[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN AT THE BORDER:
STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON THE WAY
FORWARD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
BORDER SECURITY, FACILITATION,
AND OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 27, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-671 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas John Katko, New York
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey Clay Higgins, Louisiana
J. Luis Correa, California Michael Guest, Mississippi
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Dan Bishop, North Carolina
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Al Green, Texas Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa
Eric Swalwell, California Diana Harshbarger, Tennessee
Dina Titus, Nevada Andrew S. Clyde, Georgia
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida
Kathleen M. Rice, New York Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Val Butler Demings, Florida Peter Meijer, Michigan
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California Kat Cammack, Florida
Josh Gottheimer, New Jersey August Pfluger, Texas
Elaine G. Luria, Virginia Andrew R. Garbarino, New York
Tom Malinowski, New Jersey
Ritchie Torres, New York
Hope Goins, Staff Director
Daniel Kroese, Minority Staff Director
Natalie Nixon, Clerk
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER SECURITY, FACILITATION, AND OPERATIONS
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California, Chairwoman
J. Luis Correa, California Clay Higgins, Louisiana, Ranking
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Member
Al Green, Texas Michael Guest, Mississippi
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Dan Bishop, North Carolina
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex Andrew S. Clyde, Georgia
officio) John Katko, New York (ex officio)
Vacancy, Subcommittee Staff Director
Emily Trapani, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
Zachary Wood, Subcommittee Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Nanette Diaz Barragan, a Representative in Congress
From the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Clay Higgins, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border
Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
The Honorable John Katko, a Representative in Congress From the
State of New York, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Witnesses
Mr. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Policy Counsel, American Immigration
Council:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
The Honorable Robert Garcia, Mayor, City of Long Beach, Long
Beach, California:
Oral Statement................................................. 17
Prepared Statement............................................. 18
Ms. Jennifer Podkul, Vice President for Policy and Advocacy, Kids
In Need of Defense (KIND):
Oral Statement................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 21
Ms. Lora Ries, Director of the Center for Technology Policy,
Senior Research Fellow for Homeland Security, The Heritage
Foundation:
Oral Statement................................................. 30
Prepared Statement............................................. 32
For the Record
The Honorable Nanette Diaz Barragan, a Representative in Congress
From the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
Letter From the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA). 53
Statement of Susannah Cunningham, Advocacy Manager, Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service.............................. 54
Letter From Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA)..................... 58
Letter From Amnesty International USA.......................... 58
Statement of First Focus on Children........................... 64
Statement of the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights.. 66
UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN AT THE BORDER: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON THE
WAY FORWARD
----------
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Border Security,
Facilitation, and Operations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., via
Webex, Hon. Nanette Diaz Barragan [Chairwoman of the
subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Barragan, Correa, Cleaver, Green,
Clarke, Jackson Lee, Thompson (ex officio), Higgins, Guest,
Bishop, and Clyde.
Ms. Barragan. The Subcommittee on Border Security,
Facilitation, and Operations will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting to hear stakeholder
perspectives on addressing unaccompanied children at the U.S.-
Mexico border.
The challenge posed by children arriving at our border is
not new. Unaccompanied children from Mexico, Central America,
and elsewhere have long sought refuge in the United States.
This is also not the first time we have seen increased numbers
of unaccompanied children at our Southern Border. There were
similar increases in 2014 and 2019.
Northern Triangle countries suffer from unspeakable
violence, corruption, and poverty. Last November, the region
was hit by 2 devastating hurricanes that destroyed homes and
wiped out critical infrastructure, worsening the situation and
prompting more desperate families and children to flee.
Migrant children are undertaking the arduous, dangerous
journey because conditions at home are so dire. Many hope to
reunite with family living in the United States. Like many of
my colleagues, this breaks my heart, seeing them waiting to be
reunited.
The increased number of child migrants is certainly a
challenge, but the U.S. Government must provide these children
with protections guaranteed to them under law. These
protections ensure that children are quickly transferred from
Customs and Border Protection, CBP, custody, from there into
the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, which is
much better equipped to handle these children and to care for
them, as well as unite them with their families or sponsors.
