panelists' views on the
root causes of the problem, more broadly, the short- and long-
term strategies that will strengthen governance and the rule of
law in these countries, restore public confidence in the
affected justice systems and civilian police forces that
dismantles the human smuggling networks bringing these children
to our border, making sure that children and families deported
from the United States--and there will be many under the
existing law who will be deported, who will not have proven a
credible case--receive sufficient attention and support when
they arrive home, and how we can lay a strong foundation so
that we can have citizen security in Central America so that we
will not face the consequences and they will face a more
prosperous future.
And, with that, I would like to recognize the distinguished
ranking member, Senator Corker.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
having this hearing. And I know this is an issue that you feel
very passionate about.
I was glad to join you in the Senate-passed immigration
bill. It was not a perfect bill, as any bill with 68 people
supporting it is. Certainly, the immigration bill we passed out
of the Senate, I am sure, can be improved, but I really do
believe that the type of thing we are dealing with on the
border now cries out for us, as a Congress, to deal with
immigration reform. And I do hope that, at some point, we will
do that.
Now, you stressed some things in your opening statement,
and I am going to stress some differing things in my opening
statement. And my guess is that there are multiple veins of
reasons as to why we are having this problem on the border. And
it is my hope that, over the course of the next 2 or 3 weeks,
that we will take into account all of those factors and put
something in place that does solve this problem.
So, I want to thank you for calling the hearing. I want to
thank the witnesses for being here today and sharing their
wisdom with us.
And, as I mentioned, I hope we will be able to establish a
common understanding of the current and recent past economic
and security situations in Central America that are driving
this. I hope we will identify what Mexico and Central American
countries are being asked to do to address the flow of
unaccompanied minors across their borders. And, finally, I hope
we can identify the administration's strategic priorities for
engaging Central American leaders in taking responsibility for
addressing the region's problems in order to secure sustained
economic growth.
The immediate problem is at our borders, and it is our
government's immediate responsibility to ensure the integrity
of our borders. The ongoing migration crisis involving
unaccompanied children is pushing our Border Patrol and Human
Services personnel beyond their capacity to cope. The flow of
unaccompanied children started to spike in 2012. Unlike in the
past--and I think this is very important--when migrants sought
to evade U.S. authorities, these migrants are turning
themselves in, because they know they will not be immediately
returned. This is a real change in the way the behavior is at
the border. And I think it is something that we should focus
on, in addition to the comments the Chairman made.
Lawlessness and gang-related violence that targets the
young certainly makes them want to leave Central America. The
hope of joining family or getting an education and a better
life are also powerful incentives to leave. But, levels of
violence and lawlessness across Central America really are
nothing new. Nothing much has changed in that regard. And yet,
we have this huge influx that is occurring.
Something else is clearly at play, here. Word of mouth and
local news reports have spread about children being cared for
by U.S. authorities, being connected with family already here,
and being allowed to stay. A significant pull factor has
developed, due to both the unintended consequences of current
U.S. law, as well as the actual and perceived enforcement
policies of the administration. It is highly likely that human
traffickers are marketing this new way to get into the United
States, which may also help account for the spike. United
States, Mexican, Central American law enforcement efforts have
been focused on counternarcotics operations and not this
phenomenon.
Post-9/11, U.S. attention was understandably focused
elsewhere in the world, but we cannot afford to ignore the
state of affairs in Central America. This migration crisis may
well pass, but it will recur in one form or another. It calls
attention to the need for the United States to craft and
implement appropriate immigration policies to account for the
clear unintended consequences of current law and its
application by the administration, but also a proactive
strategy to engage Central American leaders in taking
responsibility for addressing the region's problems in order to
secure sustained economic growth. Stabilizing the region is in
the U.S. national interest. Moreover, as Mexico itself
increasingly becomes a destination country for migrants, the
strategy can and should be a regional partnership.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you again. I look
forward to the testimony and, hopefully, at least on this
issue, a solution sometime soon in the United States Senate and
Congress.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Corker. I do agree
with you that, if the broad bipartisan immigration reform that
had passed the United States Senate a year ago had been even
taken up by the House of Representatives, that, while I will
not say we would not have this problem, because root causes
still exist, we would be better able to deal with the
challenge, because the amendment that you authored with Senator
Johanns ultimately dealt with border enforcement, trafficking,
and a series of other critical issues that would have been
helpful to us today. So, I appreciate your comments.
Let me introduce our first panel: Thomas Shannon, the
Counselor at the State Department--Ambassador Shannon has a
long history in the hemisphere and knows very well some of
these issues; and Bruce Swartz, the Deputy Assistant Attorney
General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.
We appreciate both of you being here. Let me advise you
both that your full statements will be included in the record,
without objection. I would ask you to summarize them in about 5
minutes or so, so that we can get into a Q&A.
With that, we will start with you, Ambassador Shannon.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS A. SHANNON, JR., COUNSELOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Shannon. Mr. Chairman, Senator Corker,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify today. It is an honor to appear before
you with my distinguished colleague from the Department of
Justice, Bruce Swartz.
If I might, I would also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and you, Senator Corker, for the tremendous work that you and
your committee have done in moving ahead ambassadorial
nominations. The recent confirmation of Jim Nealon as our
Ambassador to Honduras was an important step forward in the
region, enhanced our diplomatic presence. So, thank you very
much for the tremendous effort you both have made and your
committee has made.
I am grateful for the opportunity to address the foreign
policy implications and consequences of the surge in
unaccompanied children along our southwest border. In my
written testimony, I lay out our understanding of the challenge
we face on our southwest border, the strategy we have devised
to address it, our diplomatic engagement up to this point in
regard to that challenge, and why quick approval of the
President's supplemental budget request is important and
necessary.
As we consider the challenges posed by this migration of
unaccompanied children, I would like to note the following.
First, migration by unaccompanied children is not
necessarily a new phenomenon along the frontier. What
distinguishes this migration, however, and really what makes it
unprecedented, is its size and its composition, as both the
chairman and the ranking member have noted. What was
historically a largely Mexican phenomenon is now a Central
American phenomenon, and, in fact, it is concentrated on three
countries, or three source countries: Guatemala, Honduras, and
El Salvador. The implication, here, of course, is that the flip
in the source countries of these unaccompanied children means
that something dramatic is happening in these three countries
and something is driving this migration.
And, while the motives behind the migration are mixed, many
being driven by traditional factors, such as family
reunification and economic opportunity, underlying much of the
migration is a fear of violence caused by criminal gangs. In
other words, there is a significant push factor, here, for the
migration coming from Central America and from these three
countries. But, at the same time, as has been noted, this push
factor is being exploited by traffickers whose understanding of
U.S. law and U.S. practice has allowed them to market a certain
approach to bringing unaccompanied children to the border,
especially the idea of taking them only to the border and then
turning them over to U.S. authorities, something which is new.
The third point I would like to make is that the migration
is regional. While much of it is directed toward the United
States, the impact is really being felt throughout the region.
The U.N. High Commission on Refugees has registered a 400-
percent increase in asylum requests in neighboring countries,
which, from our point of view, means that, while most of the
children are heading to the United States, largely because they
have family already in the United States or networks of
migration that they can plug into, those who, for whatever
reason, are not going to the United States are still fleeing.
They are just fleeing to other countries in the region.
And fourth, as we devise a response, we know that our
approach has to be regional, that it has to involve the source
and the transit countries, but it also has to address those
affected by this migration. In other words, we cannot solve
this problem alone. We need to build partnerships.
And again, I just came from Mexico. I was down on the
Mexican frontier with Guatemala. And what is striking about
this migration is that Mexico is now not only a source and a
transit country of migration, but it is also a destination
country, since many migrants are staying in Mexico, which means
that Mexico is experiencing many of the problems that we have
been experiencing over time with migration, and which means
that we have a basis for a common understanding and approach on
migration issues. But, also, Guatemala has become a transit
country, as Hondurans and Salvadorans cross Guatemala. So, the
mixing of purposes and relationships among the five countries
that are both source, transit, and destination countries
actually creates new opportunities for partnership.
And through our diplomatic engagement in the region in
fairly short time, I believe we have, first of all, fashioned a
common understanding of the problem among the United States,
Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. We have created a
common public messaging campaign to counter the marketing
tactics of the human smugglers, which we believe is beginning
to have an impact. We have established new mechanisms of
cooperation on immigration and border security with Mexico and
Guatemala, which includes Mexico's recent announcement of a
southern border initiative. And we have begun repatriations of
adults with children. The first flight to Honduras has already
happened, and we are working toward similar repatriations to
Guatemala and El Salvador.
As we engage with the Central Americans on the causes and
drivers of this migration, we have an opportunity to build a
comprehensive and integrated regional strategy. And the
supplemental request of $300 million, as I have noted, is
really a downpayment on that larger strategy.
With that, sir, I conclude my remarks, and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Shannon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Thomas A. Shannon
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, distinguished members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you on the
``Crisis in Central America and the Exodus of Unaccompanied Minors.''
It is an honor to appear before you with my distinguished colleague
from the Department of Justice.
We are facing an acute crisis on our southern border, as tens of
thousands of children leave Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to
travel through Mexico to the United States. Driven by a mixture of
motives and circumstances, these children are seeking reunification
with their parents, better life opportunities, and, in some cases,
safety from violence and criminal gang activity.
The human drama of this migration is heightened by the nefarious
role of human smugglers. Smuggling networks exploit these children and
their parents, preying on their desperation and hope, while exposing
the children to grave dangers, abuse, and sometimes injury and death
along a journey of more than 1 thousand miles.
Last week, in testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee,
the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services laid
out the dimensions of this crisis, and its impact on existing resources
at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and
Human Services, local law enforcement agencies, state humanitarian and
disaster response teams, municipal and state government, and on local
communities as they face an unprecedented surge in attempted migration
to the United States by unaccompanied children, even as overall
migration remains at historic lows.
The President's supplemental budget request of $3.7 billion dollars
is aimed at addressing this crisis, especially the resource and
infrastructure challenges we have along our southern border. The need
for additional funding to meet these challenges is great, but it is
necessary to ensure that these children, an especially vulnerable class
of migrant, are treated in a humane and dignified fashion as we protect
our border, enforce our laws, and meet our international obligations.
The supplemental request for the U.S. Department of State and USAID
also identifies additional funding to address the factors that are
pushing children from their homes in Guatemala, Honduras, and El
Salvador. In tandem with existing resources and programs, this funding
would allow us to enhance our engagement in Central America and fashion
an integrated and comprehensive approach to the economic, social, and
security challenges that lie behind the current migration crisis.
In my testimony today, I would like to lay out for the committee
our understanding of the crisis, the diplomatic steps we have taken so
far to address the problem, the response we have received from the
Central American countries and Mexico, and how we would use
supplemental funding to counter the underlying causes of the crisis.
the issue
Migration by unaccompanied children is not a new phenomenon. It has
ebbed and flowed for some time. However, what has changed is the size
of the migration and the source countries. In the past, most children
migrating illegally to the United States were Mexican nationals. Under
existing law, these children could be returned to Mexico through
expedited removal. In 2008, we returned 34,083 unaccompanied (Mexican)
children to Mexican authorities. Vigorous enforcement of our laws, new
forms of law enforcement partnerships with Mexico through the Merida
Initiative, and efforts by the Government of Mexico to address the
factors driving such migration helped reduce by half the number of
unaccompanied children from Mexico who were apprehended attempting to
enter the United States.
As you are well aware, this decline has been offset by a surge in
unaccompanied children migrating from Central America. While we have
witnessed an increase in such migrants from Central America over the
past several years, more than 50,000 unaccompanied children from
Central America have been apprehended along our southwest border this
fiscal year. Of these migrants, nearly three-quarters are males between
the ages of 15 and 17.
Efforts by the U.S. Government, the United Nations High Commission
of Refugees, and NGOs to understand the drivers of this migration and
information collected in interviews conducted by Customs and Border
Protection officials highlight the mixed motives behind this surge in
Central American migration. For the most part, these children have
abandoned their homes for a complex set of motives that combine a
desire to be with their parents and pursue a life of greater
opportunity and wider possibility. Underlying some of this migration is
a fear of violence in their home communities, and a fear that criminal
gangs will either forcibly recruit or harm them.
In short, this migration trend is the product of economic and
social conditions in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. A
combination of poverty, ineffective public institutions, and crime have
combined to push these children from their homes and to begin an
arduous and dangerous journey.
While the United States has been the primary destination of these
migrants, largely because family members are already here, the impact
of the migration has been felt throughout the region. The United
Nations High Commission on Refugees has identified a more than 400-
percent increase in asylum requests made by unaccompanied children from
Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador in neighboring countries.
To address the challenge posed by the migration of unaccompanied
children, we have fashioned a five-part strategy designed to stem the
flow of migrants, screen them properly for international protection
concerns, and then begin timely repatriation. This strategy consists
of:
--One: Establishing a common understanding of what is happening and why
between the United States, the three source countries--Guatemala,
Honduras, and El Salvador--and the major transit country, Mexico.
--Two: Fashioning a common public messaging campaign to deter
migration, especially by children. This campaign highlights the
dangers of migration, but also counters misinformation of smugglers
seeking clients.
--Three: Improving the ability of Mexico and Guatemala to interdict
migrants before they cross into Mexico and enter the established
smuggling routes that move the migrants to our border.
--Four: Enhancing the capacity of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador
to receive and reintegrate repatriated migrants to break the cycle
of migration and discourage further efforts at migration.
--Five: Addressing the underlying causes of migration of unaccompanied
children by focusing additional resources on economic and social
development, and enhancing our citizen security programs to reduce
violence, attack criminal gang structures, and reach out to at-risk
youth.
This cooperative effort is defined by collaboration between the
United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. It is a
new approach to address migration issues that reflects the ties and
common interests created among our countries by demographics, trade
relations, and increased security cooperation.
So far, our diplomatic outreach has created a common understanding
of the problem of migration by unaccompanied minors and the
responsibility of all the countries to address it. President Obama's
outreach to Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto; Vice-President
Biden's trip to Guatemala to meet with the leaders of Guatemala, El
Salvador, and Honduras; Secretary Kerry's meeting with these leaders in
Panama; DHS Secretary Johnson's trip to Guatemala to meet with
President Perez Molina; Under Secretary of State Sarah Sewall's trip to
Honduras; and my own engagement with the Foreign Ministers of
Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico were all part of intense
engagement over the last several weeks.
Our engagement has allowed us to fashion a common public message
that has received support from the highest levels of government in
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. For example, the visits of the
First Ladies of these countries to the southern border to meet with
unaccompanied children, and their subsequent public statements urging
their compatriots not to send their children north or expose them to
smugglers have echoed powerfully in their counties. Combined with
public messaging campaigns by our Embassies, the governments of these
countries and Mexico, we have helped create a new and dynamic debate
about illegal migration that undermines efforts by smugglers to entice
young people into migration through misinformation about the risks of
the journey and the benefits they will supposedly receive in the United
States.
The July 7 announcement of Mexican President Pena Nieto of a new
Mexican southern border strategy was a welcome step towards improving
Mexico's ability to exercise greater control along its border with
Guatemala and Belize. Announced in the presence of the Guatemalan
President, this initiative is a manifestation of a new willingness to
work together along their common border. To match this level of
cooperation, we are working to provide support to Mexico's southern
border initiative and intend to provide $86 million in existing
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) funds, and
we are working with Guatemala to improve its border controls, with
special focus on building joint task forces that link all agencies with
responsibility for border control. On July 15, the Government of Mexico
named a coordinator for its Southern Border Initiative. Senator
Humberto Mayans Cabral, head of the Senate's Southern Border
Commission, will act as a ``czar'' to oversee and direct the Mexican
Government's efforts to stem illegal migration across its southern
border.
In regard to repatriation and reintegration, Vice President Biden
announced during his trip to Guatemala $9.6 million to improve the
ability of the source countries to increase the number of repatriated
migrants they can receive and assist in their reintegration. On July 9,
DHS Secretary Johnson signed two memorandums of cooperation with the
Guatemala counterpart. The first focuses on enhancing cooperation on
immigration, border security, and information-sharing. The second
provides a process to share information on Guatemalan nationals
repatriated to Guatemala. On July 14, USAID provided approval to the
International Organization for Migration to commence this work. On July
14, Honduras received a repatriation flight of adults with children
recently apprehended at the Southwest border.
Our work in Mexico through the Merida Initiative, and in Central
America through the Central America Regional Security Initiative
(CARSI), has allowed us to build the relationships, understanding, and
capacity to help the Central American source countries address
underlying causes of migration by unaccompanied children. Our
development assistance work conducted by USAID has also allowed us to
build assistance partnerships that can be turned to helping our partner
countries address the economic and social development issues that also
contribute to migration.
keeping our strategic focus
Our assistance to the seven countries of the region currently falls
under the umbrella of CARSI. Since 2008, Congress has appropriated $642
million on programs that have been predicated on the view that
establishing a secure environment and functional law enforcement
institutions is the first and essential step in creating conditions for
investment and economic growth. We know thanks to a recent independent
evaluation by Vanderbilt University that USAID's work with
at-risk youth in select municipalities is highly successful in reducing
crime and increasing the reporting of it. Likewise, the Department of
State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
has demonstrated impressive results with its Model Police Precinct
program in El Salvador and Guatemala. Still, those and other successful
U.S. programs are relatively small in scale and should be scaled up
with the committed involvement of the countries concerned.
We have learned a lot since CARSI began in 2008, and we now seek to
build on those experiences. Specifically, we need to link our work on
citizen security with our efforts to promote economic growth,
opportunity, and job creation. Without addressing the economic and
social development challenges, we cannot meet the concerns and
aspirations of the adolescents and young adults fleeing Central
America. Many of the new proposals in the supplemental request are
intended to create the opportunity and organization that Central
American economies currently lack.
the supplemental request
The supplemental request, although focused largely on addressing
resource and infrastructure issues along our border, also has an
important component focused on the work I have described and designed
to be a downpayment on that new strategic objective. The $300 million
request allocates $5 million on public diplomacy and messaging, and
$295 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF) on an initiative broadly
grouped under the headings of prosperity, governance, and security.
The $125 million directed toward prosperity would focus on
improving economic opportunity and creating jobs, improving customs and
border controls to enhance revenue collection and economic integration,
and investing in energy to reduce the cost and improve access to energy
as a driver of economic growth and investment.
The $70 million requested for governance would focus on improving
public sector management, fiscal reform, and strengthening the
independence, transparency, and accountability of the judiciaries in
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The purpose of these funds would
be to promote rule of law, attack corruption, and enhance the
efficiency and efficacy of government.
The $100 million requested for security would focus on expanding
community-based programs to reduce youth crime and violence, expand
national police capacity, attack gangs and transnational organized
crime, promote prison reform, and enhance migrant repatriation
capacity. These funds would enhance our work with partners to expand
and nationalize our citizen security efforts and address the violence
that is one of the principal drivers of migration.
We believe this request is reasonable and necessary. It builds on
work we are already doing in Central America, takes advantage of
existing expertise and experience, and expands our ability to encourage
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to work with us closely on an
issue of compelling human drama and national interest.
Moving forward we hope to work with Congress to broaden the scope
of our efforts and deepen our engagement with Central America. We must
build a new, comprehensive, and collaborative approach with Central
America and Mexico to problems that have an immediate manifestation in
migration, but underlie the larger development and security challenges
facing our closest neighbors. By working to meet the challenge of
illegal migration of unaccompanied children to the United States, we
will be advancing broader interests in the region and giving substance
to our vision of an Americas where democracy and markets deliver
economic and social development.
I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the crisis of
unaccompanied children with you and look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. General Swartz.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE SWARTZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
CRIMINAL DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Swartz. Chairman Menendez, Senator Corker, members of
the committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss,
today, the Department of Justice's law enforcement response to
the problem of unaccompanied children crossing illegally into
the United States.
The Department of Justice is, of course, bringing the full
range of its authorities to bear on this problem; in
particular, its immigration authorities. But, at the same time,
we are also focusing our criminal justice authorities. And that
response takes two forms: first, our own investigations and
prosecutions within the United States; and, second, our work
overseas to help build the law enforcement capacity of our
partners in the source countries from which these children are
coming.
Let me turn, first, to our own law enforcement
investigations and prosecutions. Our strategy in this regard
has three prongs: it attacks the smugglers, the criminal gangs
in the home countries of these individuals that prey upon them,
and the cartels that exploit and profit upon the smuggling of
these children through the territories they control.
With regard to our smuggling work, we build on a long
history of successful prosecution of smuggling organizations.
We have done literally thousands of these cases, including
complex international criminal smuggling groups. But, as
Senator Corker has noted today, this presents a new type of
smuggling and a new, more difficult issue, from a law
enforcement perspective, since the smugglers do not have to
cross the border, since the children are being encouraged
simply to present themselves, and since our intelligence
suggests that many of these smugglers are not operating in
large-scale organizations, but, rather, in small groups.
Nonetheless, we are committed to developing strategies to
attack these smugglers through investigation and prosecution.
And, to that end, Deputy Attorney General Cole met, last week,
with U.S. attorneys on our southern border to push forward our
strategic thinking in that regard.
The second prong, as I mentioned, is our attack on the
criminal gangs that prey on these children in their home
countries and help spur their migration to the United States.
In this context, our organized crime and gang section within
the Department of Justice aggressively targets the leadership
of MS-13, the 18th Street Gang, and other transnational
criminal gangs that attack not only these children and their
family members in those countries, but also pose a threat to
the United States. And we have continued, and will continue, to
bring such cases.
The third prong, as I mentioned, is our attack on the
cartels. The cartels, our intelligence suggests, profit by
taxing these individuals, these children as they come through
their territories, and by sometimes exploiting them as couriers
or otherwise. Here, too, we, of course, have a strategy that
looks not only at the high-value targets in these cartels, but
also the full range of the enterprise. We also have disruption
activities, including one last month led by DEA, bringing
together Central American countries, that seek to stop the
smuggling of all contraband.
But, as has been noted, however, we cannot do this alone.
And so, the second part of our criminal justice response is
working to build the capacity of the countries from which these
children are coming. And in that regard, we have both a short-
term and a long-term goal. The short-term goal is to build the
kind of trusted partners, vetted units, within these countries
that we can work with as our own law enforcement partners and
that can also address the most serious violent crimes within
those countries. The FBI, with State Department funding, has
created transnational antigang units. DEA has created special
investigative units. Homeland Security also has vetted units.
These units create an important nucleus for prosecuting these
cases within the countries with trusted prosecutors and police
counterparts, and they help protect U.S. citizens, as well, by
doing so.
Our longer range strategy is to build the capacity of these
countries across the criminal justice system, from
investigations to prosecutions to prisons. And, in that
context, we have two organizations within the Department of
Justice dedicated to that task, our Overseas Prosecutorial
Development Office, OPDAT, and our Criminal Justice Development
Office, ICITAP. Our strategy in both of those cases is, with
State Department support, to place, on a long-term basis,
Federal prosecutors and senior law enforcement experts in those
countries to work with their counterparts and to think through
a systemic change to their justice systems.
Here, too, we have had success in these countries. We have
seen this work. We have seen it work in Colombia. We have seen
it work in the Balkans. We have seen it work around the world.
And thus, the Department of Justice strongly supports the
supplemental funding request, here, which, among other things,
would provide $7 million to allow the Department of Justice to
increase its placement of prosecutors and of senior law
enforcement experts to work with their counterparts in these
source countries, and to help reduce the violence that serves
as one of the drivers for the crisis that we face today.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swartz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce Swartz
Good afternoon, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before the committee today to discuss the Department of Justice's law
enforcement efforts to address the humanitarian challenge created by
unaccompanied children who lack lawful status that are crossing into
the United States through our southern border with Mexico. I also
particularly want to thank the Chair for holding this hearing and for
his continued leadership on this important issue.
As Attorney General Holder has noted, how we address the issues
associated with unaccompanied children goes to the core of who we are
as a nation. The Department of Justice is, therefore, committed to
working with our interagency and international partners to find humane,
durable solutions to this pressing problem. My colleagues from the
Department of Justice have testified in other hearings regarding the
steps that the Department is taking to address this problem from an
immigration law perspective. Among other steps, the Department is
increasing the number of immigration judges assigned to conduct
hearings and prioritizing adjudication of cases that fall into the
following four groups: unaccompanied children; families in detention;
families released on ``alternatives to detention''; and other detained
cases.
At today's hearing, however, I will focus on the Justice
Department's law enforcement steps we are taking to address this issue.
Our actions in this regard fall into two categories: (1) investigation
and prosecution of those who are facilitating the illegal entry of
unaccompanied children into the United States and those who are preying
upon those children; and (2) work with our foreign counterparts to help
build their capacity to address the crime and violence that can serve
as potential catalysts for the flow of these children to the United
States.
investigations and prosecutions
The Department of Justice has a long history of investigating and
prosecuting human smugglers. Recent cases include that of Joel
Mazariegos-Soto, a leader of a human smuggling organization, who was
prosecuted in the District of Arizona, and sentenced to 60 months in
prison for his role in operating an illegal human smuggling
organization. Mazariegos-Soto and his associates utilized multiple
stash houses in the Phoenix area, including one--discovered by agents
with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI) in October 2012--containing over 27 unauthorized
immigrants, and another--found in January 2013--with over 40
unauthorized immigrants.
Similarly, in the Southern District of Texas, an individual named
Lenyn Acosta was recently prosecuted and sentenced to 97 months in
federal prison for his role in a conspiracy to transport or harbor
unauthorized immigrants present in the country. Acosta was the
organizer and leader of a conspiracy involving hundreds of undocumented
immigrants, including juveniles. He also caused serious bodily injury
to a female unauthorized immigrant he harbored by sexually assaulting
her, demonstrating the sort of dangers faced by those persons being
smuggled into the United States.
The Department of Justice also recently secured the extradition
from Morocco of an individual named Habtom Merhay, a national of
Eritrea and a citizen of the United Kingdom, who will now stand trial
in Washington, DC, for human smuggling charges related to his alleged
role in smuggling primarily Eritrean and Ethiopian undocumented
migrants from the Middle East, through South and Central America and
Mexico into the United States.
These cases are just a few examples but are emblematic of the work
of federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents who enforce our
Nation's immigration laws. But we now face a new type of human
smuggling. In contrast to the typical smuggling case, there is no
effort to hide these children from the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) officials stationed along the borders. To the
contrary, the smugglers of these children essentially have to do
nothing more than transport them to the vicinity of the border and
instruct them to approach the CBP. Thus, the smuggler need never enter
the U.S., thereby limiting the possibility that he or she will be
arrested by U.S. authorities. The difficulties in effectively
investigating and prosecuting these cases are compounded by their
transnational nature. Notably, the majority of the planning and
activity associated with these crimes occur in one or more foreign
countries--and outside the ordinary investigative reach of U.S.
authorities. Moreover, while human smuggling organizations are clearly
participating in the movement of families and unaccompanied children to
the U.S. border, there are also indications that a significant part of
the movement of children and families from Central America may be
unstructured, relying on informal contacts and individuals who are
opportunistically assisting the migrants in return for payment. This
makes the problem of unaccompanied children particularly difficult to
attack through investigation and prosecution, because many of the
individuals assisting the children may not be part of any large-scale
criminal organization.
Nonetheless, the Department of Justice is working collaboratively
with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to facilitate
investigations that may lead to prosecutions of those responsible for
the illegal entry of minors into the United States. Among other things,
we are working with our foreign counterparts to encourage them to
target facilitators operating in their countries.
Additionally, we are encouraging disruption strategies in Central
American countries that will make cross-border smuggling--whether of
drugs people, or contraband--more difficult, by targeting the cartels
that may exploit the children being smuggled, or who may impose
``taxes'' on human smugglers who wish to use the cartels' smuggling
routes.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), for instance, has led
disruption efforts in Central America and Mexico, such as Operation
Fronteras Unidas--an operation designed to detect, disrupt, and
dismantle drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) involved in the land-
based smuggling of illicit substances, precursor chemicals and bulk
cash throughout Mexico and Central America. This operation was intended
to help strengthen communication and coordination within the region and
assist in identifying the key land-based transportation routes and
methods utilized by the DTO's throughout Central America and Mexico and
to support ongoing investigations and prosecutions in the U.S. and
Central American countries.
