[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ANOTHER SURGE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER:
IS THIS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S
NEW NORMAL?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 4, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-60
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-487 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia SCOTT PETERS, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
MIMI WALTERS, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVE TROTT, Michigan
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice-Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE KING, Iowa LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
KEN BUCK, Colorado SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
DAVE TROTT, Michigan
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
Gary Merson, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
FEBRUARY 4, 2016
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security................................ 1
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security................................ 3
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 5
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 7
WITNESSES
Brandon Judd, President, American Federation of Government
Employees (AFGE), National Border Patrol Council
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Steven C. McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Public Safety
Oral Testimony................................................. 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for
Immigration Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 34
Prepared Statement............................................. 36
Wendy Young, President, Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)
Oral Testimony................................................. 45
Prepared Statement............................................. 47
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security................ 77
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Response to Questions for the Record from Brandon Judd,
President, American Federation of Government Employees......... 80
Response to Questions for the Record from Steven C. McCraw,
Director, Texas Department of Public Safety.................... 82
Response to Questions for the Record from Jessica M. Vaughan,
Director of Policy Studies, Center for Immigration Studies86
deg.OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
Unprinted Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. This material is
available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104402.
ANOTHER SURGE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER: IS THIS
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S NEW NORMAL?
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2016
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Gowdy, Labrador, Smith,
Conyers, Lofgren, and Gutierrez.
Staff Present: (Majority) George Fishman, Chief Counsel;
Tracy Short, Counsel; Tanner Black, Clerk; (Minority) Gary
Merson, Chief Counsel, and Maunica Sthanki, Counsel.
Mr. Gowdy. Good morning, this is the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security. This is a hearing on another
surge of illegal immigrants along the southwest border. Today's
date, Wednesday, February 4, 2016. The Subcommittee will come
to order without objection. The Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time. We welcome everyone to
today's hearing.
I would also just let everyone know kind of up front that
the witnesses deserve to be heard and the Members deserve to
ask their questions, and I do not anticipate any outburst or
disorderly conduct, but my patience with that is zero. So this
will be the one and only warning in that regard.
I will recognize myself for an opening. I will then
recognize the Ranking Member. I want to let all of our
witnesses know how grateful I am that you are here. I will need
to leave to go next door for another hearing, but you will be
in much more capable hands when I leave than you are currently,
so it is no reflection on any of the witnesses. I will come
back when I am able to do so.
Once again, we are witnessing a crisis at our southwest
border as thousands of unaccompanied minors and adults are
coming to the United States.
In 2014 we witnessed a massive wave of illegal immigration
when over 68,000 unaccompanied minors and an equal number of
family units crossed our southwest border. In the past few
months, the number of unaccompanied alien minors unlawfully
entering the U.S. soared to over 17,000, and the number of
family units increased to 21,000. If these trends continue, it
is projected there will be a 30 percent increase in the record
high numbers we witnessed in 2014. And those numbers in 2014
alone were alarming and concerning.
Secretary Johnson testified before the Appropriations
Committee the message we are sending to people crossing the
border is you will be sent home. Either that message has not
been communicated, or it has not been received because the
border crossings, the unlawful border crossings, continue.
This Administration claims these aliens are flooding our
border to flee violence and poverty in their native countries
and our government cannot do anything to stop it. However,
based on their own intelligence reports, this Administration's
policy of non-enforcement is, in fact, sparking the surge in
the first instance.
Based on a report, nearly 60 percent said it was the
Administration's immigration policies that influenced their
decision to come to the United States. These are the same
reasons provided by aliens who entered in 2014, and the vast
majority of these aliens remain in the country today. In other
words, no adequate steps have been taken to halt the surge or
discourage aliens from attempting to enter the United States.
We must at some point send a clear message to potential
unlawful immigrants that discourage entry into our country.
That would be in the best interests, frankly, of everyone.
Border patrol agents are currently prevented from
initiating removal proceedings against aliens who are
unlawfully present simply because there is not enough detention
space to hold them. Lack of space is especially problematic
when entire family units cross the border unlawfully. Ninety-
eight percent of aliens in removal proceedings are not detained
nor are they removed. Additionally, in order to place aliens in
removal proceedings, agents are required to observe aliens
physically crossing the border. Oftentimes, upon being
approached by a border agent, aliens will claim to have been in
the United States since January of 2014 despite the high
improbability of such a claim.
This not only threatens our national security and public
safety, it also endangers those unaccompanied minors risking
their lives to travel to the United States. In hopes their
children will arrive safely from Central America, current
unlawful aliens residing in the United States are paying
thousands of dollars to criminal organizations to transport
their children across the border. These human smugglers have
histories of alliance and allegiance with Mexican drug cartels
and gangs. These children's lives are at risk during their
journey to the United States, but it does not stop there. They
also face dangerous situations upon arrival to the United
States.
A recent Senate report found the Administration failed to
properly conduct background checks on all persons with whom
minors are placed, resulting in children being placed in the
hands of abusive and exploitive sponsors. One account even
found these children working as slaves on a farm.
In the words of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol
Commissioner, we could very well be seeing the new normal. And
let me add this new normal is not acceptable at any level. A
sovereign country is entitled to control who gains access to
this country, how that access is gained, and in what capacity
that access is gained and the duration of such access.
Legal immigration is a privilege this country conveys upon
the terms and conditions that it sets. Illegal immigration is
just that. It is illegal, and the motivations for such unlawful
acts do not mitigate the criminality or diminish our
responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed. Actions have consequences. Actions send messages.
Inaction has consequences as well, and the message seems to be
if you can get here, no matter the method, you can stay. And
that is wrong for everyone involved and most significantly the
fellow citizens we take an oath to serve. Certain border states
refuse to wait for action by an unwilling Administration. The
Texas legislature, for example, has appropriated $800 million
over 2 years to combat the proliferation of smuggling and
trafficking of aliens and drugs through Texas' southwest
border.
So I will look forward to hearing from our witnesses from
Texas to expand on that state's efforts to handle the surge.
However, we should not leave the states to employ their own
regulations. Securing the border and ensuring the safety of our
citizens is a Federal responsibility. So I thank the witnesses
for their appearances today. I look forward to hearing from
each one of you, and with that, I would recognize the
gentlelady from California.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are in the midst
of a global refugee crisis, including in our own hemisphere.
Women and children from the Central American Northern Triangle
countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are coming to
our borders seeking safe haven. And contrary to the Ranking
Member's description of this as illegal immigration, in fact,
our immigration laws provide for the possibility of asylum if
you are fleeing violence and seeking safe haven in the United
States.
Violence in these countries is paralyzing communities,
preventing children from attending school, adults from earning
a living, and even making public transportation a life-
threatening endeavor. According to the Washington Office on
Latin America, El Salvador's 2015 murder rate reached a level
of violence not seen since the end of the country's civil war:
6,650 homicides in 2015 in a country of 6.3 million people, was
approximately a 70 percent increase over 2014, making it the
most violent country in the hemisphere. El Salvador has the
second highest murder rate in the world, just behind Syria.
It is literally an epidemic by the World Health
Organization's definition. And Honduras and Guatemala are not
far behind. Honduras's murder rate is in the top five in the
world, 10 times the world's average, and Guatemala's is in the
top 20.
A 2015 report by the United Nations High Commission for
Refugees, UNHCR, found that women in particular face a
startling degree of violence in the Northern Triangle including
rape, assault, extortion, and threats by armed criminal groups.
One study estimated that over 80 individuals who came to the
United States and were returned to El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras, have been murdered since January of last year.
Violence pervades every facet of life in the vast areas of
these countries.
According to data shared by the Department of Homeland
Security, 85 percent of Central American families who arrived
since summer of 2014 and have been detained, establish
threshold eligibility for refugee protection. The continued
surge of Central American mothers and children at our southwest
border is a humanitarian refugee issue, and not an illegal
immigration phenomenon.