The Biden administration is rapidly building capacity to
provide proper care for migrant children after President Trump
dismantled the system. I have heard a number of my colleagues
urge the current administration to reimpose policies incredibly
harmful to children, particularly unaccompanied children, like
expelling kids under Title 42.
Under Title 42, the Trump administration sent young
children back to the very dangerous conditions they are
fleeing, scared and alone. This is unconscionable and we cannot
go back.
Under the last administration, the Department of Homeland
Security also neglected to prepare for an increase in migration
that was long-predicted. DHS saw the warning signs in mid-2020
of another increase. It chose not to build the capacity needed
to process and care for vulnerable migrants.
Now is not the time to score political points. We must work
together to improve our asylum system and border policies and
do so respecting the humanity and unique needs of child
migrants.
I am encouraged that President Biden committed to
reinstitute humane border policies. The law requires we treat
unaccompanied children humanely and allows children to apply
for asylum. It is simply the right thing to do legally and
morally.
Like many Members, I recently traveled to the Rio Grande
Valley to conduct an oversight visit. I toured the Donna
Processing Facility where many of the children are held until
they are transferred to HHS care. I spoke to little girls from
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, girls who look just like
I did at their age.
While CBP processing facilities are no place for children,
the facility conditions have improved tremendously compared to
what I saw under the previous administration. No doubt there is
still more to be done. For example, I met too many children
that did not know they could use the phone to call their
families.
The number of kids in Border Patrol custody has fallen
dramatically in recent weeks, and the average time for children
in custody is now well under the 72-hour threshold mandated by
the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.
This is due in large part to the stand-up of new emergency
intake sites and influx care facilities to facilitate and
expedite the movement of children out of the hands of Border
Patrol and into the custody of child welfare specialists.
In fact, HHS has opened an emergency intake site at the
Long Beach Convention Center just outside my district here in
California. I am pleased to be joined today by the mayor of
Long Beach to discuss that effort.
My district does include North Long Beach, and I am proud
to represent such a welcoming community and work with a leader
like Mayor Garcia.
The progress we have seen over the last few weeks are
initial steps to improve conditions and the process addressing
children at our border. Federal agencies are not alone in
providing care to unaccompanied minors. Rather, this is a
whole-community approach where civil society, service care
providers, pro bono lawyers, NGO's and many others supplement
the efforts of the Federal Government.
Protecting vulnerable children is an American value, and I
look forward to hearing the witnesses' perspectives on the
administration's response and recommendations on how to move
forward from here.
[The statement of Chairwoman Barragan follows:]
Statement of Chairwoman Nanette Diaz Barragan
April 27, 2021
The challenge posed by children arriving at our border is
not new. Unaccompanied children from Mexico, Central America,
and elsewhere have long sought refuge in the United States.
This is also not the first time we have seen increased numbers
of unaccompanied children at our Southern Border--there were
similar increases in 2014 and 2019.
Northern Triangle countries suffer from unspeakable
violence, corruption, and poverty. Last November, the region
was hit by 2 devastating hurricanes that destroyed homes and
wiped out critical infrastructure, worsening the situation and
prompting more desperate families and children to flee.
Migrant children are undertaking the arduous, dangerous
journey because conditions at home are so dire. Many hope to
reunite with family living in the United States. Like many of
my colleagues, my heart breaks seeing them waiting to be
reunited. The increased number of child migrants is certainly a
challenge, but the U.S. Government must provide these children
with protections guaranteed to them under law.
These protections ensure that children are quickly
transferred from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody to
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is
much better equipped to care for these children as well as
unite them with their families or sponsors. The Biden
administration is rapidly building capacity to provide proper
care for migrant children after President Trump dismantled the
system.
I have heard a number of my colleagues urge the current
administration to reimpose policies incredibly harmful to
children--particularly unaccompanied children--like expelling
kids under Title 42. Under Title 42, the Trump administration
sent young children back to the very conditions they are
fleeing, scared and alone. This is unconscionable and we cannot
go back. Under the last administration, the Department of
Homeland Security also neglected to prepare for an increase in
migration that was long-predicted. DHS saw the warning signs in
mid-2020 of another increase. It chose not to build the
capacity needed to process and care for vulnerable migrants.