During May 2014, Operation Fronteras Unidas was supported by
personnel from Mexico and seven Central American countries. This
included 523 host nation personnel who focused resources at 24
checkpoints throughout the region. As a result, Operation Fronteras
Unidas yielded seizures of 1,512 kilograms of cocaine; 516 pounds of
marijuana; 367 grams of crack cocaine; $334,585 in cash; 1 assault
rifle, 1 handgun and 1 grenade; 54 drug-related arrests and 5 arrests
on human smuggling charges during the 10 day action. Such successful
initiatives demonstrate that international collaboration against
complex transnational issues is possible.
The Department of Justice also continues to prosecute gang-related
crimes related to Central America, thus working to address one of the
root causes of the instability in these countries that helps drive this
crisis. Since 2007, the Justice Department's Organized Crime and Gang
Section (OCGS), in conjunction with our U.S. Attorney Offices (USAOs),
in cases investigated by the FBI, ATF, and ICE/HSI, has aggressively
pursued transnational violent gangs headquartered in Central America.
For example, OCGS, in conjunction with our USAOs, has prosecuted
complex racketeering indictments against the national and international
leadership of the notorious international street gang La Mara
Salvatrucha, or MS-13. OCGS and the USAOs, together with their law
enforcement partners have successfully secured convictions for
racketeering offenses, murder, kidnapping, sexual assaults, and
narcotics and weapons trafficking, and have secured life sentences and,
in one instance, the death penalty, against the worst offenders of the
gang in the United States. Significantly, several of these cases have
not only targeted regional or national leadership of MS-13, but also
have included indictments of the gang's leaders in El Salvador who have
orchestrated criminal conduct in the United States from their jail
cells in El Salvador.
At the same time, we are continuing to consider alternative
investigative and prosecutorial strategies. The Department is
redoubling its efforts to work with Mexican and Central American
authorities to identify and apprehend smugglers who are aiding
unaccompanied children in crossing the United States border. The Deputy
Attorney General met last week with the five U.S. attorneys whose
districts lie on our Southern Border to discuss strategies for
disrupting and dismantling criminal organizations that smuggle migrants
into the United States.
capacity building
At the same time that we are using the criminal justice process in
the United States to address the problem of unaccompanied children
crossing our southern border, we are also committed to helping build
the capacity of our foreign counterparts to address the violence--
particularly the gang violence--that can serve to encourage migration.
This violence can be addressed by a sustained commitment to law
enforcement reform by the Central American countries from which these
minors are fleeing. Where a country has made such a commitment, the
Department of Justice has demonstrated its willingness to assist
through exchanges of expertise. The Department of Justice, however,
does not receive appropriations for overseas capacity-building.
Instead, we look primarily to the U.S. Department of State and the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID), as the lead U.S.
Government agencies for foreign assistance, for funding for our
overseas security sector assistance work. We ask you to support the
administration's full supplemental request.
With regard to capacity-building, the Justice Department's main
efforts are through our constituent law enforcement agencies--the FBI,
DEA, USMS, and ATF--and two offices within the Department solely
dedicated to overseas security sector work: the International Criminal
Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) and the Office of
Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT),
both of which are located in the Criminal Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice. Both OPDAT and ICITAP are tasked with furthering
U.S. Government and DOJ interests abroad through programs related to
the criminal justice system. With State Department approval and
funding, OPDAT and ICITAP can place federal prosecutors, and senior law
enforcement officers, as long-term resident advisors in countries
seeking to reform their laws as well as their investigative,
prosecutorial, and correctional services.
Within the region, the Department currently has OPDAT prosecutorial
Resident Legal Advisors (RLAs) in Mexico, El Salvador, and Honduras.
Mexico is by far our most robust program. There, OPDAT and ICITAP are
supporting Mexico's decision to make a transition from an inquisitorial
system to an accusatory one, and are working collaboratively with
Mexican prosecutors, investigators, and forensic experts, including on
specialized programs in the areas of money laundering and asset
forfeiture, intellectual property, evidence preservation, and
extraditions. ODPAT has also worked closely with the Government of
Mexico and the U.S. Marshals Service on Witness Protection issues.
In that regard, the RLA in Honduras has provided technical
assistance and mentoring to Honduran police and prosecutors on complex
investigations, specifically emphasizing the investigation of human
smuggling organizations. He has worked to establish better
communication between law enforcement and prosecutors regarding
enforcement actions on the border, ensuring cases involving human
smugglers are properly handled to ensure successful prosecutions; and
is creating a team of human trafficking prosecutors and organized crime
prosecutors that can respond when needed anywhere in Honduras on short
notice. In addition, the RLA has led efforts to coordinate
antismuggling efforts among Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
Similarly, in Mexico, the TIP-RLA has worked with counterparts to focus
on vulnerable minors, and on cross-border criminal conduct; this, too,
provides a basis for enhanced antismuggling efforts. More generally,
our ICITAP advisors also provide essential collaborative support that
enhances the investigative capabilities of our law enforcement
counterparts, including with regard to investigating smuggling
organizations. In Mexico, ICITAP provides organizational and capacity-
building support to the Federal Ministerial Police (PFM or the
investigative function of the Attorney General's Office). ICITAP also
supports the establishment of a national framework for professional
standards and training as well as a nationwide sustainable training
system for crime scene first responders.
In El Salvador, the State Department has charged both OPDAT and
ICITAP to assist the Salvadoran Government to achieve economic growth
by: first, reducing the impact of organized crime on small and medium
businesses, whose contribution to growth is key to the economic well-
being of El Salvador; second, ensuring El Salvador's labor force is
protected from crime while transiting to and from work; and third,
ensuring that public transportation service providers serving the labor
force are protected from crime. Through such efforts, the Department of
Justice helps to address the violence that undercuts economic growth,
and spurs immigration.
With Department of State funding, our law enforcement agencies also
have helped to increase capacity to address violent crime in the
region. The FBI has created Transnational Anti-Gang (TAG) Units to
combine the expertise, resources, and jurisdiction of participating
agencies involved in investigating and countering transnational
criminal gang activity in the U.S. and Central America. These groups--
headed by FBI agents who lead vetted teams of national police and
prosecutors in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras--coordinate with
FBI Legal Attaches assigned to those regions and with the Bureau's
International Operations Division.
In the past 2 years, TAG El Salvador has located and captured two
FBI top 10 most-wanted fugitives, both of whom were gang members. These
fugitives are now in the U.S. and are awaiting trial. TAG El Salvador
is currently working on multiple MS-13 or 18th Street gang
investigations tied to the following FBI Offices: Newark, Boston, Los
Angeles, and Washington Field. In addition to gang investigations, TAG
Guatemala has located and captured nine U.S. fugitives wanted for
charges including murder, sexual assault, and financial fraud. These
fugitives have been extradited, or are awaiting extradition, to the
United States for trial.
In addition to combating transnational gangs such as the MS-13 and
18th Street gangs, the TAGs assist domestic FBI and other federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies conducting gang
investigations involving Salvadoran, Guatemalan, and Honduran nationals
engaged in criminal activity within the United States. The TAGs also
provide gang investigation training in the Central American region to
the national police forces, as well as prison employees within the host
nation. TAG members have also provided gang training in the U.S., as
well as in Mexico and other Latin American countries.
Lastly, the TAGs have been extremely successful in investigating,
indicting, and prosecuting MS-13 and 18th Street members in each of the
host countries who were responsible for conducting extortions and other
criminal activity affecting the United States and/or Central American
countries.
Similarly, the DEA has formed cooperative partnerships with foreign
nations to help them to develop more self-sufficient, effective drug
law enforcement programs, and so to reduce violence. Since its
inception in 1997, the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA)
Sensitive Investigative Unit (SIU) program has successfully supported
host-nation vetted programs. These programs are implemented with the
assistance of the Department of State using operations funding
appropriated to DEA. The SIU program selects only the best host-nation
law enforcement officers, who receive 5 weeks of basic investigative
training at DEA's training facility in Quantico, VA, before being
assigned an in-country DEA Special Agent mentor. Once a member of an
SIU, host country personnel become part of a select investigative team
whose primary focus is to target the highest level criminal drug
traffickers, DEA's Consolidated Priority Organization Targets (CPOTs).
The administration has proposed a supplemental funding request for
FY 2014 of $295 million in Economic Support Funds for State and USAID
to address the situation at our Southern border. Of the $295 million in
Economic Support Funds for State and USAID, $7 million would be
transferred to DOJ to support the wide range of DOJ programs in the
region, including vetted units, Regional Legal Advisors, and Senior Law
Enforcement Advisors. This funding will allow DOJ to assist Central
American countries in combating transnational crime and the threat
posed by criminal gangs. The aim is to address the issues that have
been a factor in forcing many migrants to flee Central America for the
United States. We ask that you support the administration's request for
the Department of State so that the administration can continue robust
foreign engagement with the region and we hope that, working with the
Department of State, we can continue and enhance our effort.
Specifically, the funding for DOJ would provide legal and law
enforcement advisors for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras and allow
the Department to initiate law enforcement and prosecution training
programs in each of the three countries to build capacities to
effectively handle ongoing complex investigations, emphasizing the
investigation of human smuggling organizations; improve communication
between law enforcement and prosecutors regarding enforcement actions
on the border, particularly in cases involving human smugglers; and
help create teams of human trafficking prosecutors and organized crime
prosecutors who could respond when needed on short notice.
conclusion
I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the ways
in which the Department of Justice is dedicated to addressing the many
challenges associated with unaccompanied minors illegally entering the
United States. Those challenges, which are shared by the numerous other
federal agencies charged with enforcing our Nation's immigration laws
and securing our borders, can be overcome--but to do so will require
the dedication of necessary resources. There are no quick or easy fixes
to this problem. The Department of Justice, however, is committed to
using the full range of investigative tools and laws available to us to
enforce U.S. immigration laws and to investigate and prosecute those
engaged in smuggling vulnerable children to this country. In addition,
we are prepared to help provide international partners with the means
to address human smuggling and issues related to unaccompanied minors
well before those problems have reached the borders of the United
States.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department's work in
this area, and I look forward to answering any questions you might
have.
The Chairman. Well, thank you both for your testimony.
Let me ask you, Ambassador Shannon. In the President's $3.7
billion supplemental request, less than 10 percent of the
funding is destined to address the root causes of the current
refugee crisis. In addition, at the same time that the
supplemental comes, the administration proposed a 20-percent
cut in FY15 to its Central American Regional Security
Initiative. So, I am trying to understand how we will spend
billions to deal with the consequences, but we are presented
with a 20-percent cut in a Central American Regional Security
Initiative. Can you explain to me how that makes the right
policy sense for us?
Ambassador Shannon. Thank you very much for the question,
and it is a good one, and I think it goes to the heart of the
challenge we face.
The 20-percent cut was the product of a larger budget
request in a constrained budget environment in which we had to
balance a variety of competing demands. Obviously, in light of
what is happening right now, we need that 20 percent back, and
we need much more of it.
And the supplemental budget request is a two-part request.
And, as you know, the largest part of it goes to DHS and HHS
for law enforcement and for human services in relationship to
this crisis. And it is a considerable amount of money,
obviously, but it is in response to the immediacy of the crisis
on our border, and the presence of a significant number of
people on that border, and the need to process them and
determine whether or not they have protection----
The Chairman. I am with you on the supplemental, although I
might structure it a little differently. But, nonetheless, I am
with you on the supplemental. I get it. We have a crisis, we
have to deal with it. I said that to the President.
But, we will have a continuing crisis if we do not begin to
deal with the root causes, the opportunity to vet units that
are both police enforcement as well as prosecutorial
opportunities, if we do not use our intelligence integrated on
the drug traffickers within the region, if we do not help them
fight against the gangs that are heavily armed.
And that is not just about being a good neighbor to Central
America. That is in our own national security interests.
Because where do we think the drugs are headed? Where is the
demand? Here. Where do we think the traffickers want to take
it? Here. Where do the gangs ultimately, in part, derive in
synergy their resources? There, through that process.
So, it is in our own national security interests. And this
is what I have been trying to be saying for years, and I hope
that we will see a change of course, both by the administration
and by the Congress, who shares blame, because no one has been
paying attention to what is happening in the hemisphere in a
way that understands, in our own front yard, in our own
national interest. So, I hope that this becomes a defining and
galvanizing moment for us to be thinking in policy in a
different way.
Now, much has been said by some quarters about the pull
factor of such actions as deferred action. Is it not true that
deferred action would not give anyone who comes now or who has
come in the last year any access to any adjustment of status in
this country?
Ambassador Shannon. That is my understanding, correct.
The Chairman. Now, is it not also true that even the
immigration law passed by the United States Senate that had a
date of December 2011, you had to physically be in the country?
That would not give anybody who comes subsequently any status
or any eligibility or any cause of right, other than maybe
through asylum, to come to the United States and receive the
opportunity to stay. Is that true?
Ambassador Shannon. That is my understanding.
The Chairman. Would that be true, Mr. Swartz?
Mr. Swartz. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is my understanding, as
well.
The Chairman. Now, you know, I look at the continuing
argument that we just have pull factors, here, and people seem
to be blind to the violence factors, but it seems to me that
violence is a large part. I am sure that there is a universe of
children who may have a parent here, or other relative, and
want to be reunited. They will not have a legitimate claim, and
they will ultimately be deported. But, it seems to me that
there is a fair number of children who are ultimately fleeing
violence. Because if that is not one of the driving factors of
this crisis, why are we not seeing the same pull factors of
children coming from other Central American countries outside
of these three, and others in the region?
Ambassador Shannon. As we interview the children as they
come across our border, as they are apprehended by Border
Patrol--really, as they turn themselves in to Border Patrol--
and as others interview children in other countries in the
region, it is evident that, like all migration, there are mixed
motives, here, as I note in my testimony, but an underlying
theme is the violence. In fact, if we overlay, on maps, where
many of these children are coming from, and where gang violence
and drug cartel presence is the strongest, they largely lie one
on top of the other.
The Chairman. Now, some of my colleagues have called for
cutting off all assistance to the Governments of Guatemala, El
Salvador, and Honduras if they do not ``do more.'' And I
believe that these governments have a responsibility. I shared
that with the three ambassadors from those countries in a
recent private meeting I had with them. I have shared that with
some of their heads of state as I have moved throughout the
region. But, it is important to point out that, in Guatemala--
and correct me if I am wrong on these, or if you have any
additional information--the First Lady of Guatemala launched a
massive media campaign urging children not to migrate, and
President Perez's party in the Guatemalan Congress presented
legislation to increase penalties and efforts to combat human
smuggling more effectively.
In Honduras, the government has moved one of its elite
police units, which received training through State Department
programs, to the border to turn back children seeking to flee
the country. And the First Lady has also played a prominent
role, in terms of public messaging.
I understand that there is a new agreement signed between
the Governments of Guatemala and Mexico with reference to the
border security between their two respective countries, and
that there is in the offing some similar agreements and
decisions by the Mexican Government, in addition to those
bilateral agreements, to move resources and to pursue an
elimination of those who seek to ride the train of death and to
look at interior enforcement.
Is that information that I am gleaning publicly, is that
correct information, or is it wrong? And, if it is right, is
there anything else that I have missed that is happening?
Ambassador Shannon. It is correct, sir. The efforts by the
Central American governments, especially the First Ladies, to
work with us on a larger public messaging campaign to highlight
the dangers of illegal migration northwards, especially for
unaccompanied children, has been welcomed by us. And what we
are being able to do through this public messaging campaign is
change the dynamic of the migration debate in the region.
Because, previously, when migration was largely men going
forward to the United States looking for work, this was seen as
something that was not immediately evident or important to the
source countries. But, now that the faces of these migrants are
unaccompanied children, it has created a political dynamic that
these countries must respond to. And they are responding to
them. And visits to our southwest border by the First Ladies of
Guatemala and Honduras, and their efforts to work with their
own governments to promote public messaging, has been a very
important part of our larger campaign.
Mexico has also begun to engage with us in a very helpful
way, and its Southern Border Initiative, which is what you were
referring to--it was announced by President Pena Nieto, on
Mexico's southern border with Guatemala, in the presence of the
Guatemalan President, has also established a tiered system of
interdiction that will help manage the flow of migrants across
those borders, separating out the legal migrants who work in
that border area, but then attempting to interdict illegal
migrants who are heading north. Because, as I noted earlier,
Mexico, while a transit country, is also becoming a destination
country, and it is finding that many of the Central American
migrants moving north are actually staying in Mexico, either
because they are seeking work or because they are being
recruited by cartels as they move through some of the more
conflictive zones of Mexico.
So, what we are seeing is, as we fashion a common
understanding of the problem and fashion common strategies, a
new opportunity for partnerships, with Mexico in particular,
but also with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, that are
going to put us in a position to better deal with this problem.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you both for being here.
I want to begin with the phenomenon that is occurred. We
had a extensive debate last year on border security as part of
immigration reform, and one of the things that was focused on
was the effectiveness of border control. And there was this
whole issue of sign-cutting, okay, where, basically, the border
control agents would try to determine how many people had
actually come across the border, because we could not detect
all the people who were coming. And, as a result of not getting
to any kind of scientific, if you will, way of resolving that,
we ended up with the border control amendment, that the
chairman mentioned earlier, which just said what we were going
to do.
What has changed? I mean, the big issue with border control
was, we did not feel like we had any idea of who was really
coming across, because they were trying to avoid the
authorities. Now all of a sudden, 12 months later, they are
trying to turn themselves in to authorities. So, just tell me
what has happened in the last 12 months that has, 180 degrees,
changed the behavior of people who are coming into our country.
Ambassador Shannon. Well, that is the big question, sir,
and it is the one that we have been struggling with. And as we
interview the migrants coming across and as we engage with our
partners, our primary purpose is to understand the drivers and
the networks that are moving these people. And, as you noted in
your opening remarks, the marketing being used by smugglers has
played an important role in the unaccompanied minors.
Senator Corker. Yes. Look, I had a nice conversation with
you, right prior to this, and I appreciate it. I just want to
know, though--I mean, unless we answer that question----
Ambassador Shannon. Yes.
Senator Corker [continuing]. We are not going to--so, I got
some of the background stuff, but----
Ambassador Shannon. Right.
Senator Corker [continuing]. That phenomenon of people
coming into our country and, instead of avoiding the
authorities, turning themselves in, you have got to have some
gut instinct as to what is driving that. What is it?
Ambassador Shannon. Well, the smugglers know what happens
along the frontier when the children present themselves to
Border Patrol officers. They know they will be taken into
custody, and they know they will be turned over to HHS. What we
have tried to highlight in our public messaging is that the
process does not end there, that the children will then go into
deportation proceedings. And, for those who are determined not
to have a protection need, they will be deported. And that has
been absent from the smugglers' marketing strategy.
But, what happens along that frontier is understood by the
smugglers, and this is one of the reasons they have been
successful in marketing this kind of smuggling.
Senator Corker. So, addressing that policy issue certainly
needs to be a part of what we are doing.
So, let me--Jay Johnson presented to a large group of
Senators yesterday--I found his presentation, other than
quoting my friend, Senator McCain, was very lucid, and I
thought he did a very good job laying out--John, that was a
joke--other than laying out, you know--I thought he laid out
the problem very, very well. One of the things he talked about,
though, that I think is correct, is that four-sevenths of the
people that are actually coming in are now--they are adults. I
mean, we are focused on this children issue, but a big part of
people who are coming in under this phenomenon are adults that
are not accompanied by minors. Is that correct?
Ambassador Shannon. I am not familiar with--I mean, the
adults coming in get removed immediately. You are--unless you
are talking about adults coming with children.
Senator Corker. All right. So, then there are three
categories.
Ambassador Shannon. Right.
Senator Corker. There are adults, there are adults with
minors, and then there are minors.
Ambassador Shannon. Yes.
Senator Corker. And I know there is differing categories as
to how we deal with those, but we have a large group of adults.
We have got adults with minors. And what are we doing,
specifically, with them, at present?
Ambassador Shannon. Obviously, DHS can answer this better
than I, but my understanding is that adults with minors who are
coming across--initially, we were unwilling to separate the
children from the adults, so the adults were being held, put
into deportation proceedings, and then released on their own
recognizance. But, we have begun to deport adults with minors.
In fact, the first deportation flight has gone to Honduras,
either yesterday or the day before, and we are planning
additional ones to Salvador and Guatemala.
Senator Corker. And I do not know the solution, here. I am
seeking answers. Some people have said that one of the big
problems we have with the minors is that we are, you know,
putting them with, you know, guardians, if you will, within the
country, that many of them are not documented; therefore, they
are very unlikely to ever show up back in the court. And some
people have advocated that we, instead of doing that, put these
young minors in detention facilities and care for them there.
What is your response to that?
Ambassador Shannon. Well, sir, again, this is a Department
of Homeland Security and HHS issue more than it is a State
Department issue. But, I would say that holding children in
detention for long periods of time is bad for kids; and
therefore, we either need to hasten our deportation processes
and proceedings or put them with family.
Senator Corker. And so, the first deportation proceedings
are occurring.
Ambassador Shannon. Correct.
Senator Corker. Is that correct? Your first----
Ambassador Shannon. For adults with minors.
Senator Corker. For adults----
Ambassador Shannon. The deportation proceedings for
children have been ongoing over time.
Senator Corker. But, is there a concern--is there a concern
that, when the children are placed with guardians or foster
parents, or whatever our terminology is for that, and when they
are undocumented, that it is very unlikely that they are going
to come back to the courtroom to actually be adjudicated? Is
there a--and sometimes I guess there are 500 days that go by--
400 days, 300 days--before that occurs, and, again, very
unlikely. And so, it appears to me that we have a policy issue,
that, while the cartels and gangs may be taking advantage of
it, it is something that is easily taken advantage of. Is that
correct?
Ambassador Shannon. Oh, without a doubt, they take
advantage of our processes and the fact that we are a rule of
law--I mean, a rule-of-law country and that our deportation
proceedings sometimes can be lengthy. One of the purposes of
the supplemental is to provide funding to increase the speed of
those deportation proceedings.
However, I am not sure of the exact number who actually
show and do not show for these kinds of proceedings. But, there
is a reason to show up, especially if your intent is to file a
request for asylum or refugee status. In other words, if you
believe you have a protection need, then you want to show up
for these kinds of----
Senator Corker. And what percentage of the young people who
are here--what percentage of them do you think are in need of
asylum protection?
Mr. Swartz.
Mr. Swartz. Senator, I think that that is a question that
we are examining, and it will have to be developed as the
facts----
Senator Corker. But, you have a lot of insights as to what
has occurred. How many of them do you think are needing asylum?
Mr. Swartz. Senator, I think that is a question that we
would have to analyze and respond to you in writing as to a
percentage in that context, particularly as this is a
developing----
Senator Corker. Well, look, I am not asking for the
official DOJ statement. I am asking you, as an expert in this
area, as if you were having a conversation with someone, What
is your sense of the number of young people that are coming
into this country during this phenomenon that need asylum?
Mr. Swartz. Again, Senator, I understand that the----
Senator Corker. Mr. Swartz, you are not going to be a very
good witness, if you will not answer questions based on your
knowledge as an expert in this area, supplied to us by DOJ.
Mr. Swartz. Well, Senator, I can speak to the--as I said at
the outset, it is the criminal justice aspect, here, and the
impetus for many of these children to flee. Whether the basis
for their asylum is sufficient will have to be determined in
the proceedings themselves.
Senator Corker. Just a range.
Mr. Swartz. Senator, I am really not prepared----
Senator Corker. Yes.
Mr. Swartz [continuing]. At this stage, to----
Senator Corker. I will tell you this, it does not give me a
lot of faith in the public officials who are dealing with this
issue if they do not have some kind of gut instinct as to the
number of people who are coming into this country that might
actually really need asylum. That does not give me a very good
sense of you having a handle on the situation.
Mr. Swartz. Senator, I will certainly talk with my
colleagues in the Executive Office of Immigration Review to get
their review and their views on that particular question.
I can speak to the criminal justice aspects, here----
Senator Corker. Yes.
Mr. Swartz [continuing]. As opposed to the immigration
aspects to the asylum----
Senator Corker. Well, can Mr. Shannon answer that question?
Ambassador Shannon. I do not have the figures from the--
obviously, from our own government, but the U.N. High
Commission on Refugees, in interviews that it has done, thinks
that 58 percent of the migrants could have a protection
concern.
Senator Corker. Yes. Good.
Well, let me just say that, typically, when people ask for
an appropriation to deal with an issue, they have a sense of
the magnitude of the problem in each category that we are
trying to solve. And so, if you are up here asking for us to
solve a problem--and I hope we will, and I think many of the
questions the chairman has asked are legitimate, and I hope
some of mine are, and many others will ask legitimate
questions--but, if you all do not really have a sense as to the
magnitude of what we are dealing with, it is very unsettling to
think about money coming to a problem when we do not understand
necessarily how big the problem is, nor necessarily what the
solutions are.
So, I thank you for being here. I know other people have
questions. And I do hope that, as a group, we will solve this
problem in the next few weeks--put forth policies that will
help solve this problem.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Corker.
Before I call on Senator Boxer, let me just create a
framework, here. I know we have a lot of questions. And some of
us attended that session yesterday, other of us belong to other
committees, whether on Judiciary or Homeland Security, in which
the appropriate officials will be best posed, particularly the
Department of Homeland Security, to answer some of them. I
invited Mr. Swartz here in the context of what we are doing,
which is the focus of the hearing on Central America and how we
change the dynamics of that, and from the Criminal Division as
it relates to engaging.
Senator Corker. Yes.
The Chairman. I just want to put in context that I did not
ask the Department to come here to talk about the status of
asylum-seekers. I do not want anyone to feel that Mr. Swartz is
not being forthcoming. I did not ask him to come here to answer
questions that are not within his department's jurisdiction. I
asked him to come here to tell us how do we help fight crime in
Central America?
Senator Corker. Yes.
The Chairman. Others can continue to ask, but I just want
to set the record----
Senator Corker. If I could, since you----
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Corker. I appreciate that point of view, and that
is the purpose of the hearing. I would hope that officials
within our Departments would be communicating with each other,
and would have communicated with each other when this
appropriations request came up, and would have a general sense
of what is driving this. So, I apologize if you feel I got off
topic, but I would hope that----
The Chairman. No, it is a totally legitimate question,
Senator Corker. I invited witnesses here with a purpose--it
does not mean they do not have broader knowledge; but, when
they do not, I am not going to suggest that they are not being
forthcoming. And I do believe that the appropriators are
getting--in their hearings--some of those questions asked. I
know that Senator Carper, in the Department of Homeland
Security, has been pursuing some of this very line of
questioning.
I just do not want to think that the administration, here,
is being evasive. I have gone after the administration more
than my share on different topics. So, I know there will still
be many of these questions.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Swartz, I think you could help Senator Corker and
others if you just went back and looked at how many of all
those that have sought asylum, the children, in the last few
years, got asylum. I think it is a very important point. From
what I gather, it is about 50 percent. But, I would appreciate
your doing that, as well.
But, I want to thank my chairman and ranking member for
this very important hearing to look at a humanitarian crisis, a
challenge for each of us, because we can do something about
this, regardless of party. And if ever we were able to be
brought together, I pray that our sense of humanity will bring
us together. Because, in my long lifetime, I have noticed that
innocent children bring us together. And they are standing in
front of us. And we have to deal with this in a smart way. And
we have to step up.
So, just before I get to my questions, I think there are
two main questions. And I thank both of my leaders, here, for
this. First, do we need to change the bipartisan Feinstein 2008
law signed by President Bush? Now, I have asked staff to review
this, and I have not said anything until today regarding how I
feel about it, because I was very open to seeing what we should
do. And I believe that bill, that Feinstein-Bush bill, does
give the administration the flexibility it needs to do the
right thing here. I do not even know what their view on it is.