Some would have us believe that desperate women and
children arriving and giving themselves up to Border Patrol
officers shows that we are in a porous or uncontrolled border
situation. But what is actually uncontrolled is the violence in
these countries, not our borders. Very few, if any, of these
women and children are eluding the Border Patrol in making
their way into the interior of our country. Rather, they are
immediately apprehended at our border, detained, and removal
proceedings are initiated.
Yet our strategy of family detention, Spanish language
communication campaigns in Central America urging people not to
come to the United States, and financial assistance to Mexico
to deter arrest and return those fleeing violence, has proven
to be ineffective, and I am afraid that my colleagues want more
of what has not worked: more deterrence, more border
enforcement, more detention, more deportation. But until the
situation in Central America is successfully addressed,
desperate Central American mothers and children are going to
continue to flee to the United States and seek protection. The
refugee crisis in our hemisphere will only be resolved when the
United States joins with other Nations in the Western
Hemisphere in a comprehensive regional solution.
This should include refugee screening and resettlement, use
of safe havens and appropriate third countries, not only the
United States, a temporary protected status for those
individuals in the U.S., the use of priority refugee
processing, and other humanitarian remedies. It is critical
that this approach include cooperation with other countries in
the Western Hemisphere.
The violence in the Northern Triangle of Central American
and the resulting refugee flow affects our entire region, and
the United States' solution should include a regional refugee
resettlement program, as well as increased capacity building of
asylum systems in neighboring countries, not just the U.S.
For these reasons, I am pleased with the Administration's
recently announced recognition that many Central American
qualify as refugees under international law, and that we will
be partnering with UNHCR to resettle refugees from El Salvador,
Honduras, and Guatemala. I am cautiously optimistic that the
use of third country temporary processing centers will provide
protection for those who are unable to remain in their home
country during the refugee processing period.
These are important and constructive steps toward a
comprehensive regional refugee solution to address violence in
the Central American region. However, this new Central American
refugee resettlement program must not be used as a
justification to deny or deter refugees from seeking asylum
protection under our immigration laws here in the U.S. The U.S.
has continued to be a beacon of safety and refuge for those
seeking protection from persecution. This new Central American
refugee program should be an expansion of our efforts to
provide refuge, not a substitute for existing asylum processes.
Women and children fleeing violence are a vulnerable
population, and they should be treated with heightened
sensitivity, awareness, and comprehensive access to counsel. We
have a moral, as well as domestic and international legal
obligation, to ensure that no mother or child is sent back to a
country where they face torture or death. Every effort must be
made to ensure that this vulnerable population has access to
counsel and full due process protections prior to deportation.
I think it is well past time to start working toward a
solution that provides a practical and humane response to the
mothers and children from Central America fleeing for their
lives and seeking safety and protection.
I would just close by noting that so many of the Members of
this Committee have declared themselves to be pro-life, and I
think this is an instance where those representations about
being for life should be brought to the forefront. If we care
about babies, we should care about 10-year-olds who are facing
death if returned home, and I hope that this hearing will help
enlighten us as to that issue, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman,
the balance of my time.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Virginia. The Chairman of the full
Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Record numbers
of unaccompanied alien minors and adults traveling with minors
are again surging across our southern border, overwhelming
Federal and state resources, creating a border security
nightmare, and ensuring record profits for the criminal
organizations that control the drug and human smuggling and
trafficking business along the border. More than 152,000
unaccompanied minors and families are projected to illegally
cross our southwest border this year. Some estimates project
the number to top 177,000, the population of Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. This would surpass the previous high mark in 2014 by
nearly 30 percent.
These minors, more than two-thirds of whom are between the
ages of 15 to 17, travel thousands of miles from Central
America through dangerous desert areas controlled by Mexican
drug cartels, and arrive at our southern border with tried and
tested instructions from the smugglers leading them. ``Find the
first Border Patrol agent and claim asylum.'' This narrative is
repeated thousands of times over, and there is little doubt
that with every successful entry and reunification, it
encourages thousands more to illegally enter and further
degrades our border security.
We saw a similar surge of mass illegal immigration by
unaccompanied minors and adults from Central America in 2014.
Tragically, many were killed, assaulted, kidnapped, and
extorted during their journey by the criminal elements that
operate with impunity south of our border. This surge will
undoubtedly produce similar victims.
Despite these tragic consequences of non-enforcement, there
are no lessons learned by this Administration. A leaked DHS
intelligence report shows the Obama administration's lax
immigration policies are fueling this current surge. During
July through September 2015, customs and border protections
agents interviewed 345 family units apprehended at the border.
Nearly 70 percent said they had heard that if they came to the
United States, they would be released, or receive some sort of
immigration relief, such as asylum. Additionally, nearly 60
percent said it was the U.S. immigration policies that
influenced their decision to come here. The unresponsiveness by
President Obama to this clearly foreseeable crisis is truly
shocking.
His instructions to Federal law enforcement agencies? Stand
down. In some Border Patrol sectors, agents report that they
are not allowed to initiate removal proceedings against
criminal aliens who do not have a felony conviction. Aliens
convicted of misdemeanors, and those who have pending felony
charges, get a free pass. Agents also report that they are not
authorized to initiate removal proceedings against adult aliens
after apprehension at the border if no detention space is
available. This is outrageous. Such aliens are supposedly the
Obama administration's number one priority for removal. And
such a policy is a beacon call for foreign nationals to cross
our border undetected, including those who would do us harm.
There is no doubt that terrorists from ISIS-controlled
countries are taking note of the lack of border enforcement.
They have publicly announced they will infiltrate this country
posing as refugees. Rather than taking even minimal steps to
stem the flood of illegal immigration by simply allowing
Federal and state law enforcement agencies to do what they do
best, enforce the law, the Administration sent the commissioner
of customs and border protection to the southwest border to
survey the calamity.
His response? ``We could very well be seeing the new
normal.'' Americans do not want our government to throw up its
hands and capitulate to the masses of foreign nationals
illegally surging across our borders, as though it is
inevitable. They want us to address the problem head on and
solve it. It is not complicated. The President simply must have
the will to secure our border.
But the grave consequences of the President's failed
immigration policies extend beyond the debacle at the southwest
border. They continue into the homeland. The custody and care
of unaccompanied minors is entrusted to the Department of
Health and Human Services, which places minors in the custody
of qualified sponsors. Troubling reports indicated that HHS
failed this most basic responsibility to place minors in a safe
and secure environment. It did not properly screen prospective
sponsors in several cases, resulting in minors being placed in
the hands of human traffickers who exploited, threatened, and
forced the minors to work.
More concerning is the fact that HHS systematically failed
to conduct adequate background checks on the household members.
And even if a background check revealed a felony conviction for
a sponsor, it would not preclude the placement of the minor.
No crime is a per se bar to placement. This is deplorable
and unacceptable. These failures highlight the irony of the
Administration's misguided immigration policies. They encourage
waves of illegal immigration by Central American minors who are
victimized by criminal organizations along the way, only to
arrive in the United States and suffer further harm because of
the failure of this Administration to ensure their proper care.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today on these
important issues, and I thank them for appearing before the
Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The Chairman yields back. The Chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the Ranking Member of
the full Committee, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And top of the
morning to all of my colleagues. This morning, we are here to
discuss the plight of thousands of refugees fleeing violence
and persecution in Central America, the vast majority of whom
are mothers and children. These desperate individuals are
arriving at our southern border seeking refuge and humanitarian
assistance in an effort to escape gang violence, violence
toward children, domestic violence, and widespread political
corruption. Unless we take immediate action to address these
root causes of humanitarian crisis, refugee mothers and
children from Central America will continue to suffer and seek
refuge on our shores.
Among the measures we should undertake are the following:
to begin with, we must first recognize that this crisis is
humanitarian in nature, and not just a border security problem.
It is a crisis that demands a regional response.
Secondly, this response should ensure that Central American
mothers and children are able to live free from an endless
cycle of violence and persecution. And third, we should partner
with other Nations in the hemisphere to provide durable
resettlement solutions.