Now is not the time to score political points; we must work
together to improve our asylum system and border policies--and
do so respecting the humanity and unique needs of child
migrants. I am encouraged that President Biden committed to
reinstitute humane border policies. The law requires we treat
unaccompanied children humanely and allows children to apply
for asylum. It is simply the right thing to do--legally and
morally.
Like many Members, I recently traveled to the Rio Grande
Valley to conduct an oversight visit. I toured the Donna
Processing Facility where many of the children are held until
they are transferred to HHS care. I spoke to little girls from
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras--girls who look just like
I did at their age. While CBP processing facilities are no
place for children, the facility conditions have improved
tremendously compared to what I saw under the previous
administration. No doubt there is still more to be done. For
example, I met too many children that did not know they could
use the phones to call their families.
The number of kids in Border Patrol custody has fallen
dramatically in recent weeks, and the average time for children
in custody is now well under the 72-hour threshold mandated by
the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA)
of 2008. This is due in large part to the stand-up of new
Emergency Intake Sites (EIS) and Influx Care Facilities (ICF)
to facilitate and expedite the movement of children out of the
hands of Border Patrol and into the custody of child welfare
specialists.
In fact, HHS has opened an Emergency Intake Site at the
Long Beach Convention Center just outside my district in
California. I am pleased to be joined today by the Mayor of
Long Beach to discuss that effort. My district does include
North Long Beach, and I am proud to represent such a welcoming
community and work with a leader like Mayor Garcia. The
progress we have seen over the last few weeks are initial steps
to improve conditions and the process addressing children at
our border.
Federal agencies are not alone in providing care to
unaccompanied minors. Rather, this is a whole-community
approach where civil society, service care providers, pro-bono
lawyers, NGO's, and many others supplement the efforts of the
Federal Government. Protecting vulnerable children is an
American value, and I look forward to hearing the witnesses'
perspective on the administration's response and
recommendations on how to move forward from here.
Ms. Barragan. With that, the Chair now recognizes the
Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana,
for an opening statement.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our
witnesses for being here.
We have difficult ground to cover and we are going to
discuss some uncomfortable things, but I would like to say at
the outset that I have a personal conviction regarding the
Chairwoman's compassionate determination to seek a path
forward, and I have faith that my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle can come together to move forward to find real
solutions despite the fact that we will have difficult
conversations, because it is a tough subject.
There is a crisis on our Southwest Border with no end in
sight. That is reality. The administration's campaign
statements, coupled with what I believe to be an overzealous
renunciation of the prior administration's border policies,
which had proven to be effective ultimately, I believe these
circumstances have invited this activity to our borders.
Specifically, the suspension of the wall system construction
was a major error.
The Remain in Mexico policy should be reinstated. Asylum
Cooperative Agreements should be continued and enhanced. Some
of these policies, coupled with enabling of the catch-and-
release practice, restricting immigration enforcement, and the
refusal to equally apply Title 42 across the board, these
decisions have exacerbated the crisis at the border.
The Secretary of Homeland himself stated that we are on
track to see the highest number of illegal crossings in over 20
years. However, no one in the current administration has
stepped forward to really take a leadership role to deal with
this crisis. The border coordinator is leaving after 3 months
on the job. The Vice President has yet to publicly engage at
the border and visit the border. Secretary Mayorkas continues
to, in my opinion, ignore legitimate information requests from
this oversight body about the operational realities on the
ground. In good faith, perhaps they are working on it, but he
has not provided many answers to the questions we have
submitted.
Last month, Customs and Border Protection encounters
surpassed 172,000 at the Southwest Border, and we all know that
that is a percentage of the actual crossings, because we never
touch 100 percent. That is reality. So the truth is the number
was greater than 172,000, if you are looking for the number of
actual illegal crossings.
The administration continues to claim that single adults
and family units are being expelled under Title 42 public
health emergency authority. However, DHS's own statistics show
this to be false. In March, only 60 percent were denied entry.
Border Patrol facilities and temporary processing centers,
the same ones used by the Trump administration, remain over
capacity. My colleagues, respectfully, on the other side of the
aisle slammed conditions in 2019, and now are referring to the
same facilities under the Biden administration as more humane.
May I argue that more crowded does not equal more humane. This
is just another example of the incredible things that happen in
the bizarre realm of the District of Columbia.