They are looking at it. But, that is my view. So, I agree with
the chairman. I think we can do, under that law, the right
thing for these children, and the right thing for our Nation.
And that is what we are balancing.
And then, the second question is, Do we need more
resources? And, without a doubt--without a doubt--I cannot
believe people are actually standing up, who voted against
comprehensive immigration reform, and saying, ``We do not need
any money.'' We do not have the tools without the funding, so
we need to deal with this. And I do have faith in Senators
Mikulski and Shelby, and I hope that they will move together
and lead us on this.
Now, we know that many of these children are fleeing their
homes. I am not saying everyone, but most, I believe, are
fleeing their homes and making that treacherous journey--and
let us call it that--because they are coming from some of the
most violent places in the world. The murder rates in these
countries are some of the highest, with Honduras earning the
tragic distinction of ``Murder Capital of the World.'' Poverty,
inequality, unemployment are widespread. Crime, violence, and
corruption are ubiquitous. Gangs and drug traffickers are
terrorizing civilian populations. In many cases, these
vulnerable boys and girls are fleeing for their lives.
But, here is the thing: They are not just fleeing to the
United States. And, Mr. Chairman, I think this is an important
point that was raised by Mr. Shannon. In fact, these children
are also seeking safety in other Northern and Central American
countries, like Mexico and Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and
Belize, where, since 2009, asylum applications are up over 700
percent. So, what does this say? It tells us this is not just
an American problem, it is a regional problem. And I do not
believe we can solve it on our own, nor should we.
So, Ambassador Shannon, I have a question. Why would the
administration not call an emergency summit of the Organization
of American States? Now, we know the OAS is a body that was set
up for regional, political, economic, and social cooperation.
It seems to me that this is the right venue to take a look at
this as a broader problem--while we take care of what we have
to do here. Could you react to that idea?
Ambassador Shannon. Well, it is a very good suggestion, and
I thank you for it.
We have had an opportunity to do several regional events
related to this question. There was a Regional Migration
Conference held in Managua, Nicaragua, under the auspices of
the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, about a month ago, where
we were able to fashion documents and approaches that allowed
us, I think, to understand, in a common fashion, how--this
dynamic, this crisis of migration. A similar conference was
held just a few days ago in Mexico City, sponsored by the
Mexican Government in the Holy See, on migration and
development. And the Government of Honduras, yesterday, held a
Regional Migration Conference, where we were also present.
Along with the----
Senator Boxer. Well, if I could just say----
Ambassador Shannon. Sure.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. That is really good. But, I am
talking about a regional summit at the highest levels, that we
utilize the OAS. It was set up for this purpose, so I cannot
imagine a better thing.
Now, I have talked to the administration about this idea.
They seem open to it. But, I hope you will take back this idea,
because----
Ambassador Shannon. Happily.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. The American people, when they
look at this--my State, a border State--they are compassionate.
We have a few who are not, let us be clear. And the ugly side
has been shown. And that happens. But, overwhelmingly, people
want to do the right thing. But, they also know this is a
regional issue. We cannot do everything alone. It is too hard.
We are coming out of some hard times. I want us to do our
share. I want all the countries in the region to do their share
too. So, please take that back.
Now, Mr. Swartz, the Department of Justice runs two
programs that train law enforcement and prosecutors in Central
American countries who are trying to hold these deadly gangs
and traffickers accountable and combat corruption in their own
governments. It just sounds like complete lawlessness in these
countries when you read about it, that these children are so
fearful that they are either going to be abused by these gangs,
tortured by these gangs, or, if they do not get recruited,
killed, perhaps. So, can you explain to us--because I admit
that I am certainly not an expert on what is happening on the
ground--can you give us a sense of what is going on on the
ground there? Either of you who might know better than I.
Mr. Swartz. Senator Boxer, I can start and then turn to
Ambassador Shannon.
Senator Boxer. Okay.
Mr. Swartz. I think that it is clear that, in these
countries, violence is endemic and is, indeed, the backdrop for
the particular surge that we are seeing now. Even if it is not
the immediate cause for every child to leave, it is certainly a
destabilizing factor in each and every one of these countries.
It undercuts economic growth and economic opportunity. It makes
it extremely dangerous for individuals simply to live in those
countries.
In terms of what we are doing on the ground, as I
mentioned, our response has both short-range immediate goals
and longer range goals. To our vetted units, in particular,
that work with our law enforcement agencies--the FBI, DEA,
Homeland Security investigations--we hope to be building the
kind of capacity in those countries that will allow them to
address the violent crime that plagues their citizens. And
again, I stress, it protects our citizens, as well, since these
gangs operate across borders. MS-13, the 18th Street Gang
operate in the United States, in El Salvador, and other
countries in the region.
But, beyond that, as you mention, with State Department
funding for our resident legal advisors from our overseas
prosecutorial group, our resident law enforcement advisors from
ICITAP, our criminal investigative group, we can begin to work
on thinking through what systemic changes need to be made in
these countries with our partners. And we have seen this. We
have seen the possibility of doing this, Colombia being, of
course, the most recent and most relevant example in the
region, in which we took a country that some people considered
to be on the edge of being a failed state, and, with the
commitment of that country, were able to think through changes
to their prosecutorial system, to how they did investigations,
how they create, really, a democratic policing and an
adversarial system that protects the citizens, both their
rights to be fairly tried and their rights to be protected
against criminal groups.
So, this is really a question of having the funding to make
this possible. The Department of Justice does not receive
direct appropriations for this work. We receive it from State
Department. And one of the reasons why the----
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Swartz [continuing]. Supplemental is so important.
Senator Boxer. I agree. I want to just say, that is the
kind of thing the American people need to know, and that is why
I think a high-profile conference, where the world gets to see
that the region cares about these kids and about the future.
So, you know, my kids always say I repeat things too much, but
I repeat: I think a high-profile OAS summit with these ideas
would be very helpful.
Mr. Swartz. And, Senator, if I might add, the Mexican
attorney general has suggested that we have a meeting of the
attorneys general of the region to address this issue, and
Attorney General Holder very much welcomes that opportunity, as
well.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, this problem came to light this year with this
huge influx of unaccompanied children illegally entering this
country. And, when it did, people started to look at it, and
the first thing we heard was, ``Well, it was because of the
2008 law that was passed.'' And so, I think a lot of us said,
``But, you know, before we do that, what we need to do is have
a look at the facts.'' So, what we did, they had this graph
prepared of illegal children entering the United States. And
this is only apprehensions. These are unaccompanied minors and
apprehensions. Have you seen this chart?
Mr. Swartz. Yes, sir.
Senator Risch. Okay. The chart hits you pretty quickly. It
is not the 2008 law. Because you had 19,000 enter in 2009, you
had 18,000 in 2010, 16,000 in 2011. Indeed, if anything, the
direction of this was going down. But, then in 2012, this thing
just skyrockets. You have got 24,000 in 2012, you have got
38,000 in 2013, and this year, through June 15, we have got
52,000. And the numbers that exploded were from El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras. The Mexican numbers did not change
that much, but it was those Central American countries.
So, before you can resolve a problem, you have got to know
what is causing the problem. What happened in 2012?
Ambassador Shannon. Great question, and an important graph.
Actually, the numbers explode at a point, but there was
obviously pressure building before that. And the pressure was
building for a variety of reasons. I think very little of it
has to do with the immigration debate here. Our interviews on
the border with unaccompanied children who have been detained,
and in-country with aspiring migrants, indicates that they have
little understanding of the dynamics or the migration debate in
the United States. But, what they do know and what they do
understand is how people are treated on the frontier when they
arrive.
And when I talk about the pressure building--2009, of
course, is when we suffered an international economic downturn.
And the hemisphere itself, and Central America, is particularly
devastated by this. So, from 2009 through 2011, you have
economic distress in the region. And then, on top of that,
because of the success that Mexico is having through its Merit
Initiative, you have gangs and Mexican cartels moving into
parts of Central America in order to control the drug-
trafficking operations and building alliances with gangs.
And so, I think the stressors that are driving this are,
first, economic and then they are cartel activity, and then
linking the cartel activity to gang activity.
Senator Risch. Mr. Shannon, I hear what you are saying.
But, look, I am looking for something in 2012. You talked about
economic downturn in 2009. If the economic downturn was in
2009, which we know it was, it went down in 2009, 2010, and
2011.
Ambassador Shannon. Right.
Senator Risch. It was not until 2012 that it hopped up.
Mr. Swartz, what is your view? Briefly.
Mr. Swartz. Senator, again, I think that there is, as
Ambassador Shannon suggested, a variety of causes. One hears
everything from coffee rust affecting some of the plantations,
involving economic changes during this time period. But----
Senator Risch. Appreciate the coffee rust----
Mr. Swartz. But----
Senator Risch [continuing]. And all that, but----
Mr. Swartz [continuing]. But, I think, Senator, as you say,
that it is one of the things that we are trying to study to try
and understand, but underlying it, from the perspective of the
Department of Justice, is the economic instability caused by a
violent crime setting.
Senator Risch. In 2012, did we have any significant event
regarding U.S. immigration policy that occurred? Did the
President sign any Executive orders in 2012?
Ambassador Shannon. I understand what you are driving at,
Senator, but I----
Senator Risch. I am.
Ambassador Shannon [continuing]. But I would argue that the
dynamic of the migration debate in the United States----
Senator Risch. I hear what you are arguing.
Ambassador Shannon [continuing]. Does not have an impact.
Senator Risch. But, are you telling me that his Executive
order that we are not going to send children back did not cause
an explosion when people understood that, if they got here,
that they were not going to have to go back anymore? Are you
denying that that has anything to do with the explosion of
numbers?
Ambassador Shannon. What I am saying is that the
traffickers have a marketing strategy, and the fact of the
matter is, children have been deported and will be deported.
But, what the smugglers were able to do is fashion a marketing
strategy for kids who wanted to leave, for parents who wanted
their kids to leave and were able to show that, when those kids
got to the frontier, that they would not be removed
immediately.
Senator Risch. And that marketing strategy was based upon
the change in policy that the President took in 2012. Is that a
fair statement?
Ambassador Shannon. I think it was based on the TVPRA issue
regarding noncontiguous----
Senator Risch. Mr. Swartz, do you agree or disagree that
the change in policy by the President's Executive order in 2012
had no effect on this explosion that has occurred?
Mr. Swartz. I agree with Ambassador Shannon, that our
intelligence suggests that traffickers are marketing
misunderstandings about how U.S. immigration law will work, the
expectation these children will not be deported back from the
United States, and that that has been a key driver in this, as
well.
Senator Risch. You think they had a misunderstanding of the
President's Executive order in 2012 that they were not going to
send children back?
Mr. Swartz. We think that they--far as we can tell, that
there is a general portrayal that is not based on actual U.S.
law----
Senator Risch. Has the President tried to do anything to
correct this impression he gave in 2012 that has caused this
new marketing program?
Ambassador Shannon. No, we have been very clear that these
children, should they not have international protection
concerns or needs, will be deported.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank both of you for your work here and your
testimony.
It is clear, Mr. Swartz, as you pointed out, that the spike
is related to the instability in the three countries involved
because of the criminal activities within those three
countries. That is what I think you responded to the question.
And that has caused increased gang activities, it led to
trafficking. And traffickers will do whatever they can in order
to make money. It is also true that this country has been one
of the strongest in working with the international community to
encourage countries to have an understanding that their border
can be a sanctuary for those who otherwise are at risk in their
own country. That is what we have been urging countries around
the world to do. And we have participated in international
efforts to provide safety for people who are not safe in their
native country.
So, I think we all want to make it clear--and this is a
point that we have all stressed--that it is not safe to put
your child in the hands of a trafficker or in a position of
being taken to our border. And doing so does not change that
child's status. That child will be put in deportation. That has
got to be clear. But, I think we also have to be mindful that,
Ambassador Shannon, the number you gave--not our number, but
the number that the international community--the representative
for refugees suggests that there is--over 50 percent of these
children may, in fact, need some form of protective service.
That is an international responsibility that the United States
also needs to be mindful for.
So, let me get to the point that the chairman raised
initially, and that is, the President is asking for $3.7
billion; $3.4 billion is dealing with the consequences of a
failed policy within the native countries. Now, failed policy
means there is instability, that it is not safe for families
and children; and therefore, they are putting their
unaccompanied children at risk through transit to the United
States. And only .3, or $300 million, is being used for dealing
with the causes.
We have programs in these countries. We have the Millennium
Challenge Corporation that is operating in Honduras and El
Salvador. We have Partnership for Growth operating in El
Salvador. We have the Central America Regional Security
Initiative. So, we have programs that were intended to deal
with some of these issues.
But, if I could just point out--to me, the most successful
program that was initiated to deal with a global problem that
affected our country was PEPFAR, where we had significant
resources identified with the U.S. initiative that made a
consequential difference for future generations. What does it
take to have that type of effort for safety of children in
Honduras, in El Salvador, in Guatemala? How can we change these
programs? If we are going to spend $3.7 billion--and you
clearly have made the case that these funds are needed--we
would like to be able to at least start down the path of the
United States using its international development assistance to
keep children safe in these three countries. And, quite
frankly, I have not seen that from the administration. What
does it take?
Ambassador Shannon.
Ambassador Shannon. Well, thank you very much for that. And
I appreciate the larger point, which is an important one. And
the safety and well-being of children is part of a larger
approach of U.S. development assistance. And, obviously, as we
built our CARSI programs, as they built our Millennium
Development programs, as we built our bilateral assistance
programs, the idea was to address a country comprehensively, in
an integrated fashion, with the hope being that we would be
able to address the concerns of children and adults, women and
men, and the different sectors and factors of a society. But,
obviously, what we are looking at now is something distinct,
something dramatic. We are really looking at a modern-day----
Senator Cardin. But, see, the proposal--the supplemental
budget is dramatic on the number of prosecutors, it is dramatic
on the number of personnel on the border, on the new
facilities--it is dramatic, except it is not dramatic on making
a change in the three countries where the children are coming
from. Why not? Why not at least put forward a proposal that
would have a consequential impact? President Bush did that for
HIV/AIDS. Why are we not doing it for countries in our own
hemisphere?
Ambassador Shannon. Well, it is a great argument, it is a
great point, and I am happy to take it back to the White House
and to the Department.
The 300 million we are asking for is designed to operate in
three countries, so it is concentrated; and it is designed to
address the principal drivers, we think, of this migration,
which is the violence, but also economic opportunity and
corruption and poor public institutions. And we think that, by
doing this, we are going to advance the well-being of the
children. But, the idea of fashioning a larger policy, not just
in these three countries, but throughout the region, around
children is a good one.
Senator Cardin. Do you really believe that if Congress
approved the $3.7 billion exactly as the administration
suggested, that it would have a major change in the three
countries as it relates to the safety of children?
Ambassador Shannon. It will have a positive impact, but----
Senator Cardin. That is not my question. Would it make a
major change in----
Ambassador Shannon. In some areas, it will; in other areas,
it will not. Because so much of this violence is localized, and
it all depends on the strength of gang structures. But, what is
important, as I noted, the 300 million will connect to programs
we already have, but ultimately will be a downpayment in a
larger effort to fashion a new kind of Central America.
Senator Cardin. Well----
Mr. Swartz. Senator, if I might address that. I think that
that money can be consequential, from the Department of
Justice's point of view. We have seen that, in terms of being
able to put our personnel on the ground to work with their
counterparts, it does not necessarily take that much money, but
it takes a sustained commitment. It will not happen overnight.
But, we have seen the ability to change criminal justice
systems in a way that help protect children, in particular,
but, more generally, to change the way the society addresses
criminal justice.
So, we think that it can be an important step. It is just a
downpayment. It is not going to happen overnight. But, it is an
essential first step.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that
this committee has jurisdiction over development assistance,
and I would just hope that we would be able to weigh in, on a
bipartisan basis, as to this opportunity to make a difference
in the way that we provide development assistance in these
three countries to make children's--and families feel more
confident of their future, rather than putting them on trains
coming to the United States.
The Chairman. I thank the Senator. And something I have
been advocating for a while. And now that we have an
opportunity and, unfortunately, a crisis to crystallize
people's thinking, maybe it would be a moment to move forward.
As I introduce Senator Rubio, let me recognize that his
daughters, Amanda and Daniela, are seated in the audience,
watching Dad at work. So, you would better do a good job,
Senator. [Laughter.]
Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you for the pressure. I appreciate it.
[Laughter.]
Thank you both for being here.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
Let me just preface this by saying this is an issue I care
deeply about and am impacted by. We have huge Central American
communities, particularly in South Florida, where I live, and
so I am familiar with this issue's reality, not simply by what
is reported in the media, but what I hear from them. And there
is no doubt that the violence in some of these cities is as bad
as it is anywhere in the world, and that that is the reason why
people want to leave those countries.
But, we have to examine the reason why they want to come
here, as opposed to going to Panama or some other place that is
a lot closer, or staying in Mexico, and what it is that is
driving them here.
And I think it is unfortunate and counterproductive to
ignore both the reality and the applications of our immigration
laws and the impact that that is having on our crisis. And I
say that as someone who is a demonstrated supporter and
continue to believe that this country needs to reform its
immigration laws, for the good of our country and also to live
up to our heritage as a nation of immigrants.
But, word of mouth on this issue is extremely powerful.
Word of mouth is the reason and the way people are getting a
lot of information in Central America. And the word of mouth in
Central America is--that these traffickers are using--that
there is this new special law in America--there is a special
law that allows you to stay. And part of the tactics that they
are using and are being spread is, there is a special law, that
expires in July or in August, to create a time-constraint
pressure so people will do it immediately, and do it now. And
the special law they point to--and you--and I understand it is
not the way it was written, but the special law they point to
is the deferred action decision that was taken in 2012. That is
what they point to, and they say, ``There is this special law
that will allow you to enter the U.S., and stay.'' And we can
say, ``Well, under this law, you are not allowed to stay,
because you do not meet the criteria.'' And that is technically
accurate. But, if you look at how it is applied in reality--not
that law, but our immigration policies--they are right that
there is a special law, or at least a special practice, because
if you arrive in the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor or as a
parent with children, you are not treated the same as someone
who arrives here as a single male who--adult--who traveled
across the border.
And I saw figures, just yesterday, that 70 percent of the
people who have crossed that border as unaccompanied minors or
as part of a family unit are in the United States. And they
know the process, because word of mouth gets there. The process
is, you are apprehended. If there is someone in the United
States to--who they can turn you over to--in many cases, these
children already have parents in the United States--you are
turned over to your parents. There is a long period of time--
they know that there are backlogs in the court system. They are
given a notice to appear. In some instances, they think it is
``un permiso,'' a permit, which it is not. And in some
instances, they never show up for the notice, but, even if they
did, the hearing may be years in the future. That is the
reality of the law.
So, in truth, if you arrive in the United States as an
unaccompanied minor, you are going to get to stay, at least for
an extended period of time, before you are even asked to appear
again. And that word of mouth gets back. People call home,
people report what has happened, and that takes on a strong
implication.
By the way, I also read some documents the other day that
now what is happening is that there are individuals crossing--
and I do not know what the figures are and how widespread this
is--but that we have found instances--and perhaps if this is
not true, you will point it out--but that we now know of
instances where there are unrelated adults posing as the
parents of children, as family units, at the border. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Swartz. Our understanding, Senator, is that there are
some circumstances, particularly--we are actually targeting,
through our colleagues in other countries, forged documents--to
try and establish false family relationships for that purpose.
Senator Rubio. So, there are now--I mean, the word of mouth
has gotten back that if you arrive in the United States by
yourself as an adult, your chances are a lot better if you
arrive as a parent of a child that is traveling with you. And
so, you have got unrelated adults pretending to be married and
pretending that some children in the group are their children.
So, that is something that shows design.
There is also evidence that I have seen that there are
churches and nongovernmental organizations in Mexico and in
Central America that are both advising, assisting, and, in some
instances, encouraging people to undertake this journey, as
well.
And, last but not least, I think we are naive if we think
that the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
view this as a problem for them. They view this as a U.S.
problem for the United States to solve. And we are naive if we
ignore the fact that 13 percent of their combined gross
domestic product is made up of remittances from the United
States. So, if 13 percent of your gross domestic product is
comprised of remittances from the United States, it behooves
you to have as many people as possible in the United States
sending back remittances. And I say this, as I have shared with
them privately, as well, and I say it now publicly--with
individuals from those governments--they do have an interest in
this. And that is why I think they have been less than
cooperative. I know their capacities are limited, as well, but
I think they have been less than cooperative, in some regards,
in addressing some of this.
I say all this in the context of the fact that this is just
one more reason, in my mind, why, long term, this country has
to address this issue. I believe that if we had a legal
immigration system that worked better, that would be a conduit
for people who do want to come to the United States to come in
a way that is safe. I believe that if we had enforcement
mechanisms that worked better, people would be discouraged from
entering the country. But, this is in evidence of the fact that
what we have now today in place in this country is a disaster
that needs to be addressed. But, I also do not think we can be
naive about the reality that we are facing in this regard, and
I think we have to understand the complexities of everything
that is driving these folks across the border and making this
happen.
I did want to ask you briefly about the two points that I
raised. The first is, Is there, in fact, evidence that there
are NGOs and church groups and others who are assisting and
encouraging people in these routes? And what I mean by
``assistance'' is, you know, providing transit routes and, in
some instances, just encouraging people to undertake this,
acting as facilitators.
Ambassador Shannon. I am sure there are plenty of people
taking advantage of this migrant train for their own goods or
the goods of their organization. Most of them are criminal.
There are NGOs and church-related groups that provide shelter
to migrants along the way. I visited one in Tapachula yesterday
and had an opportunity to speak with migrants there and the
people who run the place. It is run by a Catholic organization
called the Organ De Los Migrantes, which is an Italian order of
priests. And their purpose is to provide a place for migrants
to stop.
Senator Rubio. When they speak to them, do they tell them,
``You should really reconsider this trip. It is very dangerous.
This was not the right thing to do''?
Ambassador Shannon. Many of them do. I do not know if all
of them do, but in the one I was in, they also deal with women
who are being trafficked in southern Mexico and providing
shelter for them. And so, they do--at least in the shelter I
was in, I was told that they do highlight the dangers, but
their primary purpose is to provide shelter, as opposed to
providing guidance.
Senator Rubio. I have one more question.
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Rubio. I have heard reported in the media, and I
have talked to some folks who have undergone the journey in the
past, who say that, as a matter of course, as a prophylactic
matter, women on this journey are advised to take
contraceptives, because they can expect to be sexually
assaulted. Is that accurate?
Ambassador Shannon. Not just women, but girls.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, to the witnesses, for your service and
appearance today.
I am going to try to spend just a little bit on diagnosis
and then more on prescription.
So, quick on the diagnosis: To what degree is violence a
factor in this flood of youngsters to the border? Is it a major
factor, a minor factor, or no factor?
Ambassador Shannon. I believe it is a major factor.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Swartz.
Mr. Swartz. Yes, Senator, I agree, it is a major factor, in
two ways. First, as Ambassador Shannon has pointed out, the
mapping suggests that these children are coming from the most
violent areas. And, significantly, we are not seeing an
explosion of individuals coming, across the board, from every
country.
Senator Kaine. To the extent that violence is a major
factor in this, to what extent is the drug trade a factor in
that violence? Is the drug trade a major factor, a minor
factor, or no factor?
Ambassador Shannon. It is that--the drug trade is what has
expanded the reach of gangs in Central America and has provided
the gangs with the money and the transnational connections they
need to play a role in smuggling operations, but also in trying
to control large parts of their community. So, it is
significant.
Senator Kaine. Major factor, Mr. Swartz?
Mr. Swartz. Yes. The connection between gangs, and now the
narcotics cartels, is certainly a significant factor.
Senator Kaine. So, if the flow is being driven by violence
as a major factor, and if that violence is connected to the
drug trade as a major factor, let me ask you my next question.
To what extent is the drug trade driven by U.S. demand for
illegal drugs? Is that a major factor, a minor factor, or no
factor?
Ambassador Shannon. Nearly all the drugs transiting Central
America are going to the United States.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Swartz.
Mr. Swartz. Yes. We recognize that our consumption is a
major factor in this regard.
Senator Kaine. Okay. So, the way I look at this challenge--
and I lived in El Progreso, Honduras for a year. And about 600
of the 52,000 kids who have come to the border are from El
Progreso. They are being largely chased out of their
neighborhoods by violence, violence connected to a drug trade,
and a drug trade that is intimately connected to the United
States demand for drugs. It is United States dollars flowing
south, and it is drugs flowing north into the United States.
And the amount of those dollars is so significant that it is
warping the institutions of these Central American nations in
very dramatic ways.
This flood of folks, refugees, to the border is not
unconnected to the United States. It is not unconnected to
the--it is intimately connected to the United States.
I was in Syrian refugee camps in Turkey about a year ago,
and then I have been in Lebanon and Jordan, dealing with Syrian
refugee issues, as well. And I remember, Mr. Chairman, asking
myself the question, ``Wow, when I see Lebanese who are not
really that wealthy, and they have refugees, equivalent of one-
quarter of the population, that have arrived in Lebanon in the
space of 3 years, and they are having to do double shifts in
schools to educate refugee kids,'' or I see the number of
Syrian refugees in Jordan, one of the poorest countries in the
world, in terms of the amount of water, and they are have
having to deal with a number of refugees driven there by
violence, when they have few natural resources of their own,
and I saw those countries dealing with this massive influx of
refugees--one-quarter of the population--and I found myself
asking myself, a year ago, ``Gosh, I wonder how the United
States would deal with refugees who came to the United States,
driven by violence from somewhere else. I wonder if we would
deal with them in the same way that Lebanon or Jordan or Turkey
is dealing with refugees.''
And that is kind of what we are seeing, if I go by your
answers: refugees who are coming here, driven by violence,
driven by violence that is connected to the United States. And
so, we have a connection with this. We have a connection with
this. And we have an obligation to try to be creative in
solving it.
I echo the comments that the chair made before I arrived
about how disappointing it is to see the dwindling CARSI
funding in recent years, $130 million in the FY15 budget. The
President's original budget proposed $130 million for CARSI and
about $800 million for the detention of folks at the border who
might come unaccompanied. And now we are going to take it up to
$3.8 billion. It would seem to me that we could spend money a
little bit better to deal with a problem of violence that is
driven by U.S. drug trade in these nations, and that would be a
better way to spend the money, both for those youngsters and
also for us.
Let me ask about drug interdiction. I am on the Armed
Services Committee. General Kelly is the SOUTHCOM--SOCOM,
commander. He testified before us in March during a status
hearing. He said, with respect to drug interdiction, because of
the combination of austerity sequester and the movement of
military resources elsewhere, he says he watches 75 percent of
the drugs that could come into the United States just go right
by him, because he does not have the resources to interdict,
either between Central America and the United States or even
coming into these Central American nations.
Would more vigorous support for drug interdiction, so that
these drugs do not even land in these Central American
nations--would that be a way we could potentially help reduce
some of the violence that are--that is being experienced in the
three nations we are talking about?
Ambassador Shannon. Well, the short answer is ``yes.'' But,
obviously, we have to deal with the consequences today. And the
gangs are not going away. And having established themselves,
they will continue to look for any source of revenue they can
find, whether it is shakedowns, whether it is operating other
illegal activities, or whether it is drug trafficking. So, as
we look for ways to reduce the pressure on Central America, we
are going to have to recognize that the gangs are now embedded
in Central America, and dealing with them is going to be a
significant task.
Mr. Swartz. From the Department of Justice perspective, we
certainly agree that interdiction is critical. We also agree,
as Ambassador Shannon suggested, that we have to strike against
these gangs. We have done so. We will continue to do so,
targeting their leadership both here and in El Salvador and
other countries in the northern triangle.
This is truly--again, as you suggest, Senator--a shared
responsibility and it is a shared danger for the American
people. These criminal groups operate in our country and in
those countries, as well.