The new program just announced last month by the State
Department, with the support of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, is a very encouraging step. This
program will provide resettlement options for families within
Central America and in other countries in our hemisphere.
Addressing the crisis in the region will help desperate mothers
and children avoid the dangerous journey through Mexico to the
United States as the principle means of escape.
In addition, we must address the root causes of the
humanitarian crisis. Resettlement solutions, whether in the
United States or with the regional partners, are only a Band-
Aid to an ongoing crisis of violence here at Honduras,
Guatemala, El Salvador, generally referred to as the Northern
Triangle.
Human rights organizations and Federal agencies agree that
life, particularly for women and children in the Northern
Triangle, is perilous. Murder rates in this region have the
unwelcome distinction of being the highest in the world. But we
should not lose hope. This crisis, while intractable, is not
irreversible. We must assist the Northern Triangle in tackling
the root causes of this violence, and help it create safe and
economically-stable societies, such as through targeted foreign
assistance and capacity building. Only then will the
humanitarian crisis at our border truly subside.
And finally, we must recognize that even a fully developed
regional solution will not prevent all Central American refugee
mothers and children from arriving at our southern border. We
have a moral as well as legal obligation to provide asylum
seekers the opportunity to apply for humanitarian protection.
Mothers and children requesting protection in the United States
are not engaging in an illegal act. Rather, they are following
our well-established asylum laws.
The legislative proposals that this Committee has
considered this Congress are not the answer, because they would
only result in mass deportation of vulnerable refugees.
Deporting Central American refugee mothers and children to a
region struggling with a major humanitarian crisis is, in my
view, simply un-American. It reminds me of deportations to
Haiti at the height of the post-earthquake cholera epidemic.
Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past.
And so, I thank the witnesses for their presence and
participation here today. I thank the Chairman, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Labrador [presiding]. Thank you. We have a very
distinguished panel today. I will begin by swearing in our
witnesses before introducing them, if you would please all
rise.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Let the record show that the witnesses have answered in the
affirmative. Thank you all, please be seated.
First, I will introduce Mr. Brandon Judd. Mr. Judd is a
Border Patrol agent and serves as president of the National
Border Patrol Council, representing more than 16,500 Border
Patrol line agents. He brings with him nearly 20 years of
experience as Border Patrol agent, fluency in Spanish, and a
thorough understanding of the policies effecting border
security. Judd started his career as a field agent in 1997.
Thanks for being here today.
Next we have Mr. Steven McCraw. Mr. McCraw is the director
of the Texas Department of Public Safety. He began his law
enforcement career with DPS in 1977, as a trooper in the Texas
Highway Patrol, and later as a DPS narcotics agent until 1983,
when he became a special agent with the FBI. He served in
Dallas, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Tucson, San Antonio, and
Washington, D.C. In 2004 McCraw retired from the FBI to become
the Texas Homeland Security director in the Office of the
Governor, where he served for 5 years. Thanks for being here.
Next is Ms. Jessica Vaughan. Ms. Vaughan currently serves
as the director of policy studies for the Center for
Immigration Studies. She has been with the center since 1992,
where her expertise is in immigration policy, and operations
topics such as visa programs, immigration benefits, and
immigration law enforcement. In addition, Ms. Vaughan is an
instructor for senior law enforcement officer training seminars
at Northwestern University Center for Public Safety in
Illinois. Ms. Vaughan has a master's degree from Georgetown
University, and earned her bachelor's degree in international
studies at Washington College in Maryland.
And last but not least is Ms. Wendy Young. My Wendy Young
is president of Kids in Need of Defense, KIND. She has spent
more than two decades advocating for strong U.S. immigration
and refugee laws, policies, and practices. Prior to joining
KIND, Ms. Young worked for Senator Edward M. Kennedy as his
chief counsel on immigration policy for the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary. Ms. Young is a graduate of Williams College and
holds JD and MA degrees from the American University.
Each of the witness' written statements will be entered
into the record in its entirety. I ask that each witness
summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help
you stay within that time, there is a timing light in front of
you, as you all are, I think, are pretty much aware of it. And
the light will switch from green to yellow, indicating that you
have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns
red, it indicates that the witness' 5 minutes have expired. And
I recognize all of you to give your testimony. Mr. Judd. Is his
microphone one? Microphone? I am not sure your microphone's on.
STATEMENT OF BRANDON JUDD, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFGE), NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL
Mr. Judd. Okay, sorry. As I was in church this past Sunday,
my mind was preoccupied about this hearing and my testimony. I
was thinking about what I could say to shed light on this
current situation when one of the basic tenants of my
religion's faith came to mind. We believe in being subject to
kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates and obeying,
honoring, and sustaining the law.
All religions that I am aware of believe in rules, tenants,
and commandments. It is not different with the laws of the
United States. When persons, whether citizens or not, follow
the laws of this great Nation, peace and prosperity abound.
However, when those laws are broken on a large-scale, chaos is
the byproduct, and make no mistake, chaos defines parts of our
southwest border today.
Human and narcotic smugglers are constantly evolving to
maintain or grow their profits. Unlike the Border Patrol, these
criminal cartels operate without bureaucratic red tape. Cartels
do not have to coordinate their efforts with the U.S.
Attorney's Office, the Enforcement and Removal Office, Health
and Human Services, or the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties. Instead, the cartels see a problem and change their
operations almost immediately.
At the Border Patrol, it can take over a year to adapt.
There are several examples of how cartels break policies that I
have given in my written statement, but I am going to skip
those.
Today our largest trouble area is in Texas. Criminal
cartels are once again proving adept at understanding and
working around our policies. Late in the year of 2013 and
throughout all of 2014, an unprecedented number of
unaccompanied minors entered our country illegally through the
Rio Grande Valley sector of operations. Instead of presenting
themselves legally at ports of entry and asking for asylum, the
unaccompanied minors were forced by the cartels to enter
illegally at dangerous points along the border. In most cases,
these minors were not trying to escape or evade apprehensions;
they were simply crossing the border illegally and giving
themselves up. The cartels understood that unaccompanied minors
would force the Border Patrol to deploy agents to these
crossing areas in order to take minors into custody, thereby
creating large holes in the border. The creating of holes in
the border, in Border Patrol operations, was only one benefit
to the cartels by the unaccompanied minor surge. The other was
the exploitation of our catch and release policy.
As this surge became too much to handle, the Border Patrol
and the enforcement and removal office began releasing nearly
everyone we arrested. I believe this release allowed the
cartels to increase their smuggling profits. With catch and
release, the cartels could credibly say to potential customers
that they would be able to remain in the United States without
fear of deportation as long as they asked for asylum upon being
apprehended. Although the problem began with unaccompanied
minors, as word quickly spread of everyone being released, we
started to see more crossings of complete family units, leading
to a bigger problem than what we had in 2014. And once again,
we are playing catch-up to a problem that in part we created
through policy.
All individuals that were released during this period of
time were given an official document that ordered them to
appear before an immigration judge at some future date. These
orders are called Notices to Appear. The only problem, however,
is that these official orders are usually ignored so much so
that Border Patrol agents have dubbed them ``Notices to
Disappear.''
The latest data that I have seen show that approximately 40
percent of the individuals being issues NTAs do not show up to
their court proceedings. The willful failure to show up for
court appearances by persons that were arrested and released by
the Border Patrol has become an extreme embarrassment for the
Department of Homeland Security. It has been so embarrassing
that DHS and the U.S. Attorney's Office has come up with a new
policy. Simply put the new policy makes mandatory the release
without an NTA of any person arrested by the Border Patrol for
being in the country illegally, as long as they do not have a
previous felony arrest conviction, and as long as they claim to
have been continuously in the United States since January of
2014.
The operative word in this policy is claim. The policy does
not require the person to prove they have been here, which is
the same burden placed on them during deportation proceedings.
Instead, it simply requires them to claim to have been here
since January of 2014. Not only do we release these individuals
that by law are subject to removal proceedings, we do it
without any means of tracking their whereabouts. In essence, we
pulled these persons out of the shadows and into the light just
to release them right back to those same shadows from whence
they came.