This subcommittee and the committee as a whole must have
the courage to honestly engage and to find solutions, because
the American people see through political posturing. A new
Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that a majority of
Americans disapprove of the Biden administration's handling of
the situation at the Southwest Border. That is just reality.
Less than 20 percent of the crossings make a credible fear
claim. Now, this is important to note because that is the first
step in the process for asylum at the land border. Now, this
doesn't mean that more didn't seek it as a defense against
removal later on, but we should not state or suggest that
everyone at the border is seeking asylum, because that is just
not true and we know that to be not true. We must push through
the political posturing and seek truth and resolution to these
situations.
The Biden administration's decision to use prosecutorial
discretion in the RGV sector, the Rio Grande Valley sector,
most people not able to be immediately expelled are released en
masse, some without ever being entered into removal
proceedings.
Border Patrol agencies on the ground told us, and told me,
that the Federal Government has become the largest facilitator
of human smuggling at the border. That is the perception of the
boots on the ground largely when you talk to those guys, that
their law enforcement mission has been transformed into
facilitators of illegal crossings. That should be a wake-up
call for Congress, and we should work together, again, toward
solutions.
Another persistent issue at our border concerns the
activities of TCOs, the cartels. Months-old babies and toddlers
don't just appear at the Southwest Border on their own. They
are smuggled to our border by cartels who don't care about
their safety or well-being, and they are not hydrated properly
or fed properly, or if the adult holding them is related to
them, that is very much in question.
TCOs, they only care about cash. Cartels are making
American cash dollars hand over fist. There have been reports
of smugglers throwing toddlers in the Rio Grande River to
distract Border Patrol. We have all seen the footage of
smugglers dropping toddlers over the wall. It is horrific what
they are doing. That is where we should be focused, on how to
combat these cartels, the pipeline that is feeding illegal
crossings into our Southern Border.
The best practices of treating children at the border we
will hear today doesn't matter to the cartels. Every child they
smuggle or use to distract from their loads of drugs and sex
trafficking makes them more emboldened. Criminal cartels are
profiting at an unprecedented level from this administration's
policies. That is not to mean that my colleagues on this
committee don't have compassionate hearts in the right place. I
am just saying we have to admit that this administration's
policies are not working. We have to communicate with the Biden
administration effectively and encourage real solutions.
The decision not to expel unaccompanied minors is causing
some parents to make the decision to self-separate.
We have heard from Customs and Border Protection that they
have encountered many adults claiming to be children at the
border in hopes of not being expelled. I don't have to explain
the dangers of putting unrelated adults in facilities with
children. It is a recipe for disaster and, indeed, it is
happening. There are at least 3 facilities that house
unaccompanied minors with serious outstanding allegations of
misconduct just in the last month. One shuttered overnight,
with reports of children being forced into untenable positions
with no toilets available.
The administration's failure to properly address the border
crisis endangers our Republic, bottom line. Failure to take
decisive action will have an immeasurable lasting consequence.
Inaction in the name of political expediency is not acceptable.
I know my Chairwoman's heart is in the right place. I have
faith we can come together.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for your consideration, and I
yield.
[The statement of Ranking Member Higgins follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Clay Higgins
April 27, 2021
Thank you Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today.
Make no mistake, there is a crisis on our Southwest Border with no
end in sight.
This administration's campaign rhetoric coupled with an over-
zealous renunciation of the prior administration's border policies
which had proven effective, have invited this activity at our border.
Specifically, the suspension of wall system construction, the
Remain in Mexico policy, and Asylum Cooperative Agreements, coupled
with the enabling of `catch and release' practices, restricting
immigration enforcement and the refusal to equally apply Title 42
across the board, have exacerbated the crisis.
The Secretary of Homeland Security himself stated that we are on
track to see the highest number of illegal crossings in over 20 years.
However, no one in the current administration has stepped forward
to claim a leadership role to deal with this crisis. The border
coordinator is leaving after 3 months on the job, the Vice President
has yet to visit the border, and Secretary Mayorkas continues to ignore
legitimate information requests from this oversight body about the
operational reality on the ground.
Last month, Customs and Border Protection encounters surpassed
172,000 at the Southwest Border. The administration continues to claim
that single adults and family units are being expelled under Title 42
public health emergency authority. However, DHS's own statistics show
that to be false. In March, only 60 percent were denied entry.