Senator Kaine. One of the things that puzzles me is--when I
lived in Central America, there was a great deal of cultural
similarity between Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and
Nicaragua. How come there is not a huge number of these
youngsters coming from Nicaragua?
Ambassador Shannon. Again, we only have limited insight
into this. I think a lot of it has to do with historic
migration patterns. It is not just Nicaragua, it is also Costa
Rica and Panama. Historically, these countries have not
migrated to the United States the same way that Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras have. And the migration networks that
have been established over time make it easier for migrants
coming from those three countries to settle in the United
States.
But, it also has to do with the drug-trafficking patterns.
And the traffickers coming out of the Andes are looking for
easy jump points into Mexico. And the Mexican cartels have
found, especially Honduras, an easier mark than either
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, or Panama.
Mr. Swartz. I would add to that, simply, also the
penetration of gangs varies from country to country, as you
know, Senator. Nicaragua does not face exactly the same issues
with regard to MS-13 or the 18th Street Gang.
Senator Kaine. All right, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let us all agree that we have a humanitarian crisis on our
border that needs to be addressed. I want to confine my
questioning on the definition of the problem. What we really
should be talking about here is the definition of the problem
of unaccompanied children, and what we are debating is whether
we need to spend more money and if we do spend, how it should
be spent.
I want to, first, start off by asking, in a sentence, just
a sentence, what is the achievable policy goal we should be
addressing right now?
Mr. Swartz.
Mr. Swartz. From the Department of Justice perspective, the
achievable policy goal is to work with these countries--the
three source countries, in particular--to build their justice
systems so that they can address these issues, in the first
instance, lessen the likelihood that there will be a----
Senator Johnson. Okay, good. Again, one sentence.
Mr. Shannon.
Ambassador Shannon. To build partnerships with Mexico as a
transit and designation country, Guatemala, Honduras, and El
Salvador----
Senator Johnson. Okay, again, no, you are missing the mark.
Our goal needs to be stopping the flow. Right now, we have to
deal with the 57,000 unaccompanied minors who came to this
country. Secretary Johnson said there will be 90,000,
potentially, by the end of this fiscal year, and over 100,000
by the beginning of 2015. We have to stop the flow. That is the
achievable goal. I do not think we can achieve solving the drug
problem or improving their economies, or reducing violence in
these countries--I do not think that those are achievable
goals. I do not care how much money we have spent on it. And we
will talk about some data to talk about that.
I have seen that exact same chart. Like Senator Risch was
talking about--I have done a fair amount of calculations on
that.
Mr. Swartz, do you know what percent of these unaccompanied
children we have sent back over the last 5 years?
Mr. Swartz. Senator, I understand that you have asked for
that information from the Department of Justice. We are
obtaining that----
Senator Johnson. So, your answer is ``no.''
Mr. Swartz. We are obtaining that information----
Senator Johnson. Okay. So, your answer is that you have it.
Okay?
Mr. Swartz. I do not have that----
Senator Johnson. Since 2009, we have returned roughly
16,800 children out of 174,000 unaccompanied minors who have
come into this country. So, that is a rate of 9.6 percent. So,
more than 90 percent of those children are still in this
country.
Now, over time, it has really declined. So, in 2009, we
returned about 23,000; 2010, a little under 22 percent; 2011,
under 19 percent; 2012, with deferred action for childhood
arrivals, it dropped to 8.6 percent; once deferred action for
childhood arrivals was fully implemented, we are down to 4.3
percent. Looking at what Senator Risch was talking about, I
think it is pretty obvious what is a real correlated cause of
the spike in unaccompanied children.
I want to talk about the push factor and how unrealistic it
is that we can spend any amount of money on it. Just tell me
what we have already spent. In just the last 3 years, we have
spent $956 million in U.S. economic assistance to those three
countries. In terms of drug control, we have spent $76 billion.
Do you really think throwing a few hundred million dollars down
there is going to solve that problem at all? I would say not.
Let us talk about murder rates. Mr. Shannon, you said that
the pressure is building. You know, the fact of the matter is,
in El Salvador, murder rates spiked in 2011, at 70 per 100,000,
but it is down to 40. Guatemala has actually declined from 46
per 100,000 in 2008 down to 40 now. Honduras built up to 91 in
2011, and went down to 87 in 2013. And, by the way, just to put
that in perspective, the murder rate in Detroit in 2012 was
54.6; in New Orleans, 53.2. We can talk about this push factor,
but I would really be looking more at the policy pull factor,
in terms of causing this.
And I also want to just talk about spending, in general. We
have spent a lot of money, in terms of ICE, Border Patrol, and
U.S. Customs, Immigration Services, and HHS refugee programs.
In 2008, we spent $17\1/2\ billion dollars on those programs.
You divide it by the 1.2 million removals and returns in 2008,
and that is about $14,900 per deportation or removal. Okay?
$14,000. In 2012, we spent $21.4 billion, divided by about
650,000 removals and returns, and that is about $33,000 per
removal or return.
Because I would argue that in very bad economic times,
there is not as much economic activity, we have fewer
immigrants coming illegally into this country. We spend a lot
of money, on a per-person basis, in terms of what agencies have
to spend their money on and in terms of the individuals, but we
have more than doubled spending since 2008. Why do we need
another $3.7 billion? And is it going to have any effect
whatsoever?
Mr. Shannon.
Ambassador Shannon. I believe it will. The immediate
impact, of course, will be to allow us to manage the flow of
people coming across the border in a better fashion, in a
faster fashion, and in a fashion that allows us to determine
those who have protection needs and those who do not. And those
who do not will be deported in a timely fashion.
Senator Johnson. But, how to answer the fact that we have
actually doubled spending from $14,000 per return or removed
immigrant to over $33,000 in 2012? We have more than doubled
spending. Why do we need more? Why are we spending it so
ineffectively?
The Chairman. Well, as a corollary to that question, so
that the committee can understand, Is all the spending on
border enforcement just related to returns? Is that not the
equivalent of a police department and what we spend in a police
department if we were to divide it in the number of arrests and
convictions? So, I want to get a total picture, here, because
if we are going to say that all of this money is divided into
the number of deportees, well, then we can take a lot of people
off the border that our border States have asked us for, in
terms of enforcement, so that people will be deterred from even
coming or interdicted when they come.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I am just trying to provide
some reasonableness in terms of----
The Chairman. And I am trying to make sure that we are
talking about the same thing----
Senator Johnson. Well, of course, we would need more time
to really vet these numbers properly so we really understand
what is happening. We were in our meeting yesterday, and Sylvia
Burwell talked about, ``Well, how much is it going to cost per
bed, per child, per day?'' And her answer was somewhere between
$250 and $1,000 per day. And her defense of $1,000 was, ``Well,
you know, if we cannot plan for it, it is really expensive to
do it.'' If I do not plan a vacation properly, I am still not
paying $1,000 per day to stay at the most expensive hotel.
Again, the debate we are having is, Does--this
administration, who apparently did not plan on this, even
though their action caused it--does it really need another $3.7
billion, or do we have enough already built into a base budget
to handle this? And, by the way, if we are going to spend money
trying to solve the drug problem, the crime problem, the
violence problem in those Central American countries, is that
just a pipedream? Will we have any effect whatsoever on that?
Mr. Swartz. Senator, if I could address that. I do not
think it is a pipedream, and I think we have examples where we
have had a transformative effect on the criminal justice
systems of countries. We have done it in Colombia, we have done
it in the Balkans, and it is been for the benefit--in the
national security interest of the United States, as well. We
have to engage with these countries. Their criminal justice
problems are our criminal justice problems, as well.
Senator Johnson. But, we have engaged, to the tune of a
billion dollars over the last 3 years. Just economically.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the testimony.
I agree with what is been said by my colleagues about--let
us get at the real goal, here. The real goal is to stem the
tide of unaccompanied minors. This is a crisis. It is a
humanitarian crisis. And we have got to do something. Our
concern--I can tell you mine and many of my colleagues' concern
about the President's request is, it seems to be geared at
maintenance of a problem rather than fixing the problem and
actually changing the incentives that go into it.
I was glad to hear your explanation, Ambassador Shannon, of
what this really is and what caused this spike. We can talk
about violence in those countries. It is there. Talk about drug
trade, cartels. That is there, has been there. But, it does not
explain the spike.
Now, some people will blame DACA or the Senate considering
immigration reform, or whatever else. But, as has been pointed
out, the President's plan, DACA, did not apply to these kids.
Nothing contemplated by the House or the Senate would have
allowed this kind of spike. And so, as you said, the smugglers
have latched onto this successful marketing strategy. And I
would submit that, unless we change the incentives, it will
continue to work.
A lot of these people in the smuggling trade--the human
smuggling trade--were in the drug trade. A lot, over time, have
gone over to human smuggling, because penalties are less than
drug smuggling. We have corrected some of that, but not all the
way. We still need to deal with those issues.
But, if you look at this, right now, for these smugglers,
this is a sweet gig. They are able to have this marketing
strategy, which works, because, as we know, most of these kids
are allowed to stay, and the possibility for prosecution for
them is minimal, because they do not even have to come into the
country, they get them through Mexico, take them to the border,
tell them where to cross, and never even cross into the
country. Now, we can still go after them, but we cannot even
arrest them, or we would have to go into Mexico. And we have,
you know, some cooperation on that, but it really does not
happen. So, for the smugglers, things are not going to change
until the incentive structure changes.
And the concern that I have is that, if you look at what
the President's request is, $1.8 billion just for the
Department of Health and Human Services, which has no role in
border enforcement or deportation--it is to actually take these
kids and house them and then place them with a sponsor. As has
been said by Senator Rubio, the net effect, the practical
effect right now, what is there on the ground, regardless of
what we say in advertising campaigns, whatever the President
said--and I want to compliment the President for saying what he
has said, to the Vice President for saying what he has said
about these kids, that most of them will not qualify, ``Do not
send your kids to the border''--they are saying the right
things, I think the administration is. The problem is, it is
not backed up by actions. When the President says that, ``Your
kids will be deported, they will not be able to stay,'' that is
belied by the facts on the ground. And the facts on the ground
are that if a child--an accompanied--unaccompanied minor or a
child with a mother comes across, very, very few are actually
being sent back.
Cecilia Munoz, Director of the White House Domestic Policy
Council, said this, ``If you''--and she is right--``If you look
at the history of these kids in cases that apply to them in
this situation, seems very unlikely that the majority of these
children are going to--they are going to have the ability to
stay in the United States.'' They are saying that. That should
be the case, but the practical effect of our policy is that,
once a child is placed with a sponsor, it is extremely unlikely
that they are going to be deported. And she said, ``If we are
to stem the tide and start sending the right signals to
families down south, it will need to involve literally
thousands of kids being repatriated.'' I mean, I think
everybody recognizes that. When planes show up and the
smugglers realize--and the families that are paying this
realize that their money was ill spent, that they subjected
their children to a lot of potential abuse or abuse for
nothing. But, right now, what they see is these kids being
placed with a sponsor, given a court date months or years in
the future, and then--think about it for a minute--the charge
of HHS is to place a child in the least restrictive environment
that is in their best interest. If you draw that out a bit,
would we be placing a child with a sponsor who is either a
parent, or relative, or someone else in this country, and is it
in our best--or, the children's best interest, later, to rip
that child away from that family member or those family
members, and then deport them later? I think the families that
are coming, and certainly the smugglers understand--that is not
going to happen. And so, the incentive structure is still
there.
And my concern--I think a lot of our concern is that, until
we change that structure, until we can expedite the process so
that we are not having to place these children here in this
country, only to show up or not show up later at some type of
hearing or legal proceedings--until we change that incentive
structure, the smugglers will continue, because, for them, it
is a successful strategy with very little downside, not even
having to come into the country. You know, it used to be, when
you had human smuggling, you had to get kids across the Arizona
border, get them to the I-10, place them with someone else. At
least somebody was at risk of being caught. Now, not likely.
And so, they have a good gig--for them, a good gig going. And I
am afraid that we need to change the incentive structure.
Ambassador Shannon, do you--I have rambled a bit, I know,
but do you see a change in this behavior, on the part of the
smugglers and the families that they are preying on, changing
unless we change the incentive structure here?
Ambassador Shannon. Changing the incentive structure will
change a particular form of migration. It will change smugglers
turning their kids in at the border. It will not stop the
migration.
Senator Flake. Well, I----
Ambassador Shannon. The----
Senator Flake. Understood.
Ambassador Shannon. The migration has to be addressed in
the home country, because these kids are like boomerangs. It
does not matter how far we thrown them. For those who feel that
they are under threat and for those who are hopeless in their
home countries, they will come back.
Mr. Swartz. Senator, if I could add, we are trying to
change the incentive structure for smugglers, as well. Our
resident legal advisor in Honduras has put together a joint
group involving Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador aiming
exactly at how we can engage those countries in the prosecution
of smugglers.
Senator Flake. I think that is all good, and we ought to
increase the number of refugees that are allowed here for a
genuine claim of persecution, that those, to the extent
possible, should happen in their home countries, at embassies
and consulates there. But, my concern, here, is that, as long
as we are placing these children and they have achieved their
desired goal, to be reunited with family members or to stay for
a long time, the incentives will not change. And that is my
concern. And that is a bigger driver than everything else right
now.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. There are a lot of thoughtful
views, here. Let me just go through a quick series of things,
here. I just want to make sure, so we have an absolutely
replete record.
Mr. Swartz, are there more Border Patrol agents, Custom
inspections, drone flights now than in any other time that you
can recall?
Mr. Swartz. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. As a matter of fact, is it not true that the
Border Patrol and Customs Inspections is the largest law
enforcement entity we have in the Federal Government?
Mr. Swartz. That is correct.
The Chairman. Now, children placed with a guardian, that
question, who we fear will not show up, we have two choices. We
can either deal with the costs of detaining that child, or we
could, if we want to ensure that they show up, because we think
they are being placed with a guardian who also may not have
documented status, we could put an ankle bracelet on him, which
would be more humane than detention, and far less expensive.
So, there are options for us to consider as we deal whether a
person has the right, or not, to ultimately seek asylum.
Now, is there any way that we can change the smugglers'
marketing? I mean, I do not know that we promote the smugglers'
marketing, but is there any way we can change the--I think what
we should be doing is smashing the smuggling networks. And I
would say to some of these individuals, ``Cooperate with us, in
terms of who were the smugglers who brought you here,'' and
start prosecuting them. And when the smugglers know that there
is a consequence to them, that they may in fact, go to jail
either in that country or here, that we will have a change in
their marketing, believe me.
Mr. Swartz. And, Senator, I can say, in that regard, that
one of our resident legal advisors in one of the northern
triangle countries, for instance, will be traveling with his
counterparts to interview children here in the United States
for precisely that purpose.
The Chairman. Now, I want to include in the record, since
much has been made of 2012 and DACA, which is the deferred
action items--what--since we want to make sure that we get the
word out there, let us get the word out there. How do you
actually qualify for deferred action? You must have come to the
United States under the age of 16, and you must have
continuously resided in the United States for at least 5 years
preceding the date of 2012, which means that if you were not
physically in the United States, and can prove it, since 2007,
and, among other eligibility, you would not be eligible to
adjust your status. Is that a correct understanding? I am
reading from the Department of Homeland Security document.
Mr. Swartz. Yes.
The Chairman. You had to also not only be here since 2007,
and be under the age of 16 when you came, but you had to be in
school, you had to have graduated from high school, you have to
have obtained a general education development certificate or be
honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or the Armed
Forces of the United States. You cannot do all of that unless
you were here before 2007.
So, without objection, I will include the Homeland
Security's Eligibility for Deferred Action.
[The information referred to above can be found of page
80.]
Let me ask you, Is it not true that President Obama has
deported more migrants than any President in recent history?
Mr. Swartz. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. As a matter of fact, some have called him
``The Deporter in Chief.''
Now, it seems to me that Congress has unclean hands, here,
in its failure to act to reform our immigration system. And, in
the absence of that failure, what has been Congress' successful
role is to dramatically increase Borders and Custom enforcement
to the point that we have had the most detentions and
deportations at any other time.
So, let me ask two final questions. Did all 60,000 of the
children that we estimate have arrived, pay a smuggler to get
here?
Ambassador Shannon. I do not know the exact figure, because
I have not seen the results of the interviews that have been
done, but the younger ones, almost certainly. Some of the older
ones, the 16- and 17-year-olds, at least in the conversations I
have had with them either at Lackland, at the HHS facility, or
in McAllen at the CBP facilities, or in the shelters, some have
come on their own.
The Chairman. And those who rode the ``Train of Death,''
did they have a smuggler?
Ambassador Shannon. Typically, yes.
The Chairman. Okay.
Now, the national security interests--if we do nothing--
nothing as it relates to Central America, except tell the
Central Americans, ``Get your act together''--but, we do
nothing more, what is going to be the consequences of that?
Mr. Swartz. Mr. Chairman, I think that it will have serious
law enforcement consequences for the United States, as well. As
noted, these criminal gangs operate not only in the Central
American countries, they operate in the United States. We are
bringing actions against them, even today, on that basis. And
the cartels do the same.
The Chairman. And when we had a concerted effort in
Colombia, did we not achieve taking a country that was
virtually on the verge of not being able to control its own
internal sovereignty, being run by drug lords, and ultimately
change that country to what is now one of the finest
democracies in the western hemisphere?
Mr. Swartz. We did, Mr. Chairman. We know how to do this.
The Chairman. Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
having the hearing. I actually--I think it is been very
educational.
And, if it is okay, I would like to also enter into the
record an article from the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Few
Children Are Deported.'' I would also like to enter, if okay,
Table 39\1\ from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
document that Senator Johnson was referring to that really
challenges the notion and stipulates the differences between
removals and returns. I think returns are actually diminishing
at a pretty high level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 39 can be found on page 103 of the 2012 Yearbook of
Immigration Statistics: http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/
publications/ois_yb_2012.pdf
[The information referred to above can be found on page
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
81.]
Senator Corker. But, here is what I would like to say.
Look, I--this is a humanitarian crisis, and I think everybody
here--all of--most of us have children, have--I mean, we--you
know, to see what is happening with so many children from other
countries, you know, it breaks our heart.
At the same time, with an emergency supplemental, it seems
to me that what we should be addressing is, Is there something
that we can immediately do to change the incentive structure?
We have talked a little bit about what the phenomenon is. I do
think it would be very important for all of government, on the
executive side, to address what is causing this spike. And I do
think there is a marketing that is taking place, but it is
based on policies.
And, actually, if you looked at returns, the returns issue
is a big part of this. I mean, very few people are being
returned.
Mr. Swartz, I know I was--first of all, I appreciate you
both being here. I know you all are great public servants.
The reason I was focusing on the asylum issue is that if,
in fact, the number is 58 percent, what that also means is
that, if you actually ever make it to court, which very few do,
you then have a 58-percent chance of a situation, possibly,
where you are--no action is being taken against you there, too.
So, I would like for--I think we ought to define--I do not want
to get into the debate of what asylum is. And I know the U.N.
and us, we have different categories. But, I do think it is
important for us to, over time, define that.
And I want to go back to the chairman's thrust in this
committee hearing. I do think it is important for us to develop
policies that, you know, affect the region. And I do think some
of the partnerships are important. And I think Senator Kaine's
comments about, ``Look, when you travel through Central
America--in fairness, you can see that the U.S. demand for
drugs is ravaging these countries.'' I mean, that is a fair
statement. That is fair. But, I would think that, during this
period of time when we have an emergency, that what we would
address, in an emergency, is the incentive structure and trying
to address the problems that Senator Johnson raised, and then
look--come back and look, longer term, at what we need to do
throughout the region, if you will, to possibly have some
impact on what is happening. Some of the Central American
countries do not have this issue. I think we should look at why
they do not. Some of the Central American countries do have
this issue. Honduras, in particular.
So, I thank you for the hearing. I think that what is
before us right now is maybe an acute issue that we need to
first address, and then I do hope that, over time, the
committee will develop a longer-term plan.
And again, I thank you both for being here. I know there
are emotions--they are running high on both sides. And
hopefully there will be some consensus to a policy that will
stem the flow as quickly as possible and then let us address
some longer-term issues.
Thank you both very much.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Corker.
One request of Mr. Swartz. I would like you to produce to
the committee what were the detentions of children and the
deportation of children prior to 2009. So, for the, let us say,
8 years prior.
Mr. Swartz. Mr. Chairman, we will do that.
The Chairman. Secondly, Senator Corker, as the ranking
member, has always been, and continues to be, a thoughtful
member on all of these issues, and I appreciate it. And the
only thing I would say, that there is a difference between
passion and emotion. Some of us are passionate about some of
these issues, as some are passionate about the size of
government or the cost of government, the spending of
government. So, it is not so much emotion as it is passion, at
the end of the day.
With the appreciation of the committee for both of your
testimony, you are excused at this time.
I would like to call up our second panel. We are pleased to
have Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, Sonia
Nazario, who is been recognized for her book, ``Enrique's
Journey.'' She serves as a board member of KIND, Kids in Need
of Defense. We also have Cynthia Arnson, the director of the
Latin American Program at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, here in Washington.
And I would ask the audience who is leaving to do so
quietly, please.
And Stephen Johnson, the regional director for Latin
America and the Caribbean at the International Republican
Institute.
Let me welcome you all to the committee. As I said to our
previous panel, your full statements will be included in the
record in their entirety, without objection. I would ask you to
try to summarize them in about 5 minutes or so, so that we
could engage in a dialogue.
And we will start with you, Ms. Nazario. If you would turn
your microphone on.
STATEMENT OF SONIA NAZARIO, AUTHOR, ENRIQUE'S JOURNEY,
JOURNALIST, KIND BOARD MEMBER, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Nazario. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Corker, and
other members of the committee, for inviting me to speak to
testify before you today.
I am Sonia Nazario, a journalist, author, board member of
Kids in Need of Defense, a nonprofit founded by Microsoft and
Angelina Jolie that recruits pro-bono attorneys to represent
unaccompanied children.
I first went to Central America to write about civil wars
in the early 1980s. I focused on unaccompanied children, 15
years ago, writing the modern-day odyssey of one boy, Luis
Enrique Motino Pineda, whose mother left him in Honduras when
he was just 5 years old. Eleven years later, he went in search
of her in the United States by riding up the length of Mexico
on top of freight trains.
Last month, I returned, for the first time in a decade, to
Enrique's home in Nueva Suyapa, a neighborhood of Tegucigalpa.
I lived there for 1 week. I saw a huge change in why children
are migrating to the United States, a level of violence
directed at them that astounded me. I have lived through
Argentina's dirty war and ridden on top of seven freight trains
controlled by gangs through most of Mexico. I am not easily
spooked. But, after a week, I thanked God I got out of
Enrique's neighborhood alive.
Gangs have long ruled parts of Nueva Suyapa, but recent
control by narcocartels has brought a new reach and viciousness
to the violence. Children, in particular, are being targeted
here and throughout the country. Children are kidnapped, found
hacked apart, heads cut off, skinned alive. Sometimes at night,
men in facemasks strafe anyone on the street. War taxes are
imposed on virtually everyone. If you do not pay, the narcos
kill you. Many neighborhoods are even worse.
Cristian Omar Reyes, an 11-year-old 6th grader in Nueva
Suyapa, told me he had to leave Honduras soon, no matter what.
He has been threatened twice by narcos, and he fears the worse.
Last March, his father was killed by gangs. Three people
Cristian knows were murdered this year. A girl his age was
clubbed over the head, dragged off by two men, who cut a hole
in her throat, stuffed her panties in it, and left her broken
body in a nearby ravine. ``I cannot be on the street,'' says
Cristian, who narcohitmen pass by--he says that narcohitmen
pass by on these three-wheeled taxies. ``They shoot at you. I
have seen so much death.''
Gangs are forcibly recruiting children as young as 10 to be
their foot soldiers throughout the country. Children told me
they had two choices: join or get out to stay alive. This is no
different than child soldiers who are forcibly conscripted in
Sudan.
Schools in Nueva Suyapa have become the narcos'
battleground. Girls face particular dangers. Recently, three
girls were raped and killed in Nueva Suyapa, one of them 8
years old. Two 15-year-olds were abducted and raped. A girl I
interviewed, who had been threatened by gangs, said, ``It is
better to leave than have them kill me here.'' And Cristian
told me, ``I am going this year, even if I need to ride on that
train.''
Children like Cristian fully understand how lethal the
journey can be. Neighborhoods are dotted with people who have
lost limbs to the train. Many know someone who has died in that
attempt. The Zetas narco cartel is kidnapping 18,000 Central
Americans off those trains every year, and they prefer
children. They demand ransom and kill children whose relatives
cannot or will not pay.
You would have to be, honestly, crazy or desperate to save
your life to ride on that train now. Many of these children,
not all, are refugees. Refugees flee their country for safety,
because they face persecution and possible death and cannot
turn to their government to protect them. Despite billions the
United States has spent to disrupt the flow of drugs from
Colombia up that Caribbean corridor, the narco cartels, mostly
Mexican, have simply rerouted inland to Honduras. Around 2011--
2011--the narcos' grip in the neighborhoods, like Nueva Suyapa,
tightened. That was, not coincidentally, the first year the
United States started to see a surge in unaccompanied children.
We must address this situation, but by treating these
children humanely. And that means more than using the word in
the title of legislation. To roll back basic protections of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 and
expedite deportation means Border Patrol will give even
trafficking victims a cursory screening. Their job is to secure
our borders, not to collect information from traumatized
children.
The U.N., among others, has found that the screening of
Mexican children for protection concerns by Border Patrol has
been a failure. Every child should have a full, fair, and
timely hearing before an immigration judge and an attorney.
While KIND has recruited thousands of volunteer lawyers, more
than 70 percent of children must still present complex
immigration cases without counsel, due to the surge. So,
picture a 7-year-old boy that I saw alone in court, shivering
with fright, expected to argue against the government's
attorney, who is battling to send him home.
Let me finish by saying, we must bolster security in
Honduras and the region, not by funding corrupt police and
military, but by strengthening accountability, the judiciary,
and child protection. Less than a tenth of the President's
proposed $3.7 billion funding request is for aid to this
region. Lacking funding, USAID has closed its program in Nueva
Suyapa.
We show deep concern for girls who are kidnapped in
Nigeria, but not for girls kidnapped by narcos in Honduras.
Why? How can we demand that countries neighboring Syria take in
nearly 3 million refugees, but turn our backs on tens of
thousands of children from our own neighbors? If we shortchange
due process, I believe that Congress and this administration
will be sending many children back to their deaths.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I welcome your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nazario follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sonia Nazario
Good morning. My name is Sonia Nazario; I am a journalist, author,
and serve on the board of Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), a nonprofit
founded by Microsoft and Angelina Jolie that recruits pro bono
attorneys to represent unaccompanied children.
I first went to Central America to write about civil wars in
Guatemala and El Salvador in the early 1980s. I focused on
unaccompanied children 15 years ago, writing the modern-day odyssey of
one boy, Luis Enrique Motino Pineda, whose mother leaves him in
Honduras when he is 5 years old, and who sets off 11 years later to go
in search of her in the United States by riding up the length of Mexico
on top of freight trains.
Last month, I returned for the first time in a decade to Enrique's
home in the Nueva Suyapa neighborhood of Tegucigalpa. I lived there for
a week. I saw a huge change in why children are migrating north to the
U.S.--a level of violence directed at them that honestly astounded me.
I have lived through Argentina's dirty war and ridden on top of seven
freight trains controlled by gangs through most of Mexico. I am not
easily spooked. But after a week, I thanked God that I got out of
Enrique's neighborhood in one piece.
Gangs have long ruled parts of Nueva Suyapa, but the recent control
by narcocartels has brought a new reach and viciousness to violence
children in particular face in this neighborhood and throughout the
country. People are found hacked apart, heads cut off, skinned alive.
Children are kidnapped. People are routinely killed for their cell
phones. On some 20 or 30 buses daily, passengers are all robbed at
gunpoint; in one instance 23 were killed. Sometimes, at night, men show
up in face masks and strafe anyone out on the street. Threatened
families have had to abandon homes and flee with only the clothes on
their backs.