Immigration laws today appear to be merely suggestions.
There are little to no consequences for breaking the laws, and
that fact is well known in other countries. If government
agencies like DHS or CBP are allowed to bypass Congress by
legislating through policy, we might as well abolish our
immigrations laws all together.
I believe it is all our hope that people choose to govern
themselves by honoring and sustaining the laws without
compulsion. However, if they do not there, must be a
consequence, and an enforcement mechanism that oversees
compliance. In the absence of consequences and enforceable
laws, innocent people are hurt, criminals are rewarded, chaos
abounds, and cartels reap huge financial benefits. I look
forward to answering any of your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Judd follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Labrador. Mr. Judd. Mr. McCraw?
STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. McCRAW, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Mr. McCraw. Mr. Chairman, and honorable Members, thank you
for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Steve McCraw.
I am the executive director of the Department of Public Safety
and colonel, and also the Homeland Security advisor for
Governor Greg Abbott. Congressman Smith, it is great to see
your friendly face from Texas, and I know you will be down
there meeting with the Border Patrol secretary Manny Padilla
and Raul Ortiz here later on, and I know they are looking
forward to seeing you. I think you will get a great read from
border control. They do a great job down there, the Rio Grande
Valley Force.
In an ever-changing threat environment, clearly we have
seen, as it relates to crime, it is increasingly transitory. It
is organized, even more violent, and also the discrete and
networked. And at the same time, we have seen terrorism be more
disaggregated. And that is very concerning. I know it is
concerning for the governor. It is concerning for members of
the Texas state legislature, because the result is consequences
that we were not intending, and some things you are not even
talking about today. And I would agree entirely that there are
victims coming across.
Those children, when they show up, they are victims, and as
the agent just said next to me, when they get turned back over
to the cartels, that they are victims. They are a commodity,
and if you look at the sex traffic alone of children that were
induced to come to Texas from Central America and Mexico and
sit on those wire taps, work those cases, you realize the terms
of the consequences that unsecure border is significant. And
the governor and the state legislature have made it clear from
the Department of Public Safety standpoint is that it, ``Hey,
when it is unsecure, Texas is unsecure. The Nation's
unsecure.''
If you have a drug epidemic in the northeast, relates to
heroin, you got a cartel and an unsecure border problem. If you
have MS-13 in your neighborhood, they are plundering and
raping, you have got a border problem as it relates to
transnational crime. That is the bottom line in terms if you
relate to it. It does not just stop at the border.
And who would have thought that Texas border sheriffs and
chiefs of police would have to invent new categories of crime?
Stash house extortions, for example, which is in elaborate
splashdowns. Pseudo cop stops, home invasions. You know, and
the ending recruitment of our children in criminal element in
the areas by plaza bosses to support their criminal operations
on both sides of the border.
So these things are happening, yet it is not talked about.
But clearly, you know, Texas understands that impact. So much
so that the governor, and it was mentioned before by the
Chairman, the governor and the state legislature have dedicated
$800 million directly to support border control operations. I
say Border Patrol operations because they are truly our
partners, and as they go, so does the security of our Nation.
And from the Texas standpoint, you invest in Border Patrol, you
invest in national security, you invest in public safety. And
we are lined up with them. And we have been tasked since June
the 23rd to conduct around-the-clock operations with them, with
our local partners, to coordinate air, Marine, and ground
operations, tactical operations. We put troopers into our
Border Patrol units rights now, 30 units around the clock. We
have tactical operations with Texas Ranger recon operations, a
SWAT that marries up with BORTAC .
There is a sense of urgency because we realize, even at the
height in June 2014, the height of the unaccompanied children
coming across, and as devastating that was and impactful, it
clearly was a cartel tactic. They make money on both sides, and
they overwhelm Border Patrol.
Just 17 percent of the apprehensions were children in
family units. That is it. Seventeen percent. And our directive
is to focus on cartels, cartel operatives, transnational gangs
like MS-13 that are now overwhelmed parts of Texas, like
Houston. And also, the focus on the drugs, that they engage in.
Heroin. Mentioned it before in terms of the epidemic across the
Nation right now. Cocaine, methamphetamine; they dominate the
methamphetamine market and sex trafficking and human
trafficking, and that is what we face.
And as the borders remain unsecure, which clearly they are,
there is no doubt about that, and so does, you know, public
safety vulnerabilities and national security vulnerabilities.
And our mandate has been very clear. We have been operational.
When I say operational, it does not mean anything to anybody,
you know, probably here, but it does when you have got troopers
and agents and Texas Rangers that have been deployed around the
clock. They move down every week. They do 7 days straight
operations with no breaks and they work 12 to 14 hours a day on
the river, in the air, on the ground with our Border Patrol
partners, because it is too important to the state security and
every day we see victims.
So as a result of that, you know, our operations have been
married up with, like I said before, with Border Patrol. We
will be continuing to doing this and we have received great
support obviously from our local partners and from Border
Patrol.
And I guess there is one thing that I would like to stress,
if I had not said Border Patrol enough, is that they need to be
resourced, bottom line is. And I will say this, and you will
find on my testimony, when you cut back on aviation assets. So
the Border Patrol, that means National Guard, when they have
UH-72s that are taken offline and you cut it by 50 percent,
that is a problem. That directly affects officer safety and by
the way, officers get shot at from Mexico. You never hear about
that. No one comes to the Border Patrol's defense when that
happens. I think my time is up, so I will shut up.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCraw follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. Ms. Vaughan?
STATEMENT OF JESSICA M. VAUGHAN, DIRECTOR OF
POLICY STUDIES, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Ms. Vaughan. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning. The Obama administration's handling of the border
surge has been a colossal disaster.
Mr. Labrador. Just a second, I think, Mr. McCraw, your
microphone is still on.
Ms. Vaughan. In the face of this surge of illegal
migration, the Administration has simply suspended enforcement
of the law in favor of a charade of deportation proceedings
that are routinely manipulated, ignored, and defied by the new
arrivals and their advocates. The Administration and its
allies, including the network of social and legal services
contractors that receive hundreds of millions of dollars of
public funding to process and advocate for more and more new
arrivals, have tried to characterize this migration as a
refugee crisis.
But according to what the migrants have told the Border
Patrol journalists, and my own colleagues doing field research,
most of the local migrants are not refugees displaced by war,
nor fleeing persecution. Instead, they are driven north by the
widely publicized Obama administration policies that they have
heard will allow them to stay in the U.S. for an indefinite
period of time. They understand that they will be able to join
family members or friends and that they will be able to work,
and that even if they skip out on immigration hearings, nothing
will happen to them. And from Mr. Judd's testimony, it appears
that the Administration is no longer going through even the
pretense of enforcement for those who arrive illegally at the
border these days.
This policy may make some people feel good, and certainly
many contractors are earning a good living off this phenomenon,
but the influx is imposing and enormous fiscal and public
safety strain on some communities. Even worse, the
Administration's see no evil approach has resulted in
shockingly negligent Federal policies on the placement of
unaccompanied minors.
As we have discussed, it was revealed last week by a Senate
investigation that the Department of HHS and its multimillion-
dollar network of contractors delivered an unknown number of
kids right into the hands of traffickers, abusers, and other
criminals. This occurred because HHS does not verify the
identity or relationship claims made by sponsors who take
custody of these kids or vet most of the adults who sponsor
juveniles or other adults in the household. Even if they did a
background check, criminal convictions would not disqualify a
sponsor.
HHS and its contractors actually have no idea how many
minors have been placed with felons or other criminals, or even
where many of these kids are. HHS and its contractors sometimes
do not even lay eyes on the people they are placing the kids
with or the place they will be living.
Home studies were conducted in only 4 percent of the cases
last year, or in the last 3 years.