Border Patrol facilities and temporary processing centers--the same
ones used during the Trump administration--remain over capacity. My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who slammed conditions in
2019 are now referring to the same exact facilities under the Biden
administration as ``more humane.'' This is just another example of the
incredible things that happen in the bizarre realm of the District of
Columbia.
The American people see through this. A new Washington Post-ABC
News poll shows a majority of Americans disapprove of the
administration's handling of the situation at the Southwest Border.
Based off publicly-available CBP data, only a small fraction of
people crossing the border illegally are seeking asylum.
Less than 20 percent make a credible fear claim, which is the first
step in the process for asylum at the land border. That doesn't mean
more didn't seek it as a defense against removal later on, but let's be
clear not to suggest that everyone at the border is seeking asylum.
Because of the Biden administration's decision to use prosecutorial
discretion in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, most people not able to be
immediately expelled are released en masse, some without ever being
entered in removal proceedings. Border Patrol Agents on the ground told
us that the Federal Government has become the largest facilitator of
human smuggling at the border. That should be a wake-up call for this
Congress to put an end to the madness and work together toward a
solution
Another persistent issue at our borders concerns the activities of
transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), the cartels. Months-old
babies and toddlers don't just appear at the Southwest Border on their
own. They are smuggled to our border by TCOs who don't care about their
safety or well-being, if they are hydrated and fed, or if the adult
holding them is related to them. TCOs just care about cash. There have
been reports of smugglers throwing toddlers into the Rio Grande River
to distract Border Patrol and we have all seen the footage of smugglers
dropping toddlers over the wall. The best practices of treating
children at the border we will hear today doesn't matter to them. Every
child they smuggle or use to distract from their loads of drugs, makes
them more emboldened. Criminal cartels are profiting greatly from this
administration's policies.
The decision not to expel unaccompanied minors is causing some
parents to make the decision to self-separate.
We have heard from CBP that they've encountered ``many'' adults
claiming to be children at the border in hopes of not being expelled. I
don't have to explain the dangers of putting unrelated adults in
facilities with children.
There are also at least 3 facilities that house unaccompanied
minors with serious outstanding allegations of misconduct over the last
month, with one shuttering overnight after reports of children being
forced to use bags as toilets.
The administration's failure to properly address the border crisis
endangers our Republic. Failure to take decisive action will have
immeasurable and lasting consequences. Inaction in the name of
political expediency is inexcusable.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to seek answers for the American
people, examine how this administration's policies are impacting
unaccompanied minors, understand the push and pull factors that
resulted in 19,000 kids at the border in March, and discuss changes
needed to address this situation.
I look forward to the witnesses' testimony and I thank them for
appearing before us today. I yield back.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Members are reminded that the subcommittee will operate
according to the guidelines set out by the Chairman and Ranking
Member in the July 8 colloquy.
The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Thompson. Good afternoon. I thank Chairwoman Barragan
for holding today's hearing on unaccompanied children at the
Southern Border and for her leadership on this important issue.
Despite some of the rhetoric about the situation at the
Southern Border, this challenge is not new. We have seen
increased arrivals of unaccompanied children and others at the
U.S.-Mexico border in 2014, 2018, 2019, and more in previous
decades.
When there was a surge of families and children at the
border in 2018, President Trump tore children from their
parents. In 2019, President Trump instituted a series of anti-
immigrant policies that failed to address the root causes of
increased migration, caused thousands of children to languish
in Government custody, and squandered millions on projects that
failed to secure the border.
In 2020, when arrivals started trending upwards, rather
than preparing to address the situation, the Trump
administration continued dismantling our immigration
infrastructure and began expelling unaccompanied children into
Mexico alone instead of allowing them to seek protection
provided for under the law.
Instead, the Biden administration is responding to the
challenge by treating children humanely and working to fix the
underlying causes of this situation. Federal agencies are
working closely with local communities to provide temporary
shelter and COVID-19 testing for the vulnerable children.
The Biden administration is also working with non-
Governmental organizations, like Kids in Need of Defense, to
provide and connect unaccompanied children with legal services,
essential medical care, and educational opportunities. All of
these efforts are designed to get kids out of CBP facilities
and quickly reunite them with their families.