Several neighborhoods are worse than Nueva Suyapa; no one can go in
without permission from gangs or narcotraffickers, and war taxes are
imposed on every resident. If you don't pay, they kill you. World
Vision International, a Christian nonprofit group, has shut down
operations in a nearby neighborhood because thugs won't let their staff
enter.
Cristian Omar Reyes, an 11-year-old 6th grader in Nueva Suyapa told
me he had to get out of Honduras soon--``no matter what.'' He has been
threatened twice by narcos who said they would beat him up if he did
not use drugs, and he fears worse.
Last March, his father was robbed and murdered by gangs. Three
people Cristian knows were murdered this year; four others were gunned
down on a nearby corner in the span of 2 weeks at the beginning of this
year. A girl his age resisted being robbed of $5. She was clubbed over
the head and dragged off by two men who cut a hole in her throat,
stuffed her panties in it, and left her arms and hips broken. She was
found in a ravine across the street from Cristian's house.
``I can't be on the street,'' says Cristian, adding that there are
sicarios--narco hit men--who pass by in mototaxis, three-wheeled
motorcycle taxis, on his Nueva Suyapa street where crack is sold.
``They shoot at you. I've seen so much death.''
``I'm going this year,'' he told me. ``Even if I need to ride on
the train.'' He promises himself he'll wait until he finds a freight
train moving slowly before jumping on to avoid being pulled under and
losing an arm or leg.
A decade ago, when children left Honduras planning to ride on the
train through Mexico, many of them didn't fully grasp how dangerous
this is. That's no longer the case. Neighborhoods are dotted with
people who have lost arms and legs to the train, visible reminders of
what La Bestia, or the so-called Train of Death, can do.
Many know someone who has died in the attempt. They know that the
Zetas, the most bloodthirsty narcocartel in Mexico, is kidnapping
18,000 Central Americans off those trains every year, and they prefer
to grab children. They know the Zetas beat these children until they
provide the telephone of a relative in the U.S., then demand $2,500 in
ransom, and kill children whose parents don't or can't pay. I spent 3
months, off and on, riding on top of seven trains in 2000. It's much
worse now. You'd have to be crazy to do it--or desperate enough to fear
for your life if you stay at home.
I consider many of these children--not all--to be refugees. Why?
Unlike an immigrant, who sets off for a new land to better their lives,
a refugee is someone who must flee their country primarily for safety
because their government cannot or will not protect them. If they stay,
they face persecution and possible death.
The U.S. has spent billions to disrupt the flow of drugs from
Colombia up the Caribbean corridor. The narcocartels, mostly Mexican,
have simply rerouted inland, and four in five flights of cocaine bound
for the U.S. now land in Honduras. These cartels are vying for control
over turf and to expand drug distribution, sales, and extortion in
these neighborhoods.
Around 2011 the narcos grip seemed to tighten in neighborhoods like
Nueva Suyapa. That was not coincidentally the first year the U.S.
started to see a surge in unaccompanied children.
They are forcibly recruiting children as young as 10 and 11 to be
their foot soldiers. Children told me they felt they had two choices:
join with delinquents who worked for the narcos or reject them and get
out to stay alive. This is no different than child soldiers who are
forcibly conscripted in Sudan or in the civil war in Bosnia. Schools in
Nueva Suyapa have become the narcos' battleground. Teachers must pay a
war tax to teach; students must pay ``rent'' to go to school.
Building costly walls may make good politics, but they don't work.
We must instead focus on dealing with this exodus at its source. Folks
in Honduras feel the U.S. hasn't paid any attention to them since the
Kennedy administration. Less than a tenth of the President's proposed
$3.7 billion supplemental funding request focuses on aid to these three
countries. USAID had closed its program in Nueva Suyapa there due to
lack of funding.
If you want to fix this crisis you must do three difficult things.
You must summon the political will to treat these kids humanely, and
that means more than using that word in the title of legislation. It
means giving them a full, fair, and timely immigration hearing, as
required under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
(TVPRA) of 2008. To roll back basic protections of the TVPRA and
expedite deportation--treat Central American children the same way we
handle Mexican children--means Border Patrol agents will give at most a
cursory screening to children, even those who are trafficking victims.
These are folks trained to be law enforcers, not in child-sensitive
techniques designed to get traumatized kids to talk. The U.N., among
others, has found that the screening of Mexican children for protection
concerns by Border Patrol has been a failure.
It means providing every child who stands before an immigration
judge an attorney. KIND has worked hard to recruit volunteers, and
these more than 7,000 lawyers have done incredible work. But it's a
drop in the bucket, especially now given the surge. KIND estimates more
than 70 percent of children are standing before a judge without anyone
to help them mount and present complex immigration cases. These
children face U.S. government attorneys arguing why they should be
deported. No one in their right mind would consider this a fair fight,
or anything approaching due process. I saw a 7-year-old boy alone in
court, and KIND staff has seen 5-year-old children, answering judges'
questions, shivering with fright, clutching teddy bears.
We also have to deal with insecurity in Honduras in a way that
doesn't fund corrupt police and the military that are a big part of the
problem. We must strengthen the judiciary in Central America,
accountability, as well as national child protection systems.
How can we have so much concern for girls kidnapped in Nigeria, but
not for girls being kidnapped by narcos in Honduras who demand they be
their ``girlfriend'' or they will kill them? How can we ask countries
that neighbor Syria to take in nearly 3 million refugees, but turn our
backs on tens of thousands of children from our hemispheric neighbors
to the south? If we short-change due process for these children, I
believe Congress and this administration will be sending many children
back to their deaths.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Arnson, as I said before you were able to come back
into the chamber, your full statement will be entered into the
record. I would ask you to summarize in about 5 minutes.
There is a vote going on. I am going to try to see if we
can get through the testimony and then recess and come back for
questions.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA ARNSON, DIRECTOR, LATIN AMERICA PROGRAM,
WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS, WASHINGTON,
DC
Ms. Arnson. Great. Chairman Menendez, thank you very much
for this opportunity--Senator Corker, Senator Kaine, and others
who have been present.
I would like to emphasize some of the points that have been
made by earlier speakers, but say that a long-term solution to
what is now this humanitarian crisis depends on the quality of
improvements in democratic governance, in citizen security, and
in development in Central America. The United States Government
must be prepared to commit to these goals over the long term,
and Central American actors in and out of government must
assume a willingness and a will to transform their own
countries.
There is no one causal factor. I will focus mostly on the
push factors of criminal- and drug-fueled violence. We have
heard the homicide statistics, but, as impressive as they are,
they tell only part of the story. There is an excessive focus
on homicides that is understandable, but it does not capture
the other forms of street crime, threats, assault, kidnapping,
sexual violence, and extortion that affect citizens on a
routine and intimate daily basis. Many of these statistics
about other crimes are not reliable, as civilians do not trust
the police or other authorities. And this leads to a
significant underreporting of even serious crimes.
I would also encourage members of the committee to examine
a map prepared by the Department of Homeland Security which
studied the cities and towns of origin of the bulk of the
undocumented children migrants between January and May 2014.
They found that the largest number--20 of the top 30 sending
cities and towns--were Honduran, led by San Pedro Sula, the
most violent city in the world. And our own Department of
Homeland Security noted that, ``Salvadoran and Honduran
children . . . come from extremely violent regions, where they
probably perceive the risk of traveling alone to the United
States preferable to remaining at home.''
Gangs, or maras, are responsible--are not solely
responsible for the levels of violent crime, but their role is
pervasive and highly organized. I think it is important to
highlight that the MS-13 and the 18th Street Gang were formed
in the United States, in Los Angeles, and that U.S.
deportations of gang members who had been convicted of crimes
in the United States for years with little or no advanced
warning to government officials in the region contributed to
the diffusion of gang culture and practices. Crime and
violence, including that perpetrated by gangs, have worsened as
drug trafficking and other forms of organized crime have
spread. And those points have been dealt with extensively, and
I will not go into them now.
What I would like to address is the kinds of policy
responses that this committee could oversee and that the U.S.
Congress could take. I believe that there is really actually no
time since the Central American wars of the 1980s that there
has been so much media and policy attention focused on Central
America. I welcome that attention. But, I also think that our
inability or our walking away from the many needs of the
peacetime era in the 1990s and early 2000s, you know, had some
contribution to the current situation. The CARSI, the Central
American Regional Security Initiative, that was launched in
2008 in response to the concern about the spillover of
organized crime from Mexico, has focused, rightfully, on
security. It has been underresourced, and it has not focused
sufficiently on other government or development objectives.
There is no silver bullet to address these problems. They
have taken decades, if not, one could argue, centuries, to
develop. But, I believe that progress is possible, with the
right leadership, with sufficient resources, with active
participation from Central American societies, and with
integrated approaches, and, above all, with adherence to the
principles of transparency and accountability.
As we have seen in Colombia and so many other places, a key
ingredient for policies to be successful is political will and
leadership from the region itself.
I believe that, as large as the current spending request is
before Congress, far too little is made available for
addressing the root causes of migration in Central America.
There is approximately $295 million to address the economic,
social, governance, and citizen security conditions in the
region, but that amount is also to be used for the repatriation
and reintegration of migrants in Central America.
I believe that my time is up, and I will say that improving
citizen security is a necessary condition for fostering
economic growth and for fostering investment. Our assistance
programs, up until now, have been too overly focused on
counterdrug operations and not enough on providing citizen
security and attacking the causes of crime and violence that
affect citizens' daily lives.
I also believe we need to make efforts to foster
opportunity in the legal economy by investing in human capital
formation that matches education and job training with the
demands of the labor market.
I will end there, and I welcome your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Arnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cynthia J. Arnson
Chairman Menendez, Senator Corker, and distinguished members of the
committee, as someone who has closely followed Central American affairs
for over three decades, I am pleased to have this opportunity to
testify on the surge of unaccompanied minors arriving at the U.S.
border from Central America.
As our Nation seeks to address this unprecedented influx, we must
humanely and intelligently respond both to immediate needs and address
longer term perspectives. In the short term, our response must ensure
that, in accordance with U.S. and international law, those in need of
protection as victims of human trafficking and/or those with legitimate
claims for asylum are afforded timely due process; that is, that they
are assisted and not penalized. This principle is important to keep in
mind in light of the pressures to remove children quickly, given the
current size of the influx as well as to send a strong message in an
effort to deter further migration.
My testimony \1\ will address three of the most important drivers
of this flow, and suggest options for improving the quality of
democratic governance, citizen security, and inclusive development in
Central America. Indeed, a long-term solution to what is now a
humanitarian crisis rests on these three pillars--what the U.S.
Government is prepared to commit over the long-term in pursuit of these
goals, and what responsibility Central American actors in and out of
government are willing to assume to transform their own countries.
There is no one causal factor that accounts for the unprecedented
increase in unaccompanied children attempting to enter the United
States, or the lesser but still significant increase in the number of
adults attempting to enter with young children. The numbers of young
children seeking to enter spiked in this fiscal year after smaller but
significant increases in the past 2 years.\2\ Children from Nicaragua,
Panama, and Costa Rica are, for the most part, not part of this
increase. This begs a closer exploration as to why such large numbers
are arriving from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala--the so-called
Northern Triangle. In general, the ``push'' factors behind this flow
stem from the persistent failure of governments following the internal
armed conflicts of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, to guarantee the
security of their citizens or provide a foundation for broad-based
socioeconomic well-being.\3\ These twin failures have given rise to a
cluster of factors that can be summarized as follows:
criminal and drug-fueled violence
Central America's Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras) has been described with numbing regularity as the most
violent region in the world outside countries at war. The staggering
rates of homicide \4\ take their largest toll on young men between the
ages of 15 and 29, although young women have been increasingly
targeted. Annual homicide statistics, as revealing as they are, tell
only part of the story. For example, the homicide rate in El Salvador
declined due to a controversial truce between the country's two most
important gangs. However, some parts of the country saw a rise in
murders during the gang truce, reinforcing the point that crime rates
within a country's borders vary significantly, between urban and rural
areas, from city to city, and--within cities--from neighborhood to
neighborhood.\5\ Hence, a decline in the national average, as has
occurred in Guatemala over the past several years, does not necessarily
eliminate ``hot zones'' with high murder rates. Indeed, a Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) study of unaccompanied minors attempting to
enter the United States between January and May 2014 found that the
largest number by far came from Honduras. Twenty of the thirty top
sending cities and towns were Honduran, led by San Pedro Sula, the most
violent city in the world.\6\ As noted by DHS, ``Salvadoran and
Honduran children . . . come from extremely violent regions where they
probably perceive the risk of traveling alone to the U.S. preferable to
remaining at home.'' \7\
Moreover, excessive focus on homicides, while understandable, does
not capture the many forms of street crime, threats, assault,
kidnapping, sexual violence, and extortion that affect citizens on a
routine and intimate basis. Many statistics are unreliable as civilians
do not trust the police or other authorities, leading to significant
underreporting of even serious crimes.
Gangs or maras are not solely responsible for the levels of violent
crime in the Northern Triangle, but their role is pervasive and highly
organized. In post-war Central America, numerous factors contributed to
the rise of gangs--migration to the United States, which divided
families; a lack of opportunity; a culture of violence; access to
firearms; an absence of social capital; rapid urbanization, etc.\8\
U.S. deportations of gang members convicted of crimes in the United
States, for years with little or no advance warning to government
officials in the region, contributed to the diffusion of gang culture
and practices. Zero-tolerance or mano dura policies adopted by the
Governments of El Salvador and Honduras, in particular, only made
matters worse; these policies reinforced gang solidarity and membership
as a form of protection from the state and led to prison overcrowding
and the role of prisons as incubators of gang membership. All this took
place against a backdrop of incomplete, and at times distorted,
processes of building and reforming civilian security and law
enforcement institutions after the end of civil wars. Impunity and
corruption remain rampant.
Crime and violence, including that perpetrated by gangs, have
worsened as drug trafficking and other forms of organized crime have
spread in the Northern Triangle. However, the crisis of insecurity long
predates the spillover of Mexican drug trafficking cartels such as the
Zetas or Sinaloa into Central America. U.S. demand for drugs has served
to deepen the security crisis, as has the failure to restrict the flow
of firearms from the United States into Mexico and Central America.
Weak institutions and some corrupt officials in those countries have
permitted organized crime to flourish.
poverty and lack of opportunity
Poverty by itself is not a good predictor of who will migrate and
when, but a general lack of opportunity, particularly when coupled by
high levels of violence in poor neighborhoods, creates an important
push factor for those who are willing to risk their lives in order to
enter the United States. Poverty levels in the Northern Triangle have
gone down since the 1990s, but it is still the case that poverty
affects approximately 45 percent of Salvadorans, 54.8 percent of
Guatemalans, and 67.4 percent of Hondurans. In Guatemala and Honduras,
over half of those in poverty are classified as indigent, that is, in
extreme poverty.\9\ According to the World Food Program, in Guatemala
alone, approximately half of children, ages 5 and under, suffer from
chronic undernutrition. Rural poverty in general is far worse than in
urban areas. Growth rates in the three countries vary; all three
economies suffered severe impacts as a result of the 2008 global
financial crisis and for the most part, recovery has been mediocre.
One striking indicator of the lack of opportunity is the proportion
of 15 to 24-year-olds who neither study nor work. Known by the Spanish
acronym ``Ni-Ni,'' they constitute 23.9 percent of youth in this age
group in El Salvador, 22.6 percent in Guatemala, and 28.0 percent in
Honduras. Many young women in this category help take care of
households. Of young people 15-24 years of age who have work, low
levels of education prevail. More than 60 percent of Guatemalans and
Hondurans in this age group have left school before completing nineth
grade. The same is true for approximately 48 percent of
Salvadorans.\10\
Northern Triangle countries are also characterized by high levels
of inequality of opportunity. Indicators such as the Gini coefficient
and the United Nations Development Program's Inequality Adjusted Human
Development Index demonstrate that inequality is pervasive in the
region.\11\
family reunification
Migration flows from Central America into the United States
increased in a significant way during the civil wars of the 1980s. Many
of those entering the United States from El Salvador, Nicaragua, and
Honduras were granted Temporary Protected Status. This designation has
been renewed repeatedly long after the wars have ended and has been
applied to new groups of migrants following natural disasters such as
earthquakes and hurricanes, including Hurricane Mitch. Renewals of TPS
have been carried out in response to requests from Central American
governments who argue that a return of large numbers of migrants would
be destabilizing given a lack of opportunities in the labor market. I
am unaware of information that specifically links adults with TPS or
Green Cards to the flow of undocumented children. But special
consideration should be given to family reunification for Central
American migrants who have legal status in the United States.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, of the 11.4
million unauthorized immigrants in the United States in 2012, the
number of undocumented Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans in the
United States were 690,000, 560,000, and 360,000, respectively. Often
working in menial jobs, they have nonetheless managed to support family
members back home through remittance flows. Remittances have boosted
incomes and consumption in Central America, often substituting for, or
at a minimum, supplementing weak social safety nets. Remittances
constitute fully 17 percent of GDP in El Salvador and 20 percent in
Honduras. What these figures demonstrate is that divided families in
Central America are critical to the economic well-being of their
relatives as well as to their countries' economies overall. The human
dimensions of this phenomenon should not be overlooked. This is
especially true given that migration and the strains it places on
separated families are seen as risk factors for young people joining
gangs.
Reporters' interviews with young migrants as well as adults who
care for them suggest that the desire of parents and children to be
reunited is a push as well as pull factor behind the current flows.
There is circumstantial evidence that rumors have spread in communities
in the region--stoked by unscrupulous and often brutal traffickers
(coyotes) anxious to profit from the thousands of dollars each migrant
pays--indicating that children will be reunited with their parents and
allowed to stay in the United States once they reach the U.S. border.
The Obama administration has recently begun publicity campaigns to
counter these misperceptions. Even if perceptions can be altered,
however, they will do little to curb the desperation that motivates
young children and others to embark on a perilous and often fatal
journey.
policy responses
One thin silver lining in the crisis of undocumented minors is that
it has focused renewed attention on the violence, poverty, and
hopelessness that affect millions of Central American citizens. Indeed,
I can recall no time since the Central American wars of the 1980s when
so much U.S. media and policy attention has been paid to the region.
Our failure to invest and remain engaged in Central America in the
peacetime era, with the same resources and single-mindedness with which
we fought the cold war, has no doubt contributed to the current
situation. The Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI),
launched in 2008 in response to concerns about the spillover of
organized crime from Mexico, has focused on security without setting
other governance and development objectives as priorities. CARSI has
also been underresourced. This situation needs to change.
There is no magic bullet to address these problems, which have
taken decades if not centuries to develop. But progress is possible,
with the right leadership, sufficient resources, active civic
participation, integral approaches, and adherence to the principles of
transparency and accountability. A critical ingredient for policies to
be successful is political will and leadership from the region itself.
Yet history has shown that the United States still wields tremendous
influence and should not hesitate to exercise it on behalf of shared
objectives.
In the short run, the current crisis should be handled in ways that
protect vulnerable children, many of whom have been traumatized in
their home countries or during their journey to the U.S. border.
Indeed, humanitarian workers receive frequent reports of trafficking
for sexual exploitation or slave labor, as well as of organ
trafficking, kidnappings, and brutal killings. The United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees estimates that 58 percent of unaccompanied
minors have legitimate claims under U.S. and humanitarian law.
Of the current funding request pending before Congress, far too
little is to be made available for addressing the root causes of
migration in Central America. The $295 million included to address
``economic, social, governance, and citizen security conditions'' is
also to be used for the repatriation and reintegration of migrants in
Central America. Once these purposes are accomplished, it is unclear
how much will be left to meet the significant challenges in remaining
areas.
The following suggestions are intended to spur broader thinking
about a comprehensive, long-term approach:
Transparency and accountability around new spending programs
must be core commitments upheld by recipients in the region of
U.S. and other international assistance. Corruption erodes
trust and fosters cynicism across societies and undermines the
legitimacy of government institutions. Building institutional
capacity and effectiveness means gaining the confidence of
citizens across the board. Leaders of key institutions should
not serve unless they are models of these principles.
Future policy initiatives should, as much as possible, be
the outcome of broad-based national dialogues in Central
America among a range of stakeholders--government
representatives; the private sector, business, and professional
associations; the Church; think tanks and universities;
organized labor; nonprofit organizations; campesino
organizations. The forums, with the involvement of other donors
and international development banks, should be convened for the
purpose of devising concrete proposals for fostering security,
governance, and inclusive development.
Improving citizen security--a public good--is a necessary
condition for fostering investment and economic growth. U.S.
assistance programs under CARSI have been overly focused on
counterdrug operations and combating other forms of organized
crime. A ``whole of government'' approach has purported to
coordinate development and violence prevention strategies with
improved law enforcement and interdiction. But in practice,
development goals have been secondary and the security programs
not sufficiently focused on fighting the crime and violence
that affect citizens' daily lives.\12\ The greatest examples of
success in Latin America in improving citizen security involve
local, community-based initiatives that involve nongovernmental
organizations, the private sector, and other civic groups in
addition to the police and judiciary.
While security is paramount, other development and
governance efforts must go forward in parallel fashion. Efforts
must be made to foster opportunity in the legal economy by
investing in human capital formation that matches education and
job training with the demands of the labor market, including
through strategic investment with a training component.
Ensuring the reliability of a legal framework that creates
certainty for investors without ignoring the needs of ordinary
citizens for whom the judicial system does not function is
paramount.
More must be done to improve the capacity of remittances to
contribute to productive investment in communities, in addition
to subsidizing household consumption.
Investments must be made to expand quality public education,
including by stimulating U.S. community colleges and vocational
and trade schools to partner with underserved communities in
Central America. Part of these exchanges should be aimed at
improving teacher training.
No lasting solution to the current crisis will be found ``on the
cheap'' or in the short run. In the current U.S. fiscal climate, only
smart investments that derive from a strategic logic will survive the
political process now and into the future. As the example of Colombia
demonstrates, a major turnaround in a country's fortunes is possible
when bipartisan majorities in the United States provide sustained
support to committed leaders in and out of government who mobilize
their country's own talent and resources. Central Americans came
together with the support of the international community to end their
fratricidal wars two decades ago. A similar effort is needed to convert
the current crisis into an opportunity for building more inclusive and
democratic societies.
----------------
Notes
\1\ I am grateful to Latin American Program interns Kathryn Moffat,
Angela Budzinski, and Carla Mavaddat for research assistance.
\2\ The number of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans
requesting political asylum in Belize, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama,
also increased significantly.
\3\ See Cynthia Arnson, ed., ``In the Wake of War: Democratization
and Internal Armed Conflict in Latin America'' (Washington, DC, and
Stanford, CA: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Stanford University
Press, 2012).
\4\ The rates are 41.2 per 100,000 in El Salvador, 39.9 per 100,000
in Guatemala, and 90.4 per 100,000, according to 2012 figures of the
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
\5\ See United Nations Development Program, ``Informe Regional de
Desarrollo Humano: Seguridad Ciudadana con rostro humano: diagnostico y
propuestas para America Latina'' (New York: 2013).
\6\ The top cities in terms of places of origin of unaccompanied
minors were: San Pedro Sula, Tegucigalpa, and Juticalpa, Honduras;
followed by San Salvador, El Salvador; La Ceiba, Honduras; and
Guatemala City.
\7\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ``Homeland Intelligence
Today: Unaccompanied Alien Children'' (UACs) by Location of Origin for
CY 2014: Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, May 27, 2014.
\8\ Jose Miguel Cruz, Rafael Fernandez de Castro, and Gema
Santamaria Balmaceda, ``Political Transition, Social Violence, and
Gangs: Cases in Central America and Mexico,'' in Arnson, ed., ``In the
Wake of War,'' 317-49. Analysts such as Douglas Farah also point to the
failure of post-war demobilization and reintegration schemes as a
factor behind the rise of gangs. See Douglas Farah, ``Organized Crime
in El Salvador: Its Homegrown and Transnational Dimension,'' in Cynthia
J. Arnson and Eric L. Olson, eds., ``Organized Crime in Central
America: The Northern Triangle'' (Washington, DC: Latin American
Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2011), 104-
38.
\9\ U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean,
``Social Panorama of Latin America'' (Santiago: 2013). See also: Hugo
Beteta, ``Central American Development: Two Decades of Progress and
Challenges for the Future,'' Regional Migration Study Group, Woodrow
Wilson Center and Migration Policy Institute, July 2012, 8.
\10\ 10 Figures concerning the Ni-Ni's are drawn from Programa
Estado de la Nacion, ``Nini en Centroamerica: la poblacion de 15 a 24
anos que no estudia ni trabaja,'' presentation at the INCAE and Woodrow
Wilson Center conference ``Encuentro de Dialogo en Temas de Seguridad
Centroamericana,'' Managua, Nicaragua, March 24, 2014.
\11\ See Dinorah Azpuru, ``Las condiciones del Triangulo Norte y
los menores migrantes,'' ConDistintosAcentos, Universidad de Salamanca,
Spain, July 14, 2014.
\12\ Andrew Selee, Cynthia J. Arnson, and Eric L. Olson, ``Crime
and Violence in Mexico and Central America: An Evolving but Incomplete
U.S. Policy Response,'' Regional Migration Study Group, Wilson Center
and Migration Policy Institute, January 2013.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN JOHNSON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, LATIN AMERICA
AND THE CARIBBEAN, INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Johnson. Chairman Menendez, Senator Corker, thank you
for this opportunity to testify on the conditions in Central
America that are driving out minors as well as adults.
While overall apprehensions at the U.S. Southwest border
are a quarter of what they were during the largest waves of
Mexican migration that took place 14 years ago, the current
uptick among Central American arrivals is worrisome because of
the unaccompanied children that are among the migrants and are
taking extreme risks. That highlights the citizen insecurity
factor as a driver and the presence of criminal trafficking
organizations.
As you have already heard today, the region has persistent
security challenges, so I will not add to the list, except to
say that there is a good case to be made for focusing attention
on the conditions that compel people to leave their country.
Thirty years ago, after prolonged periods of civil
conflict, these countries chose to exchange military rule for
civilian elected leadership. No question, it was the right
decision. But, at U.S. urging, it meant reorganizing
government, adopting democratic behaviors, and building a base
of public servants from a pool that had little experience.
Police had to be divorced from the armed forces to which they
had belonged. Courthouses had to be built and modern justice
systems established. It is a process that is still going on
today.
Unfortunately, crime and violence prey on such societies at
their moment of weakness. During this time, Colombian and
Mexican drug traffickers, fueled by North American cocaine
habits, invaded Central America. Initially disorganized,
deportations from the United States gave rise to youth gangs.
Our country has tried to help Central American neighbors, among
others, such as Mexico, establish new justice systems, but
these tasks take time, and they are resource-intense. Central
America's traditional models of centralized top-down governance
with weak districts and municipalities also leave citizens,
mayors, and town councils largely out of the business of making
their communities more secure.
In the work that it does in Central America, the
International Republican Institute specializes in the
development of citizen security mechanisms that bridge the gap
between citizens, municipalities, and national-level efforts.
We have begun working with public security officials at the
ministry level, as well as municipal authorities, to strengthen
citizen input and participation, and conduct exchanges with
communities throughout the hemisphere that have exemplary
citizen safety models. However, the number of municipalities is
huge, and there is much work to be done, municipality by
municipality.
Mr. Chairman, the United States has many priorities in the
world, but, whatever actions are decided, they should take into
account the partnership that our country has entered with
Central American countries 30 years ago to turn dictatorship
into democratic rule. Most of the heavy lifting is being done
by our partners. Our approach to helping them has to be long
term, comprehensive, consistent, and strategic.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify, and I
welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen Johnson
Chairman Menendez, Senator Corker, members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
conditions in Central America that are driving out minors as well as
adults. Meager employment prospects, high rates of violent crime, and
limited state capacity to guarantee services and apply the rule of law
in the northern triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras--factors triggering continued migration to the United States--
have been and will continue to have an impact on the well-being of
Central America and Mexico, as well as ourselves.
iri in central america
The International Republican Institute (IRI) is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization and one of the four core institutes of the
National Endowment for Democracy. Our mission is to encourage democracy
in places where it is absent, help democracy become more effective
where it is in danger, and share best practices in democratic processes
and governance where it is flourishing. While the future of the
northern triangle countries is up to the people who live there to
decide, the United States can have a pivotal role in helping these
societies find tools and solutions that will bring down the level of
violence and increase prospects for personal economic advancement--two
key elements in reducing the outflow of migrants.