While the social welfare contractors are making out very
well, the communities where they placed these new arrivals are
not doing nearly so well. The outlays for schooling are
enormous, on the order of $500 to $700 million a year
nationally, which is paid by the local taxpayers. Local school
systems cannot pull this money out of thin air, or depend on
state assistance. They have to cut other things to pay for the
new teachers, counselors, aides, and others to help support
these kids.
The city of Lynn, Massachusetts near me had to come up with
an additional $8 million last year to cover school expenses for
the unaccompanied juveniles. And in another town near where I
live, it was half a million dollars in 1 year for about 20 new
illegal arrivals. I realize the sum is a drop in the bucket for
some of the multimillion-dollar contractors, but it is a lot of
money for local taxpayers, and health services are also an
expense. All of these are essentially an unfunded mandate of
the President's policies that fall onto local and state
governments who have no say in the process or the policy.
And finally, I want to touch on one problem that has
reappeared and worsened apparently as a result of these open
door policies. Violent transnational gangs such as MS-13, which
are based in Central America, have taken full advantage of the
Obama administration's careless catch and release policies in
order to swell their ranks here and also to recruit and smuggle
in new members. This has contributed to a spike of new violence
here as they try to expand their territory and as volatile new
recruits try to prove their mettle by committing brutal acts.
One of the places where this is happening is Frederick
County, Maryland, just north of Montgomery County. Gang
violence and fighting is now rampant in two of the county high
schools: MS-13 has one floor; 18th Street has another. Just in
the last several weeks, six juveniles who came as unaccompanied
juveniles have been arrested and jailed for violent crimes,
including attempted murder, assault, armed robbery, weapons
charges, and unprovoked vicious attack on a deputy and more.
All are documented MS-13 members. Gang investigators believe
that they were recruited from El Salvador by two older illegal
alien MS-13 shot callers who have been residing in the area for
a longer time. One of these older gang members was approved for
the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. And one
was employed as a custodian in a middle school.
There are similar stories out of Boston. At least three
murders attributed to unaccompanied minors just in September
near where I live. Virginia has problems, Long Island, and even
here in Washington, D.C. The answer is not just to get used to
this surge in illegal immigration as a new normal, but to
reverse the controversial policies and interpretations of the
law that end up rewarding the illegal crossers and the
traffickers and smugglers.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORM
__________
Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much. Ms. Young?
STATEMENT OF WENDY YOUNG, PRESIDENT,
KIDS IN NEED OF DEFENSE (KIND)
Ms. Young. On behalf of KIND, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear
before you to share our views on the surge of Central Americans
to the U.S.
KIND was founded to ensure that unaccompanied immigrant and
refugee children are provided protection through pro bono legal
representation, assistance to children returning to their
countries of origin, and guidance to children applying for
resettlement to the U.S. We have assisted more than 8,500
children and trained 11,000 volunteer attorneys in our 7 years
of operation. This work gives us a comprehensive understanding
of the urgent protection needs of children on the move
throughout the region.
KIND is deeply concerned about the increasing emphasis on a
law enforcement approach toward addressing the surge on
unaccompanied refugee children and families from Central
America that jeopardizes the protection of vulnerable
individuals from the rampant violence the characterizes their
home countries.
While the recently announced U.S. resettlement program is a
step in the right direction, it is a limited response that must
be accompanied by full and fair access to the U.S. asylum
system for those Central American families and children who
reach our borders seeking safety. It must be underscored that
it is not illegal to seek asylum in the U.S.
El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala rank among the top six
countries with the highest murder rates in the world. Sadly,
children have been specifically targeted by the gangs and
criminal rings that terrorize large parts of the Northern
Triangle. The gangs attempt to forcibly recruit children,
especially those in their early teens, but sometimes as young
as kindergarten age. Girls are forced to become girlfriends of
gang members, which in fact are nonconsensual relationships
that result in rape by gang members. Children effectively have
no one to turn to protect them due to the weak governance and
corruption that characterizes the region.
According to the UN Refugee Agency, at least 58 percent of
children arriving at the U.S border have been forcibly
displaced and are potentially in need of international
protection. Moreover, the U.S. is not the only country
receiving asylum seekers. UNHCR has documented an over 1,000
percent increase in asylum applications from the Northern
Triangle filed in Belize, Costa Rica, Mexico, Nicaragua, and
Panama.
In the absence of serious efforts to control this violence
and provide meaningful opportunities for children to remain
home safely and sustainably actions to deter unaccompanied
children and families from coming to the U.S. will not work.
Raids on families in addition to being ineffective are
egregiously harmful to communities, particularly children.
The threat of deportation will not stop people from coming
when their lives and those of their families are at stake.
While the numbers of children coming alone dropped in January,
it is not at all clear that the raids prompted this decline. A
child referred to KIND explained to us that he faced the
difficult choice to flee or die. We have heard this sentiment
repeatedly among the thousands of children with whom we work.
Approximately half of these children do not have attorneys to
help them make their case for U.S. protection. It is
fundamentally unfair for any child to face removal proceedings
without legal representation. Our staff has witnessed children
as young as 3 years old appear in court without an attorney.
This contradicts U.S. principle of due process and the values
upon which this great Nation has been built.
Some proposals before Congress, including the Child
Protection Act, would in fact undermine the protection of
unaccompanied children by subjecting them to cursory border
screenings, prolonging their detention with CBP, and fast
tracking the adjudication of their asylum claims. In a similar
fashion, the Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act, would
roll back critical protections for children under the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, expand the
inappropriate use of immigration detention for children, limit
access to due process and protections available to children
under both asylum and the special immigrant juvenile status
program, and fail to provide for the safe and sustainable
repatriation of children.
A robust asylum process that ensures due process and
fundamental fairness is the most critical component in
addressing a refugee crisis. Resettlement programs can be used
strategically to support this response, but must not be viewed
as a substitute for U.S. asylum obligations.
In closing, Congress has a critical role in the response to
the increased number of unaccompanied children seeking
protection in the U.S. Strong oversight of and provision of
resources to the agencies charged with the care of
unaccompanied children is essential to ensure that these
children are housed in safe facilities and conditions while
they are in Federal custody. Children's immigration proceedings
must be fully and fairly adjudicated. And children must be
represented by pro bono counsel when they cannot afford counsel
themselves. Congress should ensure that children are safely and
quickly released to their families during the pendency of their
immigration proceedings, utilizing procedures that ensure that
such releases are in the best interests of the child and
protect their safety and well being.
Ultimately, the solution to the Central American refugee
crisis lies in addressing the root causes of the flow. We must
remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting vulnerable
refugees. And remember that unaccompanied children are children
first and foremost. KIND looks forward to working with Congress
to improve the responses of our immigration asylum and refugee
systems to the protection of unaccompanied children. Thank you
again for the opportunity to appear before you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Young follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much. We will now proceed on
the 5-minute rule with questions. I will begin by recognizing
myself for 5 minutes. This Committee is well aware that the
2014 surge along the southwest border caught the Department of
Homeland Security by surprise. It was almost completely
unprepared. The lagging response and the resulting executive
actions have proved disastrous in the year since. Current
immigration law and enforcement have taken a clear back seat to
policy and political gain. I have heard the same troupe here
today. It is not illegal to seek asylum in the United States.
We all know that. It is not illegal to seek asylum, but the
reason you seek asylum is because you are here illegally in the
United States. Asylum is a defense to being in the United
States illegally.
So that is totally meaningless, and I have heard that three
times already today. Current immigration law enforcement have
taken a clear backseat. It has become all too apparent that the
Administration's own actions have largely contributed to this
surge, and I am truly offended that this crisis on our border
could be labeled as the new normal, or to be actually accepted
as something that is normal.
As we now face the start of another possible surge, I look
forward to working with the Committee to continue this
discussion beyond today's hearings and to create a viable
solution to our crisis. Mr. Judd, what is the percentage of
people who appear in court after an NTA?
Mr. Judd. There has been several hearings on this topic,
and it has been as much as 80 percent according to Senator
Johnson, and as little as 40 percent, according to other
statistics. The actual number is not completely known, but it
is somewhere in between that.