The administration is also restarting the Central American
Minors Program, to allow unaccompanied children to apply for
protection in their home country and make a safe, orderly
journey to the United States if they qualify. These are real
actions taken to hopefully address one of the many factors
pushing children to make the dangerous journey to our border.
Last week, former Trump adviser Stephen Miller's
organization filed its first lawsuit to force the Biden
administration to begin expelling vulnerable unaccompanied
children to Mexico again. It is simply unconscionable that some
would try to bring back the Trump administration's inhumane
policy of returning vulnerable children back to the dangerous
conditions they fled. Returning to inhumane policies toward
children should be a nonstarter.
Border security is a priority for this committee and the
Biden administration, but we also must not lose focus on other
issues like domestic terrorism and critical infrastructure
protection. We also do not have to sacrifice border security to
treat vulnerable unaccompanied children with basic decency. We
can do both.
Secretary Mayorkas and the men and women of DHS have made
good progress in addressing the situation at the border, but we
still have a long road to really and fully repair this system.
I am eager to hear from our witnesses today on possible
ways Congress and the administration can help address this on-
going challenge in the short and long term, while continuing to
uphold our values as a Nation.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
April 27, 2021
Good afternoon.
I thank Chairwoman Barragan for holding today's hearing on
unaccompanied children at the Southern Border and for her leadership on
this important issue.
Despite some of the rhetoric about the situation at the Southern
Border, this challenge is not new.
We have seen increased arrivals of unaccompanied children and
others at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2014, 2018, 2019, and more in
previous decades.
When there was a surge of families and children at the border in
2018, President Trump tore children from their parents
In 2019, President Trump instituted a series of anti-immigrant
policies that failed to address the root cause of increased migration,
caused thousands of children to languish in Government custody, and
squandered millions on projects that failed to secure the border.
In 2020, when arrivals started trending upward, rather than
preparing to address the situation, the Trump administration continued
dismantling our immigration infrastructure and began expelling
unaccompanied children into Mexico alone instead of allowing them to
seek protection provided for under the law.
Instead, the Biden administration is responding to the challenge by
treating children humanely and working to fix the underlying causes of
this situation.
Federal agencies are working closely with local communities to
provide temporary shelter and COVID-19 testing for the vulnerable
children.
The Biden administration is also working with non-Governmental
organizations like Kids in Need of Defense to provide and connect
unaccompanied children with legal services, essential medical care, and
educational opportunities.
All of these efforts are designed to get kids out of CBP facilities
and quickly reunite them with their families.
The administration is also restarting the Central American Minors
Program to allow unaccompanied children apply for protection in their
home country and make a safe, orderly journey to the United States if
they qualify.
These are real actions taken to hopefully address one of the many
factors pushing children to make the dangerous journey to our border.
Last week, former Trump advisor Stephen Miller's organization filed
its first lawsuit to force the Biden administration to begin expelling
vulnerable unaccompanied children to Mexico again.
It is simply unconscionable that some would try to bring back the
Trump administration's inhumane policy of returning vulnerable children
back to the dangerous conditions they fled.
Returning to inhumane policies toward children should be a non-
starter.
Border security is a priority for this committee and the Biden
administration, but we also must not lose focus on other issues like
domestic terrorism and critical infrastructure protection.
We also do not have to sacrifice border security to treat
vulnerable unaccompanied children with basic decency. We can have both.
Secretary Mayorkas and the men and women of DHS have made good
progress in addressing the situation at the border, but we still have a
long road to fully repair the system.
I am eager to hear from our witnesses today on possible ways
Congress and the administration can help address this on-going
challenge in the short and long term while continuing to uphold our
values.
Thank you and I yield back.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Not seeing the Ranking Member of the full committee, we
will proceed on to our witnesses.
[The statement of Ranking Member Katko follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member John Katko
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased that this subcommittee is
holding a hearing today on a topic all of us care deeply about: The
welfare of children crossing the Southwest Border.
Some of these children arrive alone and afraid, with nothing but
the clothes on their backs. Others arrive with loved ones, hoping for a
better life in the United States. Many children making the dangerous
journey to the United States face tragic circumstances of abuse,
illness, violence, and trafficking along the way. Often, drug cartels
use children as pawns to distract Border Patrol agents as illicit drugs
are smuggled across the border, as we recently saw in troubling footage
of 2 young toddlers being dropped over a section of the border wall.