Central America has long been a part of IRI's programs. In carrying
out our mission to support more democratic, accountable government, we
have striven to enhance civic participation at the subnational level by
increasing civil society organizations' capacity and linkages to civic
and political leaders of all parties and levels of government.
Moreover, we have encouraged officials at all levels to reach out to
citizens to listen to their ideas and become more aware of their
concerns. In this vein, we have specialized in the development of
citizen security mechanisms that bridge the gap between citizens,
municipalities and nationally administered police programs. We have
worked with public security officials at the national level, as well as
municipal authorities, to adopt best practices that will make
neighborhoods and communities safer. However, the amount of work to be
done is huge and it cannot be done overnight.
overview
Among the issues that most challenge neighboring governments and
citizens are economics and safety. Poverty and violence are conditions
that push people out. Behind these factors are conflicts, demographic
trends and governance issues that determine whether these conditions
will improve or get worse. Where people go depends on finding
conditions nearby that are better than the ones they are leaving. In
that regard, the United States has witnessed two broad migration
trends. For almost a century, movements from Mexico have been
accompanied by economic downturns and lagging reforms at home and
better job prospects in the United States. Migration from Central
America has taken place mostly within the last 30 years, triggered at
first by internal conflicts and later by drug trafficking, high crime
levels and gang violence.
Migration from Mexico has been much more massive, judging by U.S.
border apprehensions that peaked in 2000 at almost 1.6 million.\1\
Since economic conditions have improved, accompanied by internal
reforms and Mexico's embrace of free trade, its migrant outflows have
begun to subside. Central American flows were probably greatest during
the period of internal conflicts during the 1980s when an estimated 1
million Salvadorans and Guatemalans came to the United States. There
was a lull during the 1990s when peace accords were signed, then
migration began to pick up, evidenced by 30,000 border apprehensions in
2000 to 142,000 in 2012.\2\
At the time when significant migration started, Central American
countries (with the exception of Costa Rica) were making the difficult
transition from military rule to democracy. Over time, the United
States offered security and development assistance, political advice
and trade benefits. For certain countries like El Salvador, Guatemala,
and Honduras (known as the ``northern triangle''), the challenges were
deeper and thus reforms have been halting and have taken longer. By
their own accounts, they still have progress to make, largely in
establishing rule of law, enhancing economic opportunity and improving
governing processes.
challenges to governance
On the supply side, it would seem that the Governments of El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras should be more capable of stemming
violent crime, which generally takes the form of murder, robbery,
kidnappings, and extortion by street gangs. Yet for the past half-
century, forces that continually tested their capacity to manage have
challenged these three countries. In all cases, barriers to further
progress suggest the need to improve the effectiveness of governance.
In the late 1970s, the large agricultural plantations on which
these economies depended began to mechanize, a shift that drove
increasing numbers of rural farmworkers (campesinos) out of the fields
and into cities to find work for which they were barely educated and
largely unprepared. Growing populations overwhelmed rudimentary school
systems that could hardly educate average citizens beyond primary
grades. The military governments at the time could neither deliver
services nor deal with social changes taking place. Hostilities
escalated between radicals and military governments in El Salvador and
Guatemala that brought in huge numbers of weapons. The resulting
turmoil left an opening for criminal networks to enter just as
increasing drug consumption in the United States began to fuel them.
Colombian drug trafficking operations sprang up where police--all part
of the military at the time and dedicated mostly to military tasks--
were absent. Clandestine airports began to dot the Caribbean coast of
Honduras.
Elections that brought in civilian governments in Honduras (1981),
El Salvador (1984), and Guatemala (1984) were encouraging but created
new sets of problems. Some were basic like setting up functioning
government agencies led by civilian politicians who had little previous
administrative experience. Others were more complex such as reducing
corrupt practices in politics and business. Another was separating the
police from the armed forces and establishing the rule of law. The
United States also began deporting undocumented Central American
juveniles that had arrived in the 1980s and fallen into the U.S.
corrections system. Some took what they learned from U.S. gang culture
and transferred it to their new home.
Gangs grew quickly, affiliating with U.S. groups, while taking in
new deportees and unemployed youth from broken homes and informal
farmworker families. In Guatemala's main cities, some clashed with
Mexican drug mafias competing for territory. Not only were new,
civilian police forces having trouble keeping up with existing criminal
threats, they were underresourced and, in the cases of Guatemala and
Honduras, experienced several rounds of leadership changes.\3\
Lawmakers enacted new so-called ``Hard Fist'' (Mano Dura) laws
intending to crack down, but weak courts and porous jails were unable
to deal with the rising number of arrests. In Guatemala and Honduras,
no social programs existed to supplant delinquent activity, as they did
in neighboring Nicaragua--programs restructured from Sandinista youth
indoctrination efforts of the 1980s.
Another, often overlooked obstacle to improved citizen security has
been the prevailing model of governance in much of Latin America, in
which power is heavily concentrated in the executive branch of the
national government. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have national
ministries administering local schools, supplying most government
services and controlling local police. In colonial times, central
authorities appointed mayors and rarely delegated authority. In recent
times, elected municipal governments have not enjoyed much more
authority nor have mayors and councilmen had the administrative skills
and experience to transparently manage public finances. Thus in today's
complex world, centralization ensures that only a few politically
connected communities and neighborhoods get meaningful attention and
opportunities for citizen involvement at the community are slim. The
bureaucratic bottlenecks centralization hampers development,
contributes to economic stagnation and lagging improvements to
neighborhoods that then become subject to criminal predation.
building capacity and citizen participation
While many Central American citizens and leaders would like to see
these conditions change, progress is not always possible without some
encouragement. In IRI's efforts to build governing capacity, IRI
partners with citizens, civil society, and national and local
authorities. Especially at the local level, where citizens have the
most contact with governing officials, IRI programs in El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras help strengthen the ability of municipalities
to respond to citizen needs through a variety of best practices. These
include opening budgets to public scrutiny, holding regular townhall
meetings in each neighborhood or barrio to record and discuss citizen
concerns, establishing community development offices to help start
small businesses, and using digital media to increase contact with
ordinary citizens as well as solicit feedback on policies and programs.
All of this helps build citizen awareness of what public officials are
doing and what they are supposed to do, as well as establish trust.
Regarding citizen security, IRI works at both national and local
levels. In Guatemala, the national government has established a
countrywide network of municipal security councils (MSCs) comprised of
citizens and local government representatives charged to devise public
safety recommendations under the national prevention strategy and serve
as a bridge between citizens, municipal government and national police
components. IRI runs workshops for these MSCs to help identify
community safety problems and develop collaborative solutions. Peer
exchanges encourage dialogue at the global level. As part of the IRI
Rising Stars program, Guatemalan mayors have traveled to cities in
Chile and Colombia to learn about innovative municipal security
practices and ways to enhance citizen services.
In Puerto Cortes, Honduras, IRI has coordinated with the municipal
government to train neighborhood leaders called patronatos in promoting
community safety in coordination with local authorities and the police.
Puerto Cortes is renowned for building its own command center staffed
by local citizens who receive emergency calls and then dispatch
national police units where they are needed. In the ``Together for our
CommUNITY'' program, the local patronatos learn negotiation, trust-
building and communication techniques to obtain more effective
cooperation and information from citizens. IRI is hoping to replicate
this practice in other Central American municipalities to help local
authorities limit opportunities for criminal activities to flourish.
conclusion
That Central America is experiencing a security crisis is nothing
new. But as this issue has grabbed U.S. attention again with the
arrival of unaccompanied minors, it seems more urgent. In Central
America, the United States has been working with willing societies to
establish stable governments ruled by popular will and economies open
to citizen participation for more than 30 years. Ongoing challenges
suggest that progress will depend on long-term strategies and a
commitment to partner in reform.
Progress is being made. The U.S. Department of State's Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs' Model Precincts
approach that was introduced in 2004 has helped lift standards in
community policing and coincides with IRI's focus on citizen inputs to
local public safety plans. Coupled with municipality-by-municipality
governance reform initiatives like IRI's to build links of cooperation
between citizens, local authorities and nationally administered police
units, territory can be slowly recovered from criminal organizations
and gangs. Beyond improving public safety, these efforts may have
economic value. Not long ago, the World Bank published estimates of the
economic cost of crime and violence in Central America in 2011 as a
percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). For El Salvador, the total
costs amounted to nearly 11 percentage points. For Honduras, it was
almost 10 percent and for Guatemala, it amounted to nearly 8 percent of
GDP. If each country could reduce its homicide rate by 10 percent, the
Bank estimated that GDP could potentially rise by almost a percentage
point\4\--an economic boost that could facilitate a rise in employment
prospects, perhaps further reducing migration incentives.
Mr. Chairman, whatever actions the U.S. Government decides, it
should take into account the partnership it entered into with Central
American countries 30 years ago to turn dictatorship into democratic
rule. Most of the heavy lifting has been done by our partners. But when
it comes to governance, there is much work left to be done.
----------------
Notes
\1\ Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2012, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.
\2\ Ibid.
\3\ Stephen Johnson, Johanna Mendelson Forman, and Katherine Bliss,
``Police Reform in Latin America--Implications for U.S. Policy,''
Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC,
February 2012, pp. 27-32.
\4\ ``Crime and Violence in Central America--A Development
Challenge,'' The World Bank, 2011, pp. 7, 9.
The Chairman. Well, thank you all very much for your
testimony.
We are at the end of the first vote, and so we will have
about 20 minutes before we will be able to return. I hope that
you will be able to stay with us, because there are questions
that we want to ask of you. And I think each of you has a
valuable contribution to make.
So, the committee will stand in recess, subject to the call
of the Chair. I expect it to be somewhere around 20 minutes.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. This hearing will come back to order.
Let me both apologize to our panel and to thank them for
their forbearance. There were more votes than I understood
there were, so--we just had the last one. The good news, at
this point, we do not have any more votes until much later.
So--and I know that Senator Corker--I left him, on the floor--
he is on his way back, as well. But, in the interests of the
collective time of everybody, let me try to move forward with
some questions.
Ms. Nazario, you spent time in many of the communities from
which the children are leaving. Some of my colleagues suggest
that their parents' decision to send their child to a 2,000-
mile journey is purely opportunistic and a way to take
advantage of American law. Are these parents indifferent to the
dangers their children might face on this perilous journey? And
is it just a question of opportunity, or is it a question of
violence, some of which you described earlier? If you would
turn your microphone on, thank you.
Ms. Nazario. I think these parents make a valuation of: Is
it safer to bring my child, despite the dangers of that
journey, or is it safer to leave them in the home country? And
parents who have come ahead of their children oftentimes, 10
years ago, would say, ``It is more dangerous to put my kid in
south-central Los Angeles than leave them in a neighborhood in
Honduras, where they are being taken care of by a grandparent
or an aunt,'' and that equation has shifted radically, given
what is happening on the ground in Honduras. And so, these
parents have decided that it is just too dangerous to leave
their children there.
I think, also, greater border enforcement has--is part of
that picture, because, as we have ramped up border enforcement,
we have made it--you know, a lot of parents come here honestly
thinking they are going back quickly. They prefer to live in
their home countries with everything they know and love, and
with their families. So, when parents come here, they do not
buy a bed, they do not buy furniture. These mothers say, ``I am
going to go back anytime.'' I think now, with greater border
enforcement, they are more clearheaded about, ``It is going to
be very hard to circulate back home. And so, I am going to go
ahead and bring up my children more quickly than I would have,
otherwise.''
So, a decade ago, you know, half of Mexicans went back
within a year. They want to circulate back home. Now, with
greater border enforcement, fewer than a quarter circulate back
home within a year, because they know that it is getting harder
to get in, and that makes it more costly. So, that is been part
of the dynamic, as well.
The Chairman. But, in the first instance, is it fear or
opportunity?
Ms. Nazario. It is absolutely fear.
The Chairman. Yes.
Ms. Nazario. It is absolutely fear driving this. And there
has been much talk about 2012, but the actual surge of children
began in 2011. That is when we started to see the numbers go up
dramatically.
The Chairman. Ms. Arnson, let me ask you. I know you have
done a lot of work over the years in the hemisphere. I am
wondering about whether or not, in addition to my arguments
about the lack of resources and our disengagement since this--
the wars in Central America--we fought to create the seeds of
democracy, and then we did not nurture it for it to grow fully
in all of its dimensions--citizen security, economic growth and
opportunity, and all the other things we want to see in a
democratic society. How would you assess the effectiveness of
current U.S. assistance programs in Central America? And what
steps could be taken to enhance the quality of programs and
ensure a greater impact on these countries?
Ms. Arnson. Well, I think U.S. assistance has perhaps been
most effective in El Salvador, where there is a formal
Partnership for Growth. El Salvador is one of four countries
globally. And these are shared objectives that are arrived at
together between the government--between the U.S. Government
and the Salvadorian Government, and there are regular reporting
requirements, there is accountability, there are metrics, and
they have identified strategic areas for investment. But, I do
believe that the effort, to a certain extent, has been under-
resourced, and therefore, what you have, certainly in the
citizen security area, are many small little points of light,
but they do not connect or necessarily build towards a much
bigger national phenomenon.
I know that there has been great frustration, in a country
such as Honduras, with the lack of leadership in security
institutions. And therefore, people start--from the various
agencies that have created vetted units, start from the ground
up, and, in many ways--and forgive me for saying this--
bypassing the leadership structures. So, that is why I have
tried to emphasize the need for transparency and accountability
as a key ingredient of any programs that we would put in place.
You cannot just throw money at this problem or this set of
problems. As much as I do believe that greater resources are
necessary, there have to be specific objectives and commitments
from the recipient governments to adhere to certain standards.
And the ability to give assistance ought to be contingent on
the receiving country's willingness to abide by those criteria.
The Chairman. I agree with you on that, and I think those
are very important.
Let me ask you, as well, though, is it not the case that
this is not a light switch? We are not going to suddenly turn
on a certain amount of resources, with all the accountability,
transparency, and conditionality, and find a change in Central
America from one year to the other?
Ms. Arnson. No----
The Chairman. It is going to take some time. It took some
time to get to where it is, a part of it from our own neglect,
part of it from the weak and very often corrupt governments
that have existed in the region. And you are just not going to
turn this around overnight. So, having a commitment, here, is
going to be necessary in order to get it to a point where we
can see citizen security, where we can see a greater movement
towards institutions that are transparent, not corrupt, and
that we will see the benefits of that, as we did, for example,
in Colombia--different context, different set of circumstances,
but, nonetheless, it took some time. Is that a fair assessment?
Ms. Arnson. I would certainly completely agree with that
statement. We tend, in the United States, to focus on a crisis
and respond to the crisis and then turn away once the immediate
crisis has dissipated. The effort in Central America is going
to take years. The aid programs to Colombia have evolved over
almost 15 years now, and it takes time to turn things around.
And I think staying the course--but doing so with metrics and
measurements in place, is the way to proceed, to take the long
perspective.
The Chairman. Mr. Johnson, I would like to hear your views
on it.
The Johnson sitting at the table. We are going to get right
to you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Johnson. Well, in many respects, they are similar. I
think our approach to the problems in Central America, to the
extent that we do not want them on our doorstep, it is
important to have a long-term view, that we have a
comprehensive policy and that it is strategically driven and
not quite as episodic. Very difficult for our country to do,
because, in a democracy, we sometimes change our priorities,
and, because of our position in the world, we have to look at
other things that come upon our doorstep that we have to deal
with.
But, given that, and given the kinds of tools that we have
that we can apply to these problems, I think consistency and a
strategic vision is really important.
Sometimes we do not appreciate the enormity of the change
that is involved. For instance, in Colombia, the transformation
of the Napoleonic code to an accusatorial criminal justice
system seems like just a matter of changing the laws and
retraining lawyers. But, what it also entailed was the building
of courthouses, which Colombia never needed before, criminal
justice tracking systems for cases, evidence warehouses, and
forensic laboratories, which they never had. So, it ended up
being much more than what was originally anticipated. And when
you multiply that over something like 1,100 municipalities for
the various installations and facilities that had to be built,
it ended up being quite an investment. And I think we have to
appreciate that dimension as much as the dimension of changing
certain kinds of behaviors.
In Central America, we do not have the luxury of having all
the criminal elements, say, out in the rural areas, as much as
that was the case in Colombia. In Central America, you have
criminal elements that are in the neighborhoods, that are out
in the rural areas, as well, but also in the capital and in,
you know, the very dense urban areas, in the form of drug-
trafficking organizations, some human traffickers that
penetrate into those areas, as well as criminal youth gangs.
This is very difficult to deal with, especially when you are
dealing with drug traffickers that have a lot more resources,
that--in many cases, than the government does to try to deal
with them and try to apprehend them. And so, very difficult to
go up against this. The corrupting power that they have is
tremendous.
And again, it is going to take time. But, one of the things
that we feel is key, at least in my organization, where I work
now, is that citizen participation in citizen security is very
important, because people in their own neighborhoods know some
of the things that need to happen and need to change, in terms
of leadership, for their authorities to begin to react in a
proper way that will deal with the problems that they actually
feel. And the top-down kind of leadership, of governance that
has been the experience in Central America, long before the
transformation to democratic rule, is something that is still
there and still impedes, to a great degree, the ability for
citizens to have a voice.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know that Senator Corker asked for unanimous consent to
include in the record Table 39 from Department of Homeland
Security, Enforced Alien Removal Module. I would ask for
unanimous consent to have my summary of that table.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information referred to can be found on page 83.]
Senator Johnson. I would like to speak to it, because I
would like to provide the full and complete picture, in terms
of removals and returns, which is what I think the American
people would really view as deportation.
So, while it is true, in terms of formal removals, which is
what I believe the Chair was referring to when he said that
President Obama is sometimes referred to as the ``Deportation
King,'' formal removal--as President Obama is ahead of the pace
of President Bush's both first and second term--and removals
are defined as the compulsory and confirmed movement of an
inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based
on an order of removal. An alien who is removed has
administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent
reentry owing to the fact of the removal. That is what a
removal is.
A return, on the other hand, is the confirmed movement of
an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States
not based on an order of removal.
Now, I think what we are really trying to do, if we are
trying to speed up the process, is to get more returns, as
opposed to removals, which take a whole adjudication process;
removals are taking years and creating even more incentives for
people to come.
So, let me just lay out the facts, in terms of President
Obama's record on removals and returns, which is what I think
most Americans would view as total deportations.
In his first term, President Obama had about 1.58 million
removals, 1.6 million returns, for a total of 3.2 million, what
I would consider, deportations as a broadly viewed term.
President Bush, on the other hand, in his second term, had
about 1.2 million removals, compared to President Obama's 1.6.
But, in terms of returns, he had 3.8 million, versus President
Obama's 1.6. So, total removal and returns of President Bush's
second term, 4 years versus 4 years, was 5 million removals and
returns under the Bush administration, 3.2 million returns and
removals under President Obama. In President Bush's entire two
terms, there were about 10.3 million removals and returns.
So, I just do not think we are being totally complete in
our description of what President Obama has actually done,
because if you combine the two, his record is definitely
lagging President Bush's and previous administrations, in terms
of actual removals and returns. Again, 5 million for President
Bush's second term, 3.2 million for President Obama's first
term. But, again, I think that just provides a more complete
record of what the problem is.
I am not sure whether you were here during my first line of
questioning, but I would like to give the witnesses the exact
same opportunity. Please, in a sentence, maybe two--I have a
little bit more time--What should be the achievable goal of
U.S. policy? Achievable goal. I will start with Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Our goals in foreign policy are to protect our
country, to defend our Nation and defend our citizens, and
protect our borders. In doing that, we have a foreign policy
that works with other countries to encourage reforms and
develop alliances and----
Senator Johnson. Okay, let me just stop you there. Let me
define an achievable goal on unaccompanied children. We have
this humanitarian crisis on the border, 57,000 currently in
this fiscal year. Secretary Johnson said it could be 90,000 by
the end of this fiscal year, so by September 30; over 100,000
by 2015. So, again, what I am talking about is, What is the
achievable goal to solve the problem of unaccompanied children?
Keep it brief, because I think this can be described pretty
briefly.
Mr. Johnson. Well, with due respect, Senator, immigration
policy and border policy are beyond the scope of my current
responsibilities, and so I will defer----
Senator Johnson. Okay.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. That question to the other
witnesses.
Senator Johnson. Okay.
Ms. Arnson.
Ms. Arnson. Yes. The achievable goal. One would be to speed
up the process by which children who might have legitimate
cases for asylum or refugee status are heard, so that that
waiting time in the hundreds of thousands of cases that are in
the docket is rapidly gone through, and to speed up the process
without violating U.S. law and international law regarding the
claims of people who potentially have requests. That is the
very short term.
The longer term, of course, is to contribute to a more
stable and prosperous and safe Central America. And that is the
long-term goal, I think, that has to be the focus of this
committee, but also an important objective of U.S. foreign
policy.
Senator Johnson. But, based on your answer, what you are
telling me is that long-term goal is probably not achievable in
the short term. And let me just ask you, What is the speeding
up of the process of adjudication doing? That is a goal to
achieve what? Why do you want to speed up the adjudication
process?
Ms. Arnson. To speed it up so that the backlog does not
exist and send a message that is, therefore, exploited by
traffickers to play on people's fears and hopes, that once they
get to the country, they will stay for some number of months
or, you know, stretching into years, so that those cases can be
speeded up, that there is an expanded process of hearings--an
expanded process, and a more expeditious process.
Senator Johnson. So, you are saying the goal would be to
send a message to the smugglers so that they no longer send
children to America unaccompanied. So, again, I am just trying
to focus in, would not the goal, in that case, be to stop the
flow?
Ms. Arnson. I think the goal is to contribute to conditions
that no longer serve as incentives to the flow. The principal
cause, I believe, is not, you know, the misimpression, although
the rumors are certainly spread by these unscrupulous
trafficking groups. The critical driver is violence. And if you
look at the places of origin of the children that have come as
part of this 52,000 this fiscal year, and you look at the
levels of violence in the sending areas, those are the most
violent places in Central America.
Senator Johnson. I did point out, earlier in questioning,
that the murder rate in both New Orleans and Detroit are
comparable to one or two of those countries in Central America.
I do not have the graph right here. We have violence as well.
Just really quickly, Ms. Nazario, what would you say is the
goal, our short-term, achievable goal, to address the
unaccompanied children problem?
Ms. Nazario. I think the short-term, achievable goal is to
protect children from being sent back to death. And I think
there is a humane, practical approach that is not being
discussed by the Senate.
I am concerned and--that children are released, and too
many of them do not show up for their court hearings. And if
you were a 7-year-old child and did not have an attorney, you
would not show up for your court hearing, either. I think you
can hold these children for 60 to 90 days--A limited amount of
time would be humane--in refugee facilities, or even the
facilities we currently have, bring in immigration judges,
spend money on that, and adjudicate their cases quickly. Give
them a full, fair hearing with someone who knows how to bring
out--do child-sensitive interviewing techniques, provide that
child with an attorney, so it is not a sham process. And if
they do qualify--and, to answer your previous question, 40 to
60 percent of these children do qualify for some existing
relief to stay in this country. Very few of them are getting
that, because they do not have attorneys. But, if they do
qualify, then let them into this country and increase the
number of refugees and asylees that we take.
Senator Johnson. So, your----
Ms. Nazario. And if they do not qualify, if they are
economic migrants, then deport them immediately, and that
message will get back to those countries, ``If you are coming
for economic reasons''--and there are parts of Honduras, and
there are people who are doing that--then send them back, and
that will send a message. And that option is--and I am not
popular in some human rights groups for saying, ``Keep these
kids in detention,'' but that will force them to go through the
process and not simply be released and sometimes show up to
court. And, by the way, they are much more likely to show up to
court if they have an attorney, and these cases go much more
quickly if they have an attorney. But, if they are a refugee, I
think we are a compassionate country, and we will let people
in. And if they are not, then deport them quickly. And that
will send a message.
Senator Johnson. I agree, we are compassionate. We want to
treat these kids with real humanity. But, I am also highly
concerned about parents making that decision, sending their
kids on that very dangerous journey. I am concerned about those
kids, as well. And from my standpoint, our primary goal has to
be to stop the flow, deter parents from making that choice. If
we have asylum cases, those should be requested in the home
countries. And if we need to beef up resources, I would say,
let us do it in the home countries. Let us not incentivize
people to come here, take that very dangerous, very awful
journey.
Ms. Nazario. I think we need to do both. We need to have
more in-country processing, the ability to apply for refugee
status in these three countries, so those children--I mean, I
spent 3 months making that journey, and I had post-traumatic
stress; and, believe me, many children die and lose arms and
legs on that journey. You do not want that. So, you do need to
beef up that ability to do that in those three home countries.
Senator Johnson. Okay.
Ms. Nazario. And we have not done that.
Senator Johnson. Well, thank you.
Again, it is very important that we define the goal, define
an achievable goal, so we can design policy to actually make
that goal----
Ms. Nazario. What I have defined is achievable.
Senator Johnson. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Arnson, I see you----
Ms. Arnson. Just a quick followup, Senator Johnson.
I have spoken with a lot of people--U.S. officials and
others--in preparation for this hearing, but also over the
length of this crisis. And one of the things that sticks in my
mind is the comment of a senior official from the U.S.
Government--I will not say more, so as not to identify him--
but, he said that if, as a parent, you face the choice of your
child joining a gang, being killed because they are not joining
a gang, or sending that child to the United States, regardless
of the perils of the journey, it is pretty obvious, you know,
why many parents make that choice. And those sending conditions
have to be addressed.
The Chairman. Well, look, I appreciate all the information
and the views.
You know, as I understand it, Honduras is the--per capital,
is the murder capital of the world. That beats Detroit. If you
are the murder capital of the world, you are the murder capital
of the world. And I understand that two other countries are
third and fifth in that category, as well. So, it is--that is
globally--so, that is pretty signature, in terms of citizen
security and why people flee.
The way you stop the flow is to change the realities on the
ground in Central America so that people will stay in their
country and not flee out of fear, or even a belief of fear of
opportunity. If I have no fear for my life and if I have
opportunity, then I am not going to flee. I have visited those
Central American countries. They are quite beautiful. So, I
think that if we really want to stem the flow, we have to
change the realities on the ground, because, if not, this will
be a reoccurring problem. It will have its spikes, and it will
have its lows. But, the goal is to ultimately change the
dynamics so we do not have any of this flow coming to the
United States, other than through normal legal procedures.
Ms. Arnson? And then I will invite any other final comment
and we will have to close the hearing.
Ms. Arnson. Great. Senator Menendez, you rightly focused on
the statistics, the homicide statistics in Honduras, about 90
or 91 per 100,000. I think it is worth recalling that the
distinction of the most violent city of the world in the early
1990s went to Medellin, Colombia. And in the last year or two,
Medellin was identified as the most innovative city in the
world. Those homicide rates are still serious, but they have
gone way down, and they have gone down as a result of a
sustained investment, the participation of a broad swath of
society, of the private sector, of the church, and of the local
government in investing in human welfare and really
transforming that city. So, it is possible to go from, you
know, a very bad place to a much better, if not a good, place.
The Chairman. Any other final comments, to give you the
opportunity? Ladies first.
Ms. Nazario.