Mr. Labrador. Between 40 and 80 percent, is that what you
are saying?
Mr. Judd. I am sorry?
Mr. Labrador. Between 40 and 80 percent?
Mr. Judd. Yes, sir.
Mr. Labrador. Based on your communication with Border
Patrol agents along the southwest border, do you believe that
we are at the beginning of a surge similar or worse than what
we witnessed in 2014?
Mr. Judd. We are actually seeing a lot more at this point
than what we did in 2014.
Mr. Labrador. Do you believe that the Border Patrol
currently has the resources including manpower to adequately
respond to the growing surge?
Mr. Judd. No, we do not.
Mr. Labrador. Your written testimony gives very clear
examples of the flagrant disregard for our immigration laws.
You refer to it as mere suggestions that carry little or no
consequences. How would Border Patrol be better equipped if
agents were not required to comply with priority enforcement
program directives or policies mandating release?
Mr. Judd. Well, at a minimum we would set up deportation
proceedings on these individuals that we arrest. But
unfortunately, right now, as long as they claim to have been
here before January of 2014, we just let them go. We do not
even set them up for----
Mr. Labrador. And they do not even have to prove it as you
said in your testimony. They just have to claim it.
Mr. Judd. They just have to tell us that they have been
here.
Mr. Labrador. And an attorney could suggest to them that
all they have to do is claim it because they are not, right?
Mr. Judd. A lot of agents will actually ask them where they
heard this from and they will tell the agents, ``Well, I was
just told to tell you.''
Mr. Labrador. Okay, and you say a lot of agents say that
they were told to tell them. So when they come to you, do they
tell you that they are leaving those countries because of the
violence for the most part?
Mr. Judd. There is two separate individuals that we have to
look at. The juveniles when we first arrested them, starting in
2014, they were told that all they have to do is ask for
asylum. And right now, the Border Patrol has actually told us
that we can no longer ask them that question, why are they
coming anymore. Cannot even ask them that question? In some
places we still do, but we are being told that you cannot even
ask why they are coming here.
Mr. Labrador. What do you think are the consequences for
agents who are unwilling to comply with these limiting
policies?
Mr. Judd. They will be terminated.
Mr. Labrador. So for wanting to enforce the law that is in
the books, they are going to be terminated from their jobs?
Mr. Judd. Absolutely. If they do not comply with the
policies that are given.
Mr. Labrador. Have you had any experience of any agents
being terminated?
Mr. Judd. No, our agents comply with the policies that we
are given.
Mr. Labrador. What can this Committee and this Congress do
to assist the Border Patrol in its mission and in order to
respond to the growing surge?
Mr. Judd. Well, the first thing is we have to understand
that the laws are the laws. Policies should not trump the laws.
We should not be able to bypass Congress and set policies to
trump the laws as long as we are enforcing the laws. Again, if
these juveniles or family units would come through the ports of
entry, that is legal. That is perfectly legal. If they would
come through the ports of entry and ask for asylum, but to
cross the border, that is illegal, and therefore we must
support a consequence for that.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. Mr. McCraw, what would happen, you
have vast experience with law enforcement so I am going to ask
a question not about immigration. What was your area of
expertise when you were in the FBI?
Mr. McCraw. It was organized crime.
Mr. Labrador. Organized crime.
Mr. McCraw. Mexican drug trafficking organizations,
Columbians and South American.
Mr. Labrador. So if I would have sent a message to the
organized crime community in your area that ``Hey, it is
illegal to do X but we are just not really going to enforce
it,'' what would have happened to organized crime in that area?
Mr. McCraw. Everybody is going to exploit the seams, as
Agent Judd appropriately noted that they were very flexible,
adaptable and networked and they are going to exploit all
opportunities, including the recruitment of our children.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. My time has expired, and I now
recognize Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before my questions,
I would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record
statements from 13 primarily religious groups, along with a
letter regarding temporary protected status from a number of
groups.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing
record but is on file with the Subcommittee. Also, see For the Record
Submission--Rep. Lofgren at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104402.
Mr. Labrador. Without objection, they will be entered into
the record.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses for being
here today. And obviously, when you take a look at a complex
situation, there is never just one thing going on. Obviously
there are smugglers taking advantage of the situation. But I am
mindful that we have--I got these statistics from the Border
Patrol just yesterday. In terms of unaccompanied minor children
apprehensions, from Belize, there was one child; from Costa
Rica, there were two children; from Nicaragua, there were 52
children; from Panama none; from El Salvador, 5,000 some odd;
Guatemala, 6,000; Honduras, 2,800. Something is going on in
those three countries, and that is not going on elsewhere in
the region. And so, I think it is important. None of us wants
to see thousands of children showing up at the border, they
have been exploited on the way, on the journey. It is not a
good situation.
But the question is how to deal with this? What is causing
this situation? And I know, KIND, and first, what a great name
for an organization, KIND. Nobody thinks little children should
have to fend for themselves without a representation. Your
organization has represented thousands of kids. Can you give us
some examples of the kinds of stories that you are hearing when
you really get into it with these kids and what is going on,
why did they come, what has happened to them? So we can get a
flavor for what is really driving this situation?
Mr. Labrador. Your mic is not on.
Ms. Young. Thank you. First, I would like to say it should
be an immediate red flag when you see a child who is under age
18 migrating across this world alone leaving their homes,
leaving their communities crossing international borders. That
is not normal for a child. So something is going wrong at home
that is causing them, driving them out, and in fact, in this
situation, it is the violence in three countries: Guatemala, El
Salvador, Honduras. About 97 percent of our case load at KIND
currently is from those three countries. Conditions in
countries like Panama are not that way. These are countries
that are much more stable, so children are not fleeing, simply
put.
To share one story, Claudia, a 14-year-old girl who
eventually won asylum when we matched her with a private sector
lawyer, she was abducted from her home by gangs. She was held
in captivity. She was gang raped by those gangs for 4 days. Her
family during this period sought the assistance of the police
and the community who told the family we cannot help you.
Claudia eventually escaped. She went home. Her family relocated
to another part of the country. The gangs found her there and
began to threaten her again. Again, the family turned to the
local police and asked for assistance and the police said, ``We
cannot help you.''
Claudia's family did the only thing they could. They sent
her out of the country in search of protection. These are not
young people who can line up and apply for a visa at a U.S.
embassy. They are running for their lives.
To share another story, documented by a board member of
KIND, an 8-year-old child's body, her corpse, was found on the
streets of Honduras, her throat slit and her panties stuffed in
the wound. These families are doing the only thing they can.
These children are doing the only thing they can. They are
running for their lives, because they will be murdered if they
remain home.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you, in terms of the violence that
is going on in these Central American, in these three
countries. The United Nations is now going to engage with the
U.S. and other countries in the Western Hemisphere to provide
some kind of refugee processing in those countries, and
hopefully, safe haven in a third country. Not necessarily the
U.S. I mean, it could be Costa Rica or Chile. We do not know.
Have you been in touch with that process, and do you know where
that process is at this point?
Ms. Young. We have been engaged in the first stage of the
refugee resettlement program, which is the so called CAM
program where children can present themselves while still in
their home country, and apply for resettlement. We are very
gratified by the decision of the Administration to work with
the UNHCR to expand this processing into third countries, so
that people are able to be safe in a country such as Mexico or
Belize, somewhere in the neighborhood, while they go through
the resettlement process.
I should note, however, that resettlement is a limited
response. They are targeting roughly 4,000 individuals for
resettlement to the United States and resettlement takes a very
long time. So while it will be a critical option for some, it
is not the full solution to the crisis.