I recently returned from my second trip to the Southern Border in
the span of a few weeks. The stories my colleagues and I are hearing
from the front-line men and women of DHS about the dueling
humanitarian, security, and public health crises are incredibly
disturbing. With CBP encountering nearly 20,000 unaccompanied children
at the Southwest Border in March 2021 alone--more than 6 times the
number encountered during the same month last year--an already strained
workforce continues to face a lack of capacity and resources to
effectively manage this crisis.
Additionally, I am troubled that the Biden administration has
removed important protections related to vetting the sponsors to whom
unaccompanied children are released, while also waiving background
check requirements for caregivers at migrant care facilities. These
troubling changes in policy are doubly concerning amongst recent
reports of abuse at these facilities.
I hope that this hearing today will be an honest examination of the
conditions facing these children on the ground, as well as the
challenges facing the front-line men and women of DHS working amidst
dire circumstances. I thank our witnesses for appearing before the
committee today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Barragan. I now have the pleasure of welcoming our
panel of witnesses. First, we have Mr. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick.
He is policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, a
nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that examines the American
immigration system. Mr. Reichlin-Melnick works primarily on
immigration court issues and the intersection of immigration
law and policy.
Dr. Robert Garcia is an educator and the 28th mayor of Long
Beach, California. He strongly supports comprehensive
immigration reform and leads a community that welcomes
immigrants. As mayor, he worked with the Long Beach City
Council, HHS, FEMA, and local NGO's and advocates to lease the
Long Beach Convention Center as an emergency intake site for
migrant children.
Our next witness, Jennifer Podkul, is vice president for
policy and advocacy from Kids in Need of Defense, or KIND, an
NGO devoted to the protection of unaccompanied and separated
children. Ms. Podkul is an international human rights lawyer
and a National expert on issues affecting immigrant children.
Lora Ries, our next witness, is director of the Center for
Technology Policy and senior research fellow at The Heritage
Foundation. Prior to her current position, she served in
various positions at the Department of Homeland Security during
the Trump administration, as a lobbyist for Homeland Security
contractors, and as counsel on the Judiciary Committee.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record.
I now ask each witness to summarize his or her statement
for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Reichlin-Melnick.
STATEMENT OF AARON REICHLIN-MELNICK, POLICY COUNSEL, AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member
Higgins, and distinguished Members of the committee and
subcommittee, my name is Aaron Reichlin-Melnick and I am policy
counsel at the American Immigration Council, a nonpartisan
organization dedicated to ensuring that the United States
provides a fair process for all immigrants, including those
seeking protection.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today to provide
some perspective on unaccompanied children at the border and to
emphasize that the challenge we face today is not about
reducing numbers but about resolving long-standing deficiencies
in our humanitarian processing system.
From the 1980's through the 2000's, the Border Patrol
routinely apprehended upwards of 100,000 children a year.
Concerns about their treatment led to protections for migrant
children, which were expanded on a bipartisan basis in the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.
Congress declared that the goal of the TVPRA was:
``Preventing the trafficking of unaccompanied children found in
the United States by ensuring that they are not repatriated
into the hands of traffickers or abusive families and are well-
cared-for.''
This goal of ensuring that children are not deported into
abusive conditions got its first big test in 2014. Tens of
thousands of unaccompanied children and families came to our
borders and sought protection, making headlines and revealing
an ill-equipped and outdated humanitarian protection system.
So what happened to those children when the media spotlight
went away? Well, recently-published Department of Homeland
Security data reveals a key truth. Most won their cases. Since
2013, 57 percent of unaccompanied children with completed court
cases have been granted the right to stay. This vital fact
underscores the dire conditions from which children are
fleeing.
That brings us to today. After the pandemic hit, the Trump
administration began expelling all migrants under a policy
known as Title 42. Regardless of whether they were asylum
seekers or unaccompanied children and even if they had tested
negative for COVID-19, CBP expelled them to Mexico or deported
them to their home countries alone.