Ms. Nazario. Just that when I was just in Honduras, I saw
very few children bringing up the issue of, you know, ``Is
there some avenue to stay legally in the United States?'' What
they all talked about, first, second, and third, was the
violence. And until that changes--and I recognize that is a
very difficult prospect, given the corruption and--the
corruption that has really affected the economy, when 7 in--the
Chamber of Commerce says that 7 in 10 small businesses have
shut down in Honduras because of extortion threats on
businesses. Can you imagine that happening in the United
States?
So, it is a very long-haul process, but I have long said
that, to stem this exodus, whether it is children or adults,
you have to deal with these issues--the root causes, these
issues at its source.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. I would just say that, in addition to the work
that is being done in our capital and in the capitals of the
Central American countries, that we focus on citizens,
involving their participation, because, ultimately, the
policies that are being debated are ones that should impact
them and affect their decisions as to whether they can stay in
their countries or whether they have to look elsewhere to be
able to lead predictable, safe lives. I think their voice is
very important, and I hope that we can keep that in mind as we
decide what actions to take, hopefully moving forward on this
issue and the overall matter of our relationship with allies in
Central America.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, all very valid points, and we will
certainly, as we try to deal with what we are going to do on
the cause side, think about many of the suggestions that you
have, collectively, had.
I want to thank you all for your testimony and for hanging
in here with us through the votes.
This record will remain open until the close of business
tomorrow. I would say that as the record remains open, we also
will permit outside organizations to submit statements for the
records.
And, with the thanks of this committee, this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Ambassador Thomas Shannon to Questions
Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. What type of long-term funding would the State Department
and USAID and other agencies need to address the current crisis
comprehensively?
Answer. The $300 million supplemental request for the Department of
State and USAID in the administration's supplemental request is a
downpayment on a new strategic approach. We are working to include
governance, economic prosperity, and security funding for the region in
our out-year budget requests. The $300 million requested, of which $295
million is foreign assistance and $5 million is for public diplomacy,
will be tailored to the absorptive capacity of Central America in a
comprehensive manner. To address the principal drivers of migration,
such as violence, the lack of economic opportunity, corruption, and
weak public institutions, the administration is developing a
comprehensive strategy for Central America. This strategy will
prioritize expanding existing successful programs and new programs that
will advance economic prosperity, governance, and security in El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that demonstrate our commitment to a
sustained engagement in Central America.
Question. Over the past 5 years, have we had the right balance in
our approach for Central America? What can be done to increase our
emphasis on building governance and prosperity in the region? What are
the specific elements we need to develop a comprehensive and long-term
strategy for addressing the root causes of this crisis?
Answer. We are seeking to rebalance our approach to Central America
to emphasize security, economic prosperity, and governance. In this
effort, we must build upon and expand proven programs that address the
economic and educational deficiencies in the region and will improve
the public's trust and confidence in government institutions. We
envision an economically integrated Central America that provides
economic opportunities to its people; more democratic, accountable,
transparent, and effective public institutions; and a safe environment
for its citizens to build their lives in peace and stability.
Through our Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI)
approach we have been working with interagency partners, including
USAID, to address the security problem using a holistic approach
designed to create opportunities for at-risk youth and their
communities, strengthen the rule of law through building the capacity
of police, the judicial sector, and other critical governmental
entities, and strengthen democratic institutions.
We know that violence is only one of the underlying factors
contributing to the surge of unaccompanied children arriving in the
United States from Central America. Weak governance and lack of
economic opportunity are other factors that contribute to out-
migration, and we are working to enhance our cooperation with Central
American countries.
Question. Isn't the violence ultimately what is driving these kids
to leave? And if that's not the driving factor then why aren't we
seeing those same pull factors causing a surge from other Central
American countries such as Nicaragua and Belize, where economic
deprivations are as acute but where there isn't the same gang problem?
Answer. Unaccompanied Central American children migrate to the
United States for a number of reasons. High levels of violence in El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are certainly one of the drivers of
migration as are the pursuit of economic and educational opportunities,
and the potential for family reunification. These push factors also
exist in other Central American countries, including Belize and
Nicaragua, but there has not been a similar spike in numbers of
unaccompanied children leaving either country for the United States.
Like their neighbors, Nicaragua and Belize suffer from lack of
economic growth and high levels of violence, respectively. Nicaragua
remains the poorest country in Central America based on per capita GDP.
Given the economic situation a substantial number of Nicaraguans
emigrate each year; however, they mainly are destined for neighboring
Costa Rica and not to the United States. Belize suffers from high
levels of violence--in 2012 recording a homicide rate of 44.7 per
100,000. While gangs are present in both Nicaragua and Belize, they are
more locally based with fewer transnational ties than those found in El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
Despite these similarities, there are key differences in Nicaragua
and Belize compared to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that help
explain why emigration to the United States is not as high in the
former two countries. Nicaragua, with a homicide rate of 11.3 per
100,000, remains significantly less violent compared to El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras which have rates of 41.2, 39.9, and 90.4,
respectively. Belize's economic situation is much brighter than its
Northern Tier neighbors, with significantly higher wages in agriculture
and other fields. As a result, Belize often attracts migrants from El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
The potential for family reunification is not the same for
Nicaragua and Belize as it is for the other Northern Tier countries. A
2011 study by the Pew Research Center cites less than 400,000
Nicaraguans living in the United States compared to an estimated 2
million Salvadorans, 1.2 million Guatemalans, and over 700,000
Hondurans. We estimate there is an even smaller number of Belizeans
present in the United States--significantly reducing the pull factor of
family reunification for these two countries.
Question. Considering that many of these children do not have safe
home environments to return to and come from countries with virtually
no child welfare systems in place, how will the administration ensure
that those children who do not qualify for any type of protection or
immigration status here in the U.S. will be returned in a safe, humane
way? How can we ensure that these children, who are sent back to their
homes with maybe only a bus ticket, don't go back into the hands of
smugglers and traffickers? What are the administration's plans to fund
reception and reintegration programs to make sure that doesn't happen?
Does the United States currently support reintegration programs for
returned children? What, if any, new programs will address this issue?
Answer. To respond to the immediate need to increase Central
American governments' capacity to receive returned migrants, we will
work to expand and improve existing centers for repatriated migrants.
On June 20, Vice President Biden announced $9.6 million of Department
of State and USAID funds that will be used to immediately increase the
capacity for Central American governments to receive, reintegrate, and
care for repatriated migrants, including unaccompanied children.
USAID's $7.6 million program, implemented by the International
Organization for Migration (IOM), is already underway. Program elements
include improvement and expansion of existing repatriation centers and
training and capacity-building for personnel involved in repatriation
efforts in each country. The Department of State, led by the Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration, will use $2.0 million, in
coordination with IOM, to expand the capacity of governments and NGOs
to provide services to returned migrants and to identify, screen,
protect, and refer unaccompanied child migrants to appropriate services
throughout the migration process. Our FY 2014 supplemental request
includes an additional $20 million for repatriation assistance to be
implemented by USAID.
Question. Can you provide additional details about the response you
have seen from Central American governments thus far? What else are we
asking of these governments and what additional commitments will we
want to see moving forward?
Answer. President Obama and the Presidents of El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras issued a joint statement following their recent
meeting in Washington reiterating a ``commitment to prevent families
and children from undertaking this dangerous journey and to work
together to promote safe, legal, and orderly migration.'' They pledged
to pursue the criminal networks associated with child migration, to
counter misinformation about U.S. immigration policy, to work together
to humanely repatriate migrants, and to address the underlying causes
of migration by reducing criminal activity and promoting greater social
and economic opportunity.
Ongoing host government-led efforts in El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras include media campaigns, law enforcement investigations
targeting organizations engaged in human smuggling, and programs to
combat poverty and provide educational alternatives to youth. The
Central American Presidents indicated to President Obama that they are
working on a comprehensive plan to address the underlying causes of the
humanitarian situation on the border.
Question. If they stay, they face persecution and possible death.
If the administration attempts an expedited hearing process for these
children, many of the children were trafficked or face in extreme
violence in their communities and may face death if deported. Do you
believe that many of these children are refugees and deserve
protection?
Answer. Under U.S. law, a refugee is someone who has fled from his
or her country of origin and is unable or unwilling to return because
he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion,
race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular
social group.
An unaccompanied child who has arrived in the United States may
seek asylum, although most do not. Many, but not all, UACs appear to be
leaving for reasons related to situations of violence, lack of
opportunity, and other conditions.
Whether any of them will qualify for refugee protection under U.S.
law is ultimately a case-by-case determination dependent on the
specific facts of each case, after a hearing before a trained asylum or
immigration judge--something all of these migrants will have an
opportunity to present, regardless of the removal procedure they
undergo.
The Department of Homeland Security screens children to determine
the validity of their asylum claims consistent with our domestic law
and international obligations.
Question. What can the United States do to think beyond free trade
agreements and employ a more comprehensive strategy of economic
statecraft? How can we better partner with the region to increase
investment, encourage U.S. businesses to be more engaged, drive down
energy costs, and expand infrastructure in these countries?
Answer. The administration is committed to a comprehensive,
sustained approach to create economic growth and shared prosperity. The
President's July 25 meeting with the Presidents of El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras demonstrated the shared responsibility to
address the underlying causes of migration, including promoting greater
social and economic opportunity. The $300 million supplemental request
for Department of State and USAID includes $295 million of foreign
assistance for specific programming to bolster the source countries'
economic prosperity.
The United States has already laid the groundwork for a broader
effort to promote regional economic growth. Millennium Challenge
Corporation Compacts in Honduras and El Salvador focus on improving
infrastructure, market access, and transparency in public services.
USAID provides ongoing support in important areas like education,
agricultural development, natural resource management and workforce
development. Furthermore, our existing programs, such as Connect the
Americas 2022, Small Business Network of the Americas, Women's
Entrepreneurship in the Americas (WEAmericas), and Pathways to
Prosperity, already have a positive impact, but they are limited in
scope and size which requires broader appreciation to have more impact
in these underlying factors.
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras each have very low tax revenue
to GDP ratios which constrain their ability to provide basic services,
including strong social safety nets, high quality education, or
transportation infrastructure. As a result, many citizens lack faith in
the effectiveness of government institutions. A lack of confidence and
trust in public institutions contributes to informality at the lower
rungs of the economy. Working with a wide cross-section of government
entities (e.g., tax authorities, prosecutorial and justice systems,
customs, and security forces) will be essential to creating a growth-
oriented economic environment. Finally, helping to establish uniform
standards for trade, investment, and customs across the entire Central
American region would foster a larger, more attractive market for
investors and traders.
These challenges are not as intractable as they seem and we have
successful models in the region and globally. The governments in the
region have acknowledged that addressing the current migration
situation is a shared responsibility, and we expect them to be willing
and transparent partners in programs dedicated to promoting greater
social and economic opportunity.
Question. How is State--as it seeks to stand up new programs--
addressing the scourge of gender-based violence?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID address gender-based
violence (GBV) in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras through
assistance programming for survivors of gender-based violence and those
at risk.
In FY 2013, USAID El Salvador established and supported two
assistance centers for juvenile and adult survivors of gender-based
violence. USAID Guatemala has provided technical assistance, training,
and equipment to operationalize a specialized 24-hour court located in
the Attorney General's Office in Guatemala City for cases related to
violence against women, exploitation, sexual violence and human
trafficking. The FY 2014 Supplemental Request for the Department of
State and USAID includes funding that would be used to expand the 24-
hour specialized court model to Honduras and El Salvador.
The Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues has two Global
Women, Peace, and Security grants for nongovernmental organizations in
Guatemala. One grant supports Fundacion Sobrevivientes, which works to
protect women, children, and teenagers from violence by providing free
access to legal, social, and psychological services to support
survivors of physical and sexual violence. Funding also goes to the
Myrna Mack Foundation, which works to monitor and measure the
implementation of Guatemala's 2008 Law Against Femicide. In Honduras, a
program through the Bureau of Combat and Stabilization Operations funds
the Peace and Justice program which provides psychosocial support to
survivors of gender-based violence and other forms of violent crime,
and works to combat impunity by assisting Honduran law enforcement in
the investigation and prosecution of these crimes. In March, we
partnered with the Government of Chile to offer a course at the
International Law Enforcement Academy in San Salvador, El Salvador
designed to teach law enforcement officers how to prevent and respond
to incidents of gender-based violence.
High levels of impunity, weak institutions, lack of police capacity
and training, corruption, the effects of narcotrafficking and
sociocultural attitudes toward women and girls contribute to high
levels of gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence,
rape, and homicide, in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. In 2013,
the Guatemalan National Institute of Forensic Sciences reported 758
murders of women; however the conviction rate for the murders of women
has hovered around 2 percent. The Salvadoran National Civil Police
reported 216 killings of women in 2013, and in Honduras, the National
Observatory on Violence reported that violent deaths of women increased
by 263 percent between 2005 and 2013. Despite laws criminalizing rape,
domestic abuse, and gender-based violence, including femicide, in all
three countries, implementation and enforcement is often lacking.
Question. How can we best expand efforts to engage at-risk youth
and help governments in the region create new educational and
employment opportunities?
Answer. The Central American governments recognize the need to
promote additional economic and social opportunities for their
citizens. Honduran President Hernandez started a jobs program called
``Con Chamba Vivis Mejor,'' in which the Honduran Government partners
with businesses and pays half of new workers' salaries for a short time
period. We seek enhanced partnerships in these areas with the
Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, recognizing that
educational and economic opportunities are key elements to improving
life in Central America.
Both the State Department and USAID have programs targeting at-risk
youth, especially in some of the region's most violent communities, to
provide alternatives to gangs and criminal lifestyles. Expanded efforts
to engage youth must be comprehensive, including deterring at-risk
youth from turning to crime in the first place and reinserting young
people who have been involved with gangs into their communities through
juvenile justice programs. To increase economic opportunity, we seek to
expand existing programs that link small businesses to larger markets
and contribute to business enabling environments, starting at the local
level. By engaging with local educational and private sector actors, we
will continue to target job skills programs toward specific vulnerable
populations, such as at-risk youth, with in-demand skills for local
markets.
Question. Is the administration developing any plans for ``orderly
departure'' programs for the children and families who are at risk
inside these countries, similar to the refugee admissions program or
the in-country refugee processing that exist in a few other countries?
Answer. The administration is considering taking additional steps
to further deter unlawful and dangerous migration to the United States.
To stem the flow of migrant children attempting to go to the United
States, we are considering a small pilot project to explore whether
children could go through a process to determine if they are eligible
to come legally to the United States before they leave their home
countries. Our goals remain twofold in the United States as well as in
the region: provide an effective deterrent for illegal migration
through criminal smuggling networks, while protecting legitimate
humanitarian claims. Any in-country program would be governed by these
goals.
This is a pilot project and we expect this to be very modest in
size. The standard to achieve refugee status is very high, and will not
be changed. This will not be an avenue to reunite children with
undocumented family members in the United States.
__________
Responses of Ambassador Thomas Shannon to Questions
Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
Question. Long-term regional cooperation between destination and
source countries will be required to ensure programs focused on
stopping criminal syndicates, supporting reintegration of returnees,
and sustaining economic growth and governance reforms are effective and
take hold.
a. How will the supplemental request support high level,
and sustained regional cooperation?
Answer. The Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
have reiterated their shared responsibility on this issue and desire to
coordinate a response with the United State. The Presidents of the
three governments expressed their political will to invest in the
futures of their own countries; therefore, this supplemental request
responds to the short-term humanitarian situation on the border and
repatriation needs. It also addresses the underlying factors of
migration to deal with the issue over the longer term. Of the total
$300 million FY 2014 Supplemental Request, $295 million of Economic
Support funds are distributed for economic prosperity, governance, and
security of borders and in sending communities. The request focuses not
only on bolstering security, but also on efforts to improve
governments' capacity to govern, to promote economic growth, and to
create jobs. These funds will help provide opportunities these three
Central American economies currently lack. This supplemental request is
a downpayment on our comprehensive approach in the region, which
includes the sending nations, other regional partners, and
international financial institutions. Our partner countries in Central
America need to address the pressing citizen security, economic and
social development issues that are the underlying causes driving
irregular migration. The remaining $5 million of the request will
increase our public diplomacy outreach in the region to counter the
false messages of smuggling networks that there are immigration
benefits in the United States for those who risk the dangerous journey
north.
b. How will the State Department coordinate efforts to
address these issues and ensure that the ground work is laid
for a more comprehensive long-term approach to the region?
Answer. The migration of these children is the result of the
economic and social conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
A combination of poverty, ineffective public institutions, violence,
and crime have combined to push these children from their homes and to
begin an arduous and dangerous journey. These issues cannot be solved
overnight. The administration, led by the Department of State, is
working with the Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and
Mexico to develop a comprehensive, long-term strategy to address these
underlying factors. The Department of State works closely with the
interagency to ensure each agency's expertise and experience is
utilized to develop this strategy.
The United States cannot solve these problems alone. The Presidents
of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras discussed plans for addressing
long-term issues in Central America during their visits to Washington
the week of July 21, including meeting with both Chambers of Congress.
Their engagement is essential to address factors giving rise to
migration. On July 8, President Obama submitted a supplemental budget
request of $3.7 billion to respond to the surge in unaccompanied minors
arriving at the U.S. Southwestern border. Of this, $300 million was
requested for the Department of State and USAID to address the
security, economic prosperity, and governance issues contributing to
this situation. This request is only an initial down payment on a
broader strategic effort to address underlying factors in Central
America. Our embassies are already implementing plans to ramp up proven
programs in the region. The Department of State is committed to working
with the interagency, Congress, and our regional partners to develop
and implement a long-term strategy for the region.
__________
Responses of Ambassador Thomas Shannon to Questions
Submitted by Senator John Barrasso
Question. On June 15, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) announced the rollout of the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) policy. This new policy would allow individuals under
the age of 31 who were brought to the United States illegally, that
meet a certain criteria, to remain here legally.
Was the State Department briefed by the White House or
Department of Homeland Security prior to the rollout of the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy?
Prior to the Department of Homeland Security rollout of the
DACA policy, was the State Department consulted or involved in
an interagency process to mitigate misperceptions? If the State
Department was involved, who was the State Department
representative(s) that participated?
Has the State Department been involved with the interagency
working group that has been working on Unaccompanied Children
(UAC) issue over the past year? If so, who was the State
Department representative(s) that participated?
Answer. The administration announced the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012 following an extensive
interagency process that included the Department of State.
Eligibility under DACA is based on guidelines developed by the U.S.
interagency, including the requirement that applicants must have been
present in the United States on or before June 15, 2012. Before the
announcement of DACA, these requirements were carefully discussed
within the interagency. Following the rollout of DACA, the Departments
of State and Homeland Security publicly reiterated that potential
migrants would not benefit from this program.
The Department of State--led by representatives from the Bureau of
Western Hemisphere Affairs and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and
Migration--has actively participated in the stakeholders meeting on
unaccompanied children since 2012. These meetings bring together
interagency colleagues, faith-based organizations, and nongovernmental
organizations to discuss the latest developments and potential
engagement and coordination opportunities for children already in the
United States.
Question. According to Customs and Border Protection, the surge in
unaccompanied children started in 2012, the same year that the
administration rolled out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
policy.
2009--6,000 children;
2010--7,000 children;
2011--6,500 children;
2012--13,000 children;
2013--24,000 children;
2014--43,000 (approximately to date from Central America).
Given this trend, how did the State Department not see this
crisis coming?
Did DHS engage the State Department in 2013 after the
number of unaccompanied children quadrupled to 24,000 children?
If these engagements did occur, what actions did the State
Department take to mitigate the flow of unaccompanied children?
Do you believe the State Department should have been
engaging the Central American governments and media outlets
after the surge of unaccompanied children in 2012?
Answer. The Department of State regularly participated in the
interagency stakeholders meeting on unaccompanied children with the
Department of Homeland Security since 2012. The stakeholders' meeting
includes U.S. Government agencies as well as nongovernmental and faith-
based organizations in order to develop a comprehensive perspective and
response to this issue. As part of our engagement to promote more
economically viable and safe communities, the Department of State works
closely with our Central American partners to address the complex and
systemic challenges these countries face. Slow economic growth, poor
job creation, low investment in vocational education and training,
increased violence, declining rural incomes, and ineffective use of
limited public sector resources are among the various factors
encouraging families and unaccompanied children to migrate.
We recognized these factors as early as 2008 when we requested U.S.
assistance to first and foremost address the security crisis in Central
America through the Central America Regional Security Initiative
(CARSI). Through CARSI, the United States works with partner nations to
strengthen institutions to counter the effects of organized crime and
street gangs, uphold the rule of law, and protect human rights. CARSI
prevention programs dissuade at-risk youth from turning to crime and
community policing programs facilitate trust between police and
community members to enhance neighborhood safety.
The United States promotes regional economic growth, infrastructure
modernization, and collaboration. Millennium Challenge Corporation
(MCC) programs in Honduras and El Salvador focused on improving
infrastructure and market access. In addition, Honduras is engaged in
an MCC threshold program to improve its efficiency and transparency in
providing public services. Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas, the
Small Business Network of the Americas, Women's Entrepreneurship in the
Americas (WEAmericas), La Idea, 100,000 Strong in the Americas, and
Feed the Future are Department of State or USAID initiatives designed
to provide critical economic, educational, and commercial
opportunities.
Public affairs officers at U.S. embassies in the region
continuously communicate direct messaging about the facts of U.S.
immigration policy, and consult with host governments on public service
announcement campaigns to stem the flow of unaccompanied minors to the
United States.
Question. State Department's Consultations with Central American
Countries.--In 2012 and 2013, did the State Department engage the
governments Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala in a campaign to
inform Central American families that their children will not qualify
for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy?
Answer. When the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
policy was announced in 2012, the U.S. Government continually
publicized the requirements for eligibility. Specifically, the
administration emphasized the essential requirement that applicants
must have been present in the United States on June 15, 2012. In
addition to U.S.-based statements on DACA eligibility, the Department
of State--through our embassies in the region--continuously
communicates direct messaging about the facts of U.S. immigration
policy and consults with host governments on public service
announcement campaigns to stem the flow of unaccompanied minors to the
United States. The Department of Homeland Security led two sessions in
2012 on DACA with foreign embassy staff based in Washington.
Question. This week, an El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)
intelligence assessment dated July 7, 2014, was leaked to press. The
report cites a U.S. Border patrol survey from May that interviewed 230
migrants. This assessment concludes that the driving factor behind the
surge in unaccompanied children crossing the border is the
``misperception of recent U.S. immigration policies'' such as the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy. Meanwhile this
administration has been primarily blaming the border crisis on gang
violence in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
Do you agree with the El Paso Intelligence Center
assessment that the misperception of DACA is a principle factor
in the increase unaccompanied children migration?
Does the State Department have a presence at the El Paso
Intelligence Center?
Do you believe the State Department has achieved its
mission of promoting U.S. policy?
Answer. We are aware of the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)
assessment regarding the impact that misperception of U.S. immigration
policies and benefits has on potential migrants. EPIC houses a number
of different U.S. agencies, including the Department of State.
The majority of the children who arrive at the U.S. southern border
reports migrating for more than one reason. Violence is one of the
underlying factors that contributes to the surge of unaccompanied
children arriving in the United States from Central America. Weak
governance and lack of economic and educational opportunity are other
contributing factors to out-migration. The prospect of family
reunification and misinformation spread by smuggling organizations
about potential immigration benefits in the United States are also
factors that can influence parents' decisions to send their children to
the United States as well as the minor's decision to emigrate.
Smuggling organizations have spread false messages that incorrectly
promise immigration benefits.
Public messaging campaigns, led by our embassies in coordination
with the Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico,
have helped create a dynamic debate about illegal migration that
undermines efforts by smugglers to entice young people and their
parents into migration through misinformation. The messages of these
campaigns have been reiterated in public comments from U.S. officials--
including the President--urging parents not to send their children on
this dangerous journey and underscoring that they will not be eligible
for DACA or DREAM Act benefits if they reach the United States.
Question. Violence in Central America is not a new phenomenon but
yet this administration continues to blame the surge of unaccompanied
children on gang violence in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
There is no question that violence in Central America is a contributing
factor but it is not the root cause for the crisis on our border.
Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala have all decreased their murder
rates.
If the Honduran murder rate went down from 91.4 per 100,000
in 2011 to 80 per 100,000 in 2013, why does the surge of UACs
continue?
Do you agree with the El Paso Intelligence Center
assessment that murder rates in Central America are not the
principle factor increasing Unaccompanied Children migration?
What is the assessment of the State Department Bureau of
Intelligence and Research on the root cause for the spike in
Unaccompanied Children crossing the U.S. border?
Answer. The Department of State shares your belief that violence is
only one of the underlying factors that contribute to the surge of
unaccompanied children arriving in the United States from Central
America; there is no one primary cause driving the flow. Weak
governance and lack of economic and educational opportunity are among
other factors that contribute to out-migration. U.S. foreign assistance
can enhance our cooperation with Central American countries in these
areas. Many migrants are also motivated by the potential prospects of
family reunification and better education or drawn by misinformation
about United States immigration policy. The Department is engaged with
governments and media outlets in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
on public service announcement campaigns and public diplomacy outreach
to correct these misperceptions about immigration policy.
Although homicide statistics in Central America decreased slightly,
the rates continue to be among the highest in the world. According to
United Nations statistics from 2012--the latest figures publicly
available--the murder rate faced by Hondurans citizens is 14.6 times
the global average of 6.2 per 100,000. In addition to high homicide
rates, gangs, extortion, poverty, food insecurity, and impunity are
pervasive in these countries and contribute to the flow of migrants.
Question. Media Campaigns.--The State Department as part of the
supplemental appropriations request has asked for only $600,000 for
media campaigns in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. This
campaign will focus on the dangers of the journey for unaccompanied
children. We know the major pull factor for unaccompanied children is
the misperception that they will be able to stay here legally.
Why is this media campaign not focusing on the fact these
children cannot stay here legally?
Of the $5 million requested by the President, how much
money is actually going toward a media campaign?
Is this enough money to effectively deter parents from
sending their children across the border?
Answer. Our public awareness campaigns promote facts about
deportation proceedings and U.S. immigration laws to dispel the belief
children can benefit from misinformation about U.S. immigration
policies, and to inform parents who are considering sending their
children, that their children will not be allowed to remain in the
United States.
U.S. Ambassadors, Embassy public affairs officers, and other U.S.
officials are active in local media to discuss the facts and emphasize
both dangers of the journey to the United States and the lack of legal
immigration benefits for those making the trip. To augment that media
activity with widely disseminated U.S.-branded public service
announcement campaigns, including in indigenous languages, we would
dedicate $1.6 million of the supplemental request to increase targeted
messaging, focusing on Facebook (bought ads and content placement),
leveraging the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol-produced public service
announcements, host country government campaigns, and locally produced,
U.S.-branded messaging.
The supplemental request is a downpayment on a more comprehensive,
longer term Central America strategy keyed to our vision of an
economically integrated Central America that provides economic
opportunities to its people; is more democratic, accountable,
transparent, and has effective public institutions; and offers a safe
environment for its citizens to build their lives in peace and
stability. The United States cannot solve these problems alone. We
expect the Central American governments to provide complementary
financial and political commitments to address the factors driving
migration.
__________
Statement Submitted by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka
(Washington, DC) The humanitarian crisis of families and children
fleeing violence in Central America and turning themselves in to U.S.
Border Patrol agents has brought out both the best and the worst in our
nation.
Alarmingly, in places like Murrieta, California, and Vassar,
Michigan, we have seen ugly reminders of racism and hatred directed
toward children. The spewing of nativist venom, the taking up of arms
and the fear-mongering about crime and disease harken back to dark
periods in our history and have no business taking place under the
banner of our flag.
On the other hand, around the country we have also seen a
tremendous outpouring of compassion and concern for the plight of these
women and children. We are proud to say that local unions have joined
with faith and community groups to collect needed supplies, provide
shelter and support, and call for humane treatment.