Ms. Lofgren. I will just close. I agree. I mean, we have
probably more refugees in the world today since World War II. I
mean, you take a look at what is going on in Europe, I mean, in
Central America, it is huge. But the answer is not just
resettlement. It is peace, so that people do not have to flee,
and I was talking to Chairman Gowdy before he left about what
had been going on in Columbia. And we are no longer seeing
refugees from Columbia, because with the help of the United
States and other Nations in the Western Hemisphere, and the
Colombian people themselves, they got control of their
situation. And it is not a perfect situation. There are
problems, but we do not have a complete failed state in
Columbia anymore and it is clear that we have to work with
others so that these three countries can be stabilized and have
the rule for law so that people do not have to flee for their
lives. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, and I now recognize the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me address my
first question to Mr. Judd, Director McCraw, and Ms. Vaughan,
and it is this: Do you feel that the majority of individuals
trying to enter the United States illegally from those three
primary Central American countries are motivated by the
President's policies that they feel will allow them to stay in
America? Mr. Judd?
Mr. Judd. We no longer ask the individuals what the
motivation is, but in early 2014, yes. When we asked what the
motivation was, yes, it was based upon policy.
Mr. Smith. Right. And the Department of Homeland Security
report said around 70 percent, I believe. Mr. McCraw?
Mr. McCraw. I do not have enough information to comment on
that, Congressman.
Mr. Smith. Okay, Ms. Vaughan?
Ms. Vaughan. Yes, I would agree with that. Based on what we
have seen from intelligence reports from the Border Patrol and
ICE, and based on what the migrants themselves tell
journalists, and also a team of researchers we sent down to the
area to interview people, the vast majority are coming because
they understood that they would be allowed to stay, and that
the smugglers are telling them and advertising in the news
media in their home countries that if they get to the border,
that they will be released and allowed to stay for an
indefinite period of time.
I do not doubt that there are a few, you know, very
compelling cases of people who would benefit from our
protection, but the majority of them are simply here to join
family, friends, or because they heard they could get away with
it.
Mr. Smith. Right. Mr. Judd, was that a directive from the
Administration that said ``Do not ask that question any
longer?''
Mr. Judd. No, sir it was not. That came from our
management.
Mr. Smith. Okay, from the management as well. Maybe they
did not like the result they were getting, I do not know. The
other point I think to make is we sometimes hear about the
violence in those three Central American countries. Crime rates
are actually going down in two of the three of those countries,
and the crime rates themselves are still less than the crime
rates in several American cities.
Unfortunately, I think there is a lot of biased media
coverage and you seldom see the media acknowledge that the
primary motivation are the President's policies and the
expectation of amnesty when they arrive.
Ms. Vaughn, and Mr. Judd too, and Director McCraw, I would
like to get some figures just to have a better idea of the
extent of the problem. And let me ask you all if you have
information in regard to last year, 2015, as to how many
individuals entered the United States illegally or came in on
visas and over stayed or are in an illegal capacity now? Do we
have a figure, a rough estimated figure for those number of
people who contributed to the illegal population? Ms. Vaughan?
Ms. Vaughan. The number, according to the Border Patrol
statistics, there are about a quarter of a million Central
American juvenile----
Mr. Smith. Okay, I am not talking about Central America. I
am talking about overall, any country.
Ms. Vaughan. I do not have a number off the top of my head
of the total number of people who have come illegally. We do
not know, because they do not know who evaded the Border
Patrol. As far as over stayers, it is about half a million
people in 2015 who did not depart when their visa----
Mr. Smith. Half are just the visa over stayers?
Ms. Vaughan. Not all of them are still here. They think
just over 400,000. That is just the visitor visas. That does
not count the guest worker visas or the exchange.
Mr. Smith. Okay, I had no idea the problem was that great.
To me that is a huge change from what I have heard before. A
change that hundreds of thousands of more people in the country
illegally than we might have imagined.
Mr. Judd, do you have any estimate as to the number of
people who come into the United States each year that are not--
we just heard about the visa over stayers, people coming across
our southern border. What is the estimate as to how many coming
in illegally?
Mr. Judd. I am not privy to the agency statistics, but I
can give you from the Border Patrol agents what they tell you.
Just to give you a real quick story. Chairman Chaffetz was down
on the border, and he was allowed to patrol the border with
Border Patrol agents. He had every single resource available to
him. You name it, he had it. He had helicopter, he had ATVs, he
had horse patrol, he had every single resource available to
him. There were seven drug smugglers that crossed the border
while he was there that he got to chase. Of those seven drug
smugglers that he got to chase with every single one of those
resources, they caught zero.
When he was talking to the patrol agent in charge of the
Border Patrol station, he asked, ``What would you estimate the
percentage of those that cross the border illegally, what would
you estimate the percentage is that you actually arrest.'' And
the patrol agent in charge, the highest-Ranking Member of that
station of about 350 agents, he told him that if they hit a
sensor, we arrest probably 50 percent. If they do not hit a
sensor, it is well below 50 percent of what we arrest.
Mr. Smith. Right. What is your estimate as to the number,
just estimate, as the number of individuals, or maybe I should
say the fraction of individuals who are apprehended versus who
get successfully get into the United States illegally?
Mr. Judd. A safe estimate from the Border Patrol agents
would be that we arrest about 40 percent of what actually
crosses. So, if you got the official numbers from the agency of
what we arrest, that is about 40 percent.
Mr. Smith. So if we arrested 400,000, then 600,000 would be
coming in illegally?
Mr. Judd. Correct.
Mr. Smith. Something like that. When I have talked to
Border Patrol agents in south Texas, the estimates have been
anywhere from we only apprehend one out of two to one out of
five, and that is about I think what you are saying. Okay.
Mr. McCraw. The challenge you have is you do not know what
you do not know, Congressman. Until you have sufficient
detection capability in place, you cannot really tell how many
you did detect and apprehend or did not, and I can tell you
from a Texas standpoint the border region, you know as of in
fiscal year 2014, these are unofficial Border Patrol
statistics. They had 341,132 apprehensions. And it can also
tell you the trending because we talked about Central America
and the three countries. It is also trending, just as in
children, it also trends across in terms of all OTMs, it
parallels about 75 percent of the apprehensions in the Rio
Grande Valley, which was the center of gravity for drug and
human smuggling right now.
Mr. Smith. As you pointed out I am going to be there at
tomorrow. My time has expired. Let me just say that I do not
think we have ever had a President of the United States less
willing to enforce immigration laws and implement policies that
I think encourage illegal immigration. I thank you all for your
testimony.
Mr. Labrador. The gentleman's time has expired. I recognize
Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you. Attorney Young, you have got a
great organization, KIND. I think many people would be
surprised to learn that children are expected to appear before
an immigration judge and a trained government attorney without
legal representation. What do you think can be done to increase
the number of lawyers for unaccompanied children?
Ms. Young. Thank you, Congressman Conyers, and that is a
very good question. Bottom line, our experience has been that
the private sector actually is very willing to step forward to
represent these children on a pro bono basis. There has really
been an extraordinary response from our over 300 major law firm
corporate legal department, law school, and bar association
partners, and at the height of the crisis in 2014, we had
companies like Disney call us and say, ``We want to help you.
What can we do?'' And 70 of their attorneys appeared at a
training 2 weeks later.
So that is one part of the response that I think it would
be very wise to capitalize on, and with groups like KIND behind
those attorneys, what we see is that they provide very high
quality representation to the children, and in fact, the
children that we work with, over 90 percent of them are granted
some form of relief under our immigration laws, asylum or
otherwise.
In addition, however, there are some cases that are not
appropriate for placement with private sector attorneys who
tend not to be immigration lawyers. These are corporate
lawyers, tax lawyers, whatever else.
And those cases can be very well handed by the NGO
community that has expertise in children's immigration law. I
would also just like to point out that our experience is that
the court system runs much more efficiently when children are
represented by counsel. Immigration judges find it very
difficult to proceed on a case when they have a 3-year-old
standing in front of them with no lawyer. How do you question
that child?
I, in fact, saw a 5 year old in court one day clutching a
doll. The immigration judge asked her a series of questions
about why she was in the United States, where she was living.
That child just looked at him, her head barely above the
microphone, could not answer a single question until he finally
asked her, ``What is the name of your doll?'' And she said in
Spanish, baby, baby doll. And that was the only question that
was answered during that hearing.