The situation along the border is a refugee crisis that requires a
humane, lawful response and must not be politicized. The labor movement
calls upon national and community leaders to respond to the crisis in a
manner that meets our obligations under U.S. and international law, and
comports with basic human rights and American values. This means
ensuring full due process and providing the additional resources
necessary to ensure the well-being and fair treatment of children and
refugees. It also requires taking an honest assessment of the root
causes of the crisis, including the long-term impact of U.S. policies
on immigration, trade, and foreign affairs.
We cannot lend credibility to Republican assertions that a refugee
crisis is proof that we should continue to deport hard working people
who have been contributing members of our society for years. These are
simply new excuses to justify failed policies. Lifting the pressure on
immigrant workers was needed before the child refugee story developed,
and it is no less urgent today. The Administration must act now to keep
all families together, uphold our standards as a humanitarian nation,
and advance the decent work agenda necessary to improve conditions both
at home and abroad.
__________
Child Migrants, Alone in Court
[The New York Times, Apr. 10, 2013]
(By Sonia Nazario)
LOS ANGELES--Belkis Rivera, 14 years old, sat in the Los Angeles
immigration courtroom, in a black coat and purple scarf, shaking with
fear.
When Belkis was 6, the gang that controlled her neighborhood in San
Pedro Sula, Honduras, killed her grandmother and then her uncle, and
demanded that her brothers join as lookouts. Belkis's mother took the
boys and fled to the United States, leaving Belkis behind with family.
When the gang started stalking and threatening Belkis, then 13, she
followed, making the terrifying six-month journey across Mexico by
herself. She was caught by the Border Patrol last September, while
crossing into the United States.
Now she faced one more trauma: America's judicial system.
In a nation that prides itself on the fact that everyone accused of
a crime--murderers, rapists--has the right to a lawyer, undocumented
immigrants, even when they are unaccompanied children, are not entitled
to a public defender. Although some children are represented by pro
bono lawyers or, for the few whose families can afford it, private
lawyers, it's estimated that more than half of them go to court alone.
These children--some as young as 2 years old--have no one to help them
make the case that they should not be deported.
The issue is gaining urgency. While the overall number of
apprehensions of immigrants unlawfully entering the country is at a 40-
year low, the number of children coming illegally and alone is surging,
largely as a result of increasing drug-fueled violence in Central
America, particularly Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. One in 13
people caught by the Border Patrol last fiscal year were under 18.
Seventeen percent of them were 13 or younger. Close to 14,000 minors,
twice as many as the previous year, were placed in federal custody.
(This figure doesn't include an equal number of Mexican children who
were quickly deported.)
Many of these children have a legitimate fear of what could happen
to them if they are sent back to their home countries. A recent study
by the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit group, showed that 40
percent of unaccompanied children potentially qualify for statuses that
exempt them from deportation. Among the most likely possibilities:
asylum, because they fear persecution in their home country, or a
special immigrant juvenile status for children abused or abandoned by a
parent.
And yet, while more recent legislation has improved the odds, only
around 7 percent of those who were placed in federal custody between
2007 and 2009, and who had received a ruling by mid-2010, were winning
their cases. Not surprisingly, those with legal representation were
nearly nine times more likely to win.
In court, these children are up against trained government lawyers.
They must testify under oath, file supporting documents and navigate
the complexities of immigration law, with no knowledge of the country's
language or customs, and often with only the help of a translator.
Children in the courtroom often seem confused and frightened. Staff
members with Kids in Need of Defense, or KIND, a group whose board I
serve on and the principal provider of pro bono lawyers for these
children, told me of a boy in Los Angeles who carried his teddy bear
for comfort and a toddler in a Texas courtroom who wet his pants when
he faced the judge.
Most immigrant children come to reunite with family members, and
are released to those families while their hearings proceed. But many
are also fleeing harm.
Take Estefany Aracely Climaco Acosta, who left El Salvador at 12 to
join her mother in Los Angeles. When Estefany was 10, an uncle arrived
one morning at the mud hut the girl shared with her grandmother and
other relatives. The uncle knew that only Estefany was home at that
hour. He tied her hands behind her back and raped her. She screamed,
but the hut was in an isolated spot. ``No one could hear me,'' she
said, of the rapes she endured for two years. A KIND pro bono lawyer
took her case and she was granted asylum last August.
Wilmer Villalobos Ortiz was orphaned in Honduras when he was 8. He
was left with an abusive aunt, who whipped him with an electrical cord
and forced him to quit school in the seventh grade. She put him to work
17 hours a day at her pool hall and bar, where the patrons included
members of the 18th Street gang, who targeted him as ripe for
recruitment. When he was 14, they asked him to join, and then they
threatened him. ``We will kill you,'' one of them said, putting a knife
to Wilmer's stomach. ``You are either with us, or against us.'' They
did worse things to him that Wilmer won't discuss.
In 2008, when he was 15, Wilmer escaped, heading to the United
States. He spent a month and a half riding on top of freight trains to
get through Mexico. He saw members of the Zeta narco-traffickers stop
his train, club a woman unconscious and snatch her young son from her
arms. Another time, he saw a boy his age stumble getting on a moving
train and heard his screams as the boy's legs were cut off by the
wheels.
He was caught by the Border Patrol after crossing the Rio Grande
into Texas. He spent a year in two detention centers for children
before landing in a group foster home in Arlington, Mass., where he
attended high school while his deportation case proceeded.
His case was taken on by Daniel White of Goodwin Procter, a
volunteer lawyer with KIND who normally handles transactional corporate
law. He showed Wilmer what would happen in court, what questions would
be asked, what to say. Last spring, Wilmer got his green card, after
winning the right to stay in the United States.
Wilmer is luckier than most--each day, immigration courtrooms are
filled with children who have no lawyer to represent them, and whose
stories we rarely hear. These children share one constant: their
suffering doesn't end when they cross the border.
UNDER normal circumstances, the Border Patrol is supposed to
transfer captured children out of its holding cells and into the
custody of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement
within 72 hours. But last year children were held for up to two weeks
in Border Patrol cells with no windows to the outside, showers or
recreation space, according to a report by the Women's Refugee
Commission based on interviews with 151 detained children. Some
complained of inadequate food and water. One described a cell so
crowded the children had to take turns lying down on the concrete floor
to sleep. The lights were never turned off.
These children need our help. In recent years KIND has recruited
more than 5,000 lawyers. But they are still only able to triage their
limited resources; we need far more volunteers, and more law firms
willing to count pro bono work toward lawyers' billable hours.
Pro bono lawyers are only part of the solution. These children need
public defenders who are experts in immigration law. Congress should
include money to hire lawyers for all unaccompanied minors as part of
any comprehensive immigration reform. Yes, these children broke the law
coming to this country, but if deporting them will put them in danger,
they deserve a fair hearing in our courts, something anyone, especially
a child, cannot get without a lawyer.
Ana Suruy wants every child to have the help she believes saved her
life. In Guatemala, a drug trafficking cartel targeted Ana's mother for
extortion. When the cartel threatened to kidnap her family, Ana's
mother agreed to pay. But it wasn't enough; the cartel poisoned the
family's dog and cat, and twisted the necks of their flock of ducks. A
man left a threatening note one day under their door, singling out Ana,
then 13 years old, for harm. Her mother, terrified, called the police,
and then put Ana in the hands of a smuggler to take her north.
Ana made six attempts to cross into the United States. She was
robbed at gunpoint, abandoned by a smuggler, saw dead migrants in the
Arizona desert, and spent two days walking with no food or water,
before the Border Patrol caught her and put her in a detention center
in Phoenix. After three months, she was released to a cousin on Long
Island. He went with Ana to her first court hearing. People had warned
Ana that without a lawyer she didn't stand a chance, but her relatives,
landscapers making minimum wage, had no money to spare.
``I had so much fear,'' Ana said. ``I didn't want to go back to
Guatemala.'' The man who wrote the threatening note had somehow
obtained her cellphone number and was calling, saying he knew where she
went to school in New York, and making sexually suggestive sounds. As
she waited in the hallway of the Manhattan courtroom for the judge to
summon her, KIND's local pro bono coordinator came up and asked if she
needed a lawyer.
Five lawyers from the firm Paul Hastings in New York would tag-team
her representation over four years. They obtained Guatemalan police
reports, hired an expert to testify on narco-threats and prepared Ana
for what felt to her like a sustained grilling.
Last December, Ana, then 19, was granted asylum. Without a lawyer,
she would most likely have been deported, like so many others. That
could be the fate of Belkis Rivera, who has to return to court in Los
Angeles this summer. Her mother works at a nail polish factory, and
can't afford $3,500 for a private lawyer. Now a seventh grader, Belkis
will have no one to stand beside her.
On Wednesday, thousands of supporters of immigration reform rallied
in Washington, while opponents of the measure tried to shout them down.
People can be of different minds on the immigration issue and how to
handle it, said Justin Goggins, one of Ana's lawyers. But this is one
aspect we ought to be able to agree on. Federal officials are
predicting that the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border
illegally will jump by around 70 percent in this fiscal year. ``At the
end of the day,'' Mr. Goggins said, ``no kid should be out there to
defend themselves in this situation with no voice.''
__________
The Children of the Drug Wars--A Refugee Crisis,
Not an Immigration Crisis
New York Times, Sunday Review/Opinion, July 11, 2014
(By Sonia Nazario)
CRISTIAN OMAR REYES, an 11-year-old sixth grader in the
neighborhood of Nueva Suyapa, on the outskirts of Tegucigalpa, tells me
he has to get out of Honduras soon--``no matter what.''
In March, his father was robbed and murdered by gangs while working
as a security guard protecting a pastry truck. His mother used the life
insurance payout to hire a smuggler to take her to Florida. She
promised to send for him quickly, but she has not.
Three people he knows were murdered this year. Four others were
gunned down on a nearby corner in the span of two weeks at the
beginning of this year. A girl his age resisted being robbed of $5. She
was clubbed over the head and dragged off by two men who cut a hole in
her throat, stuffed her panties in it, and left her body in a ravine
across the street from Cristian's house.
``I'm going this year,'' he tells me.
I last went to Nueva Suyapa in 2003, to write about another boy,
Luis Enrique Motino Pineda, who had grown up there and left to find his
mother in the United States. Children from Central America have been
making that journey, often without their parents, for two decades. But
lately something has changed, and the predictable flow has turned into
an exodus. Three years ago, about 6,800 children were detained by
United States immigration authorities and placed in federal custody;
this year, as many as 90,000 children are expected to be picked up.
Around a quarter come from Honduras--more than from anywhere else.
Children still leave Honduras to reunite with a parent, or for
better educational and economic opportunities. But, as I learned when I
returned to Nueva Suyapa last month, a vast majority of child migrants
are fleeing not poverty, but violence. As a result, what the United
States is seeing on its borders now is not an immigration crisis. It is
a refugee crisis.
Gangs arrived in force in Honduras in the 1990s, as 18th Street and
Mara Salvatrucha members were deported in large numbers from Los
Angeles to Central America, joining homegrown groups like Los Puchos.
But the dominance in the past few years of foreign drug cartels in
Honduras, especially ones from Mexico, has increased the reach and
viciousness of the violence. As the United States and Colombia spent
billions of dollars to disrupt the movement of drugs up the Caribbean
corridor, traffickers rerouted inland through Honduras, and 79 percent
of cocaine-smuggling flights bound for the United States now pass
through there.
Narco groups and gangs are vying for control over this turf,
neighborhood by neighborhood, to gain more foot soldiers for drug sales
and distribution, expand their customer base, and make money through
extortion in a country left with an especially weak, corrupt government
following a 2009 coup.
Enrique's 33-year-old sister, Belky, who still lives in Nueva
Suyapa, says children began leaving en masse for the United States
three years ago. That was around the time that the narcos started
putting serious pressure on kids to work for them. At Cristian's
school, older students working with the cartels push drugs on the
younger ones--some as young as 6. If they agree, children are recruited
to serve as lookouts, make deliveries in backpacks, rob people and
extort businesses. They are given food, shoes and money in return.
Later, they might work as traffickers or hit men.
Teachers at Cristian's school described a 12-year-old who demanded
that the school release three students one day to help him distribute
crack cocaine; he brandished a pistol and threatened to kill a teacher
when she tried to question him.
At Nueva Suyapa's only public high school, narcos ``recruit inside
the school,'' says Yadira Sauceda, a counselor there. Until he was
killed a few weeks ago, a 23-year-old ``student'' controlled the
school. Each day, he was checked by security at the door, then had
someone sneak his gun to him over the school wall. Five students,
mostly 12- and 13-year-olds, tearfully told Ms. Sauceda that the man
had ordered them to use and distribute drugs or he would kill their
parents. By March, one month into the new school year, 67 of 450
students had left the school.
Teachers must pay a ``war tax'' to teach in certain neighborhoods,
and students must pay to attend.
Carlos Baquedano Sanchez, a slender 14-year-old with hair sticking
straight up, explained how hard it was to stay away from the cartels.
He lives in a shack made of corrugated tin in a neighborhood in Nueva
Suyapa called El Infiernito--Little Hell--and usually doesn't have
anything to eat one out of every three days. He started working in a
dump when he was 7, picking out iron or copper to recycle, for $1 or $2
a day. But bigger boys often beat him to steal his haul, and he quit a
year ago when an older man nearly killed him for a coveted car-engine
piston. Now he sells scrap wood.
But all of this was nothing, he says, compared to the relentless
pressure to join narco gangs and the constant danger they have brought
to his life. When he was 9, he barely escaped from two narcos who were
trying to rape him, while terrified neighbors looked on. When he was
10, he was pressured to try marijuana and crack. ``You'll feel better.
Like you are in the clouds,'' a teenager working with a gang told him.
But he resisted.
He has known eight people who were murdered and seen three killed
right in front of him. He saw a man shot three years ago and still
remembers the plums the man was holding rolling down the street, coated
in blood. Recently he witnessed two teenage hit men shooting a pair of
brothers for refusing to hand over the keys and title to their
motorcycle. Carlos hit the dirt and prayed. The killers calmly walked
down the street. Carlos shrugs. ``Now seeing someone dead is nothing.''
He longs to be an engineer or mechanic, but he quit school after
sixth grade, too poor and too afraid to attend. ``A lot of kids know
what can happen in school. So they leave.''
He wants to go to the United States, even though he knows how
dangerous the journey can be; a man in his neighborhood lost both legs
after falling off the top of a Mexican freight train, and a family
friend drowned in the Rio Grande. ``I want to avoid drugs and death.
The government can't pull up its pants and help people,'' he says
angrily. ``My country has lost its way.''
Girls face particular dangers--one reason around 40 percent of
children who arrived in the United States this year were girls,
compared with 27 percent in the past. Recently three girls were raped
and killed in Nueva Suyapa, one only 8 years old. Two 15-year-olds were
abducted and raped. The kidnappers told them that if they didn't get in
the car they would kill their entire families. Some parents no longer
let their girls go to school for fear of their being kidnapped, says
Luis Lopez, an educator with Asociacion Compartir, a nonprofit in Nueva
Suyapa.
Milagro Noemi Martinez, a petite 19-year-old with clear green eyes,
has been told repeatedly by narcos that she would be theirs--or end up
dead. Last summer, she made her first attempt to reach the United
States. ``Here there is only evil,'' she says. ``It's better to leave
than have them kill me here.'' She headed north with her 21-year-old
sister, a friend who had also been threatened, and $170 among them. But
she was stopped and deported from Mexico. Now back in Nueva Suyapa, she
stays locked inside her mother's house. ``I hope God protects me. I am
afraid to step outside.'' Last year, she says, six minors, as young as
15, were killed in her neighborhood. Some were hacked apart. She plans
to try the journey again soon. Asking for help from the police or the
government is not an option in what some consider a failed state. The
drugs that pass through Honduras each year are worth more than the
country's entire gross domestic product. Narcos have bought off police
officers, politicians and judges. In recent years, four out of five
homicides were never investigated. No one is immune to the carnage.
Several Honduran mayors have been killed. The sons of both the former
head of the police department and the head of the national university
were murdered, the latter, an investigation showed, by the police.
``You never call the cops. The cops themselves will retaliate and
kill you,'' says Henry Carias Aguilar, a pastor in Nueva Suyapa. A
majority of small businesses in Nueva Suyapa have shuttered because of
extortion demands, while churches have doubled in number in the past
decade, as people pray for salvation from what they see as the plague
predicted in the Bible. Taxis and homes have signs on them asking God
for mercy.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recently
interviewed 404 children who had arrived in the United States from
Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico; 58 percent said their
primary reason for leaving was violence. (A similar survey in 2006, of
Central American children coming into Mexico, found that only 13
percent were fleeing violence.) They aren't just going to the United
States: Less conflicted countries in Central America had a 712 percent
increase in asylum claims between 2008 and 2013.
``If a house is burning, people will jump out the window,'' says
Michelle Brane, director of the migrant rights and justice program at
the Women's Refugee Commission.
To permanently stem this flow of children, we must address the
complex root causes of violence in Honduras, as well as the demand for
illegal drugs in the United States that is fueling that violence.
In the meantime, however, we must recognize this as a refugee
crisis, as the United Nations just recommended. These children are
facing threats similar to the forceful conscription of child soldiers
by warlords in Sudan or during the civil war in Bosnia. Being forced to
sell drugs by narcos is no different from being forced into military
service.
Many Americans, myself included, believe in deporting unlawful
immigrants, but see a different imperative with refugees.
The United States should immediately create emergency refugee
centers inside our borders, tent cities--operated by the United Nations
and other relief groups like the International Rescue Committee--where
immigrant children could be held for 60 to 90 days instead of being
released. The government would post immigration judges at these centers
and adjudicate children's cases there.
To ensure this isn't a sham process, asylum officers and judges
must be trained in child-sensitive interviewing techniques to help
elicit information from fearful, traumatized youngsters. All children
must also be represented by a volunteer or government-funded lawyer.
Kids in Need of Defense, a nonprofit that recruits pro bono lawyers to
represent immigrant children and whose board I serve on, estimates that
40 percent to 60 percent of these children potentially qualify to stay
under current immigration laws--and do, if they have a lawyer by their
side. The vast majority do not. The only way to ensure we are not
hurtling children back to circumstances that could cost them their
lives is by providing them with real due process.
Judges, who currently deny seven in 10 applications for asylum by
people who are in deportation proceedings, must better understand the
conditions these children are facing. They should be more open to
considering relief for those fleeing gang recruitment or threats by
criminal organizations when they come from countries like Honduras that
are clearly unwilling or unable to protect them.
If many children don't meet strict asylum criteria but face
significant dangers if they return, the United States should consider
allowing them to stay using humanitarian parole procedures we have
employed in the past, for Cambodians and Haitians. It may be possible
to transfer children and resettle them in other safe countries willing
to share the burden. We should also make it easier for children to
apply as refugees when they are still in Central America, as we have
done for people in Iraq, Cuba, countries in the former Soviet Union,
Vietnam and Haiti. Those who showed a well-founded fear of persecution
wouldn't have to make the perilous journey north alone.
Of course, many migrant children come for economic reasons, and not
because they fear for their lives. In those cases, they should quickly
be deported if they have at least one parent in their country of
origin. By deporting them directly from the refugee centers, the United
States would discourage future non-refugees by showing that immigrants
cannot be caught and released, and then avoid deportation by ignoring
court orders to attend immigration hearings.
Instead of advocating such a humane, practical approach, the Obama
administration wants to intercept and return children en route. On
Tuesday the president asked for $3.7 billion in emergency funding. Some
money would be spent on new detention facilities and more immigration
judges, but the main goal seems to be to strengthen border control and
speed up deportations. He also asked Congress to grant powers that
could eliminate legal protections for children from Central America in
order to expedite removals, a change that Republicans in Congress have
also advocated.
This would allow life-or-death decisions to be made within hours by
Homeland Security officials, even though studies have shown that border
patrol agents fail to adequately screen Mexican children to see if they
are being sexually exploited by traffickers or fear persecution, as the
agents are supposed to do. Why would they start asking Central American
children key questions needed to prove refugee status?
The United States expects other countries to take in hundreds of
thousands of refugees on humanitarian grounds. Countries neighboring
Syria have absorbed nearly 3 million people. Jordan has accepted in two
days what the United States has received in an entire month during the
height of this immigration flow--more than 9,000 children in May. The
United States should also increase to pre-9/11 levels the number of
refugees we accept to 90,000 from the current 70,000 per year and,
unlike in recent years, actually admit that many.
By sending these children away, ``you are handing them a death
sentence,'' says Jose Arnulfo Ochoa Ochoa, an expert in Honduras with
World Vision International, a Christian humanitarian aid group. This
abrogates international conventions we have signed and undermines our
credibility as a humane country. It would be a disgrace if this wealthy
nation turned its back on the 52,000 children who have arrived since
October, many of them legitimate refugees.
This is not how a great nation treats children.
__________
Eligibility for Deferred Action, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
__________
Few Children Are Deported
Wall Street Journal, July 11, 2014
(By Laura Meckler and Ana Compoy)
Thousands of children from Central America are undertaking a
perilous journey to the U.S. border despite warnings from the U.S. that
they will be sent back. In fact, many will get to stay.
Data from immigration courts, along with interviews with the
children and their advocates, show that few minors are sent home and
many are able to stay for years in the U.S., if not permanently. That
presents a deep challenge for President Barack Obama and lawmakers as
they try to shore up an overburdened deportation system.
In fiscal year 2013, immigration judges ordered 3,525 migrant
children to be deported, according to Justice Department figures.
Judges allowed an additional 888 to voluntarily return home without a
formal removal order.
Those figures pale in comparison with the number of children
apprehended by the border patrol. In each of the last five years, at
least 23,000 and as many as 47,000 juveniles have been apprehended.
Those totals include Mexicans, who often are sent home without formal
deportation proceedings and so may not be among those ordered removed
last year.
There are many reasons children end up staying. Some see their
cases linger in backlogged courts and administrative proceedings. Some
win the legal right to remain in the U.S. And some ignore orders to
appear in court.
Children who enter the U.S. illegally often are trying to reunite
with family members or escaping gang violence and poverty. The U.S. has
been overwhelmed finding shelters for them, and Mr. Obama has
repeatedly said that they won't be allowed to stay. But the reality on
the ground--that so few are returned to their home countries--will
continue to encourage more to make the journey north, said Doris
Meissner, director of the Immigration Policy Program at the nonpartisan
Migration Policy Institute.
``They're here, and they're staying, and whatever else might happen
to them is at least a year or more away,'' said Ms. Meissner, a former
Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner. ``Until people's
experience changes, more are going to continue to come, because they're
achieving what they need: safety and reunification with their
families.''
Last fiscal year, immigration judges reached a decision in 6,437
juvenile cases, according to the court data. About two-thirds of the
minors were ordered deported or allowed to leave the country
voluntarily, and 361 were given legal status. In most other cases, the
judge terminated the case, meaning the child wasn't ordered out of the
U.S. but wasn't given explicit permission to stay, either.
Separate data from the Department of Homeland Security show that in
fiscal 2013, about 1,600 children were actually returned to their home
countries--less than half the number who were ordered removed--
suggesting that some are evading deportation orders.
The head of the immigration court system told a Senate hearing this
week that 46% of juveniles failed to appear at their hearings between
the start of the 2014 fiscal year last Oct. 1 and the end of June. And
court figures show that last year, more than 2,600 out of about 6,400
orders were entered without the juvenile present--in absentia.
Simply reaching a decision in these cases can take years, and the
backlog is growing worse. As of June 30, there were 41,832 pending
juvenile cases, up from about 30,000 nine months earlier. In some
jurisdictions, it is common for court dates to be set two or three
years out.
Most illegal border crossers are adults, children traveling with
adults, or juveniles from Mexico. Their cases tend to be heard quickly,
and most are immediately sent back to their home countries.
The current crisis at the border is due to a different set of
illegal immigrants, unaccompanied minors from Central America. The long
delays largely can be traced to a 2008 federal law that requires cases
involving children traveling alone from countries other than Mexico and
Canada be heard in immigration court. The wait can stretch to several
years for a decision, even in a straightforward case.
The vast majority of these children are placed with family members
in the U.S. while the proceedings unfold, but first they must travel
through facilities run by two different government agencies, which
further extends the process.
On top of that, judges often delay cases repeatedly to give the
children time to find legal representation. Just 15% of some 21,000
children sheltered by the Department of Health and Human Services
between August 2012 and July 2013 were matched with attorneys while in
government custody, an HHS spokesman said.
Helen Cruz, 16, said gang violence in her home of Tegucigalpa.
Honduras, pushed her to make the 1,900-mile trek to the Texas border
with her 17-year-old sister.
More than seven months after she arrived, Ms. Cruz's legal
proceedings have barely begun. Her first court appearance is scheduled
for August, and it could take another year or more for her case to be
adjudicated, said Wendi Adelson, a professor at the Florida State
University College of law who is representing her pro bono.
Her August hearing will likely be a short affair to inform the
judge she plans to apply for special immigrant juvenile status, a
process that could take many months. That will require Ms. Cruz to
obtain an order from state juvenile court stating that she has been
abandoned by her father and it isn't in her best interest to return to
Honduras. She then will need to file an application with the U.S.
Citizen and Immigration Service, where the number of pending special
immigrant juvenile status cases ballooned to 702 in the year ending
September 2013 from 47 during the same period in 2011, agency
statistics show.
``Sometimes I feel like going back, but I'm in danger over there''
from gang violence, Ms. Cruz said. ``If I can stay here, I will get a
chance to get an education and be able to help the people I love back
home.''
Under U.S. rulings, threat of gang violence by itself doesn't
qualify someone for asylum. Nor does economic hardship at home qualify
someone for legal status in the U.S.
At the same time, the U.S. sometimes is unable or unwilling to
return children who have been ordered removed. So far, that is a small
problem, one official said, but it is likely to grow as the U.S. seeks
to return many more youths to their home countries. ``We just want to
make sure that kids don't fall through the cracks,'' a senior
administration official said. ``You can't send them back without making
sure there's a system in place that makes sure they don't wind up in an
unsafe environment.''
Because of court backlogs, most of the 2013 court and deportation
data represent cases of children who arrived in earlier years. One
explanation for the low deportation figures is that people apprehended
as juveniles turn 18 during the course of court proceedings and so
become counted as adults. Deportation figures also don't include
Mexican youth who are turned around at the border each year.
Some children are able to stay because they qualify for asylum or
special visas given to victims of crime or human trafficking. Advocates
say that a robust court system is necessary to be sure those claims are
properly considered.
The White House has proposed modifying the 2008 law to speed up
deportation cases for Central American children. This week it sent
Congress a $3.7 billion plan that would add more detention facilities
and immigration judges, and help Central American countries repatriate
children.
__________
Number of Aliens Removed and Returned During the Bush and Obama Administrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Removals\1\ Returns\2\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 189,026 1,349,371 1,538,397
2002 165,168 1,012,116 1,177,284
2003 211,098 945,294 1,156,392
2004 240,665 1,166,576 1,407,241
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush First Term 805,957 4,473,357 5,279,314
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 246,431 1,096,920 1,343,351
2006 280,974 1,043,381 1,324,355
2007 319,382 891,390 1,210,772
2008 359,795 811,263 1,171,058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Second Term 1,206,582 3,842,954 5,049,536
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Total 2,012,539 8,316,311 10,328,850
================================================================================================================
2009 391,932 582,648 974,580
2010 383,031 474,275 857,306
2011 388,409 322,164 710,573
2012 419,384 229,968 649,352
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama First Term 1,582,756 1,609,055 3,191,811
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 368,644 N/A 368,644
2014 N/A N/A N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Second Term 368,644 N/A 368,644
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Total 1,951,400 1,609,055 3,560,455
================================================================================================================
Bush and Obama Total 3,963,939 9,925,366 13,889,305
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A = Not Available
\1\ Removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United
States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences
placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.
\2\ Returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based
on an order of removal.
Sources: 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics; Annual Report, Immigration
Enforcement Actions: 2012, December 2013, Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate; Annual Report,
Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2013, September 2014, Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate;
ERO Annual Report, FY 2013 ICE Immigration Removals.
__________
Statement Submitted by Jana Mason, Senior Advisor for Government
Relations, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]