Mr. Conyers. Why is legal representation so critical in
solving the crisis at our southwest border?
Ms. Young. Again, our experience is that most of these
children, when provided the opportunity to present their case
before an immigration judge, when they are provided a full and
fair hearing, are in fact eligible for protection, that legal
counsel is critical to assist the child through that process.
Some of my co-panelists mentioned Border Patrol questioning
children. I would suggest to you that a Border Patrol agent who
is in a chaotic Border Patrol station wearing a uniform armed
is not going to elicit information from a child about why they
are here. These kids are terrified. They are tired. They are
traumatized. They need time to recover. They need an adult who
is advocating for them to elicit the kind of information that
can form the basis for a claim for immigration relief.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you. You know, many have suggested that
the journey for Central American children is dangerous and we
should do everything we can to prevent these children from
leaving their homes in order to protect them from harm. How do
you respond to that kind of view?
Ms. Young. I would just quote one family who I think said
it best, ``I would rather see my child die on the way to the
United States than on my own doorstep.'' I am not going to
defend smugglers. This is a large illicit business. The
smugglers are very abusive to these children, but when these
kids are facing the kind of dangers they are in their home
countries, they would rather take that risk and hope that they
will find safety in the United States than stay home.
Mr. Conyers. Now, many suggested that violence,
particularly gang violence, is prevalent in many of our United
States cities. And the situation in the Northern Triangle is no
different. Would you agree with that finding?
Ms. Young. Two points: first, the rates of violence in
Central America are much higher than cities across the United
States, such as Detroit. Secondly, I would also say the big
difference is in the United States there are functioning police
forces. There is a functioning judicial system that can address
crime in this country. What you see in Central America is these
countries are too weak, they are too corrupt. Law enforcement
does not follow through to pick these criminals up. The
judicial system fails to prosecute individuals, so these crimes
are committed with complete impunity in these three countries.
Mr. Conyers. Let me squeeze in this last observation.
Mr. Labrador. Without objection.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you think it is
appropriate to use the term ``gang'' to describe the kinds of
organized crime and violence in these three countries?
Ms. Young. What we see increasingly are organized
transnational criminal cartels, and the same cartels that are
involved in creating the violence in the home countries are the
same cartels that are then preying on children and families as
they migrate and conducting the human smuggling and human
trafficking operations. So, this is highly organized across the
region.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired
and I recognize the gentlemen from Illinois.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much. Pleasure to be here
this morning with all my distinguished colleagues. Once again,
it is always good to see a labor union that the Republicans
actually invite to come and give testimony. It is the only one.
Just to show you there is always an exception to the rule, even
when it comes to the labor unions and I wonder why they love
you so much.
Mr. Labrador. I think we love the labor unions and
Obamacare as well, but that is all right.
Mr. Gutierrez. But Mr. Chairman, you cannot interrupt when
I am speaking, it is my time. That is unfair. You get your time
later on, right? I want my 10 seconds back. But having said
that, it is always interesting. And I was really fascinated by
Mr. Judd, because he said that Mr. Chaffetz went down there,
and they had ATVs and they had helicopters, and that the seven
people that crossed the border, the drug smugglers that crossed
the border, none of them were apprehended. It is always amazing
to me how seven people can cross the border, but we know that
they were drug smugglers. We did not catch them. We did not
interview them, but they were drug smugglers. Because that kind
of fits, right? Let's always talk about anybody that crosses
the border as a drug smuggler and not anything else coming to
the United States, because crime and immigration always seem to
rhyme very well with the majority's perspective when it comes
to immigration in this country.
So, I would like to interview those seven too to see if it
is really true. It is amazing just how you can see just what it
is that has brought them here to this country. So I would like
to speak a little bit about the situation that is going on,
because it just seems to me that--I said yesterday, I gave a
speech on the House floor. And I said watch tomorrow Judiciary
Committee is going to have a hearing. They are going to do a
couple of things. They are going to equate immigration to
crime, and they are going to say that it is all Obama's
problem.
Well, I guess I did it. I pat myself on the back because
that is exactly what has happened here. It does not resolve the
problem, because even if we built the best, greatest wall
between Mexico and the United States, they would still ask the
testimony by those offered by the majority here today they
would still be hundreds of thousands of people coming to the
United States and staying illegally in the United States once
their visas expire. That is the testimony that we have been
given here. But all we want to do is focus on building a wall
or a fence. Of course paid for by Mexico, yet by the very
testimony of the people here, the tens of thousands, hundreds
of thousands of people did not come from Mexico, yet that is
where we are going to build the wall. Which speaks to the
fantasy about what we are doing.
What we should do is we should create a system that allows
people to come not through Coyotajes, not through drug
smugglers, not through human traffic, but with a plane ticket,
with a visa, a legal way to come to the United States of
America, so that we can have an organized fashion in which we
have our immigration policy set forth. That is what we should
be doing. Instead, we continue to have a system that allows the
drug smuggler to exploit the children. I would like to thank
the gentlelady from California by addressing the issue.
They are not coming from Belize. They are not coming from
Costa Rica. Nicaragua is the poorest country in Central
America. They are not coming from Nicaragua. They are coming,
fleeing the drug cartels in three Central American countries,
and I get offended that Members of this Judiciary Committee say
that they are coming here illegally. It is not illegal to come
to the border of the United States of America and to ask for
political asylum in the United States, to ask for refugee
status in the United States. That is not illegal. That is a law
and a statute of the United States of America.
So, we always, but we always have to equate them, right?
Illegal, criminal, even children applying. Now, as you can
tell, I am not going to ask any questions, because I have a few
things that I want to respond. Here is one of the things, and
it is in the testimony by Ms. Vaughan, but that nobody talks
about. Nobody talks about. In addition there are a large in
flow of illegal Cuban immigrants into Texas. A large flow? A
large flow? Eight thousand? There are more people seeking
refugee status from Cuba coming through the border, yes, the
Texas border between Mexico and the United States, than any
other single country that has been testified to here.
As a matter of fact, in the last year, 43,000 people, the
immense majority of them coming through ports of entry to the
United States of America, but nobody ever talks about them, and
they get automatic--what do they get: automatic. Because you do
not even ask them, right? As soon as they say, ``I am from
Cuba,'' refugee status, and here is your green card and
American citizenship 3 years later.
And by the way, why do you not have the food stamps and get
on SSI and every other government ability to government
service. But nobody has ever talked about that, and I think it
is a shame that we are talking about the border and we do not
talk about people seeking--children--as Ms. Young has--children
fleeing drug cartels, fleeing murders, rapists, drug
traffickers. Fleeing them for their very lives, and yet we have
43,000 people coming from Cuba; they are automatically given
asylum in the United States with not one question asked. All
they have to do is say they come, and they come through those
ports of entry. And I think we all know why. We all know why.
Because it is politics, when it comes to a certain group of
people, and politics when it comes to another group of people,
and I think that is shameful. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Labrador. The gentleman's time has expired. This
concludes today's hearing.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman? May I ask unanimous consent to
put into the record the data from the Border Patrol that I
referred to earlier?
Mr. Labrador. Without objection.
[The material referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Mr. Labrador. That will be entered into the record.
Anything else? This concludes today's hearing. Thanks to all of
our witnesses. Just in closing, I agree that if somebody is
coming here to seek asylum, they should be allowed to seek
asylum. I think every one of the witnesses agrees with that. I
just do not think that you should be coming here with a border
search and use the excuse of asylum.
Mr. McCraw. Chairman, I want to say one thing. Often, the
only one that rescues those children from those cartels and
transnational gangs are the Border Patrol agents. A trooper or
a deputy sheriff. If they stay in the custody of them when they
go between the ports of entry, they are enslaved and I can give
you numerous cases that will just rip your heart out in terms
of what happens to children when they stay in the hands of
Mexican cartels, and are not rescued by Border Patrol or deputy
or a trooper.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. Without objection, all Members
will have 5 legislative days to submit additional written
questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the
record, and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]