Despite Title 42, the number of people coming to the border
has been rising steadily since last spring. By September of
last year, border apprehensions were already at levels not seen
in 15 years, driven primarily by large numbers of single adults
being apprehended and expelled multiple times, as well as
people's inability to obtain safety while waiting at the
border.
The number of unaccompanied children also kept rising. In
total, nearly 16,000 unaccompanied children were expelled under
Title 42 before a judge blocked the practice last November as
illegal. By December, shelters for unaccompanied children were
already at 67 percent capacity.
So when the steady increases accelerated in January, all
remaining bed space quickly filled up and a bottleneck formed
at the border, leading to unacceptably high numbers of children
locked in overcrowded Border Patrol cells for days or weeks at
a time, just as we saw in 2014 and 2019.
In response, the Biden administration began standing up a
network of emergency shelters to clear the bottleneck. Over the
last month, this effort has paid off. The number of children in
Border Patrol custody has dropped 80 percent since late March,
and as of this morning, the average time in Border Patrol
custody for unaccompanied children is below 48 hours.
However, unlicensed emergency influx shelters must not
become the new norm. Migrant children belong in the care of
family and loved ones, not the Government, which is why the
focus now is on getting children out of shelters more quickly.
Thankfully, here as well, the Biden administration's efforts
have begun to pay off. Last Thursday, for the first time since
reporting began, more children left U.S. custody than entered
it.
Despite claims to the contrary, the U.S. border is not
open. The ports of entry remain closed to those seeking asylum,
and more than 40,000 families have been expelled back to Mexico
since January. Some of those parents, faced with the dangers of
waiting in Mexico and the impossibility of returning to the
violence they fled, have made the agonizing decision to send
their children across the border alone. These self-separations
will undoubtedly continue until the Biden administration ends
Title 42.
Today, we are seeing once again how decades of deterrence-
based policies have not worked. The primary goal moving forward
should not be reducing numbers. Instead, it should be to build
a fair, efficient, and, above all, safe system for those
seeking our help, whether single adults, families, or
unaccompanied children.
We have been here before and we will be here again unless
we invest in a robust humanitarian protection system, one which
can respond flexibly to extraordinary migration events. The
American Immigration Council looks forward to helping work with
the committee on these solutions, and thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reichlin-Melnick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Policy Counsel, American
Immigration Council
April 27, 2021
Chairman Thompson, Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member Higgins, and
distinguished Members of the committee and subcommittee: My name is
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick and I serve as the policy counsel for the
American Immigration Council, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to
the belief that immigrants are part of our National fabric and to
ensuring that the United States provides a fair process for all
immigrants, including those who are seeking protection at the border.
The Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks
about and acts toward immigrants and immigration and by working toward
a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those
in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that
immigrants bring.
The Council has long brought attention to ways in which the
Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'') has responded to migrants at
the border--including children--through research, advocacy, and
litigation. In 2015, we helped bring a successful lawsuit against the
Border Patrol's Tucson Sector challenging unconstitutional conditions
of confinement for adults and children,\1\ and we are currently suing
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') for its unlawful policy of
turning away asylum seekers, including unaccompanied children, at ports
of entry, in part through a practice known as ``metering.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Immigration Council, ``Challenging Unconstitutional
Conditions in CBP Detention Facilities,'' https://bit.ly/2PhdT0z.
\2\ American Immigration Council, ``Challenging Customs and Border
Protection's Unlawful Practice of Turning Away Asylum Seekers,''
https://bit.ly/32Eo4z5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am grateful for the opportunity to be here today to help provide
some historical perspective on the current situation at the border and
the ways in which we got here. I want to begin with the bipartisan
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.
Included in that law was an amendment that increased protections
for unaccompanied children--distinct from children apprehended with
their legal guardians--from non-contiguous countries, providing among
other things a right to a hearing in immigration court. The amendment
was put forward by a bipartisan group of Senators and passed through
the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 17-2 vote. Congress declared that
the purpose of the provision was ``Preventing the trafficking of
unaccompanied [noncitizen] children found in the United States by
ensuring that they are not repatriated into the hands of traffickers or
abusive families and are well cared for.''\3\ In making that change,
the TVPRA recognized that our duty as a Nation was to ensure that we
did not cause more harm to children through repatriation and
deportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ House Report 101-430, ``William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007,'' at 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TVPRA was not the first attempt to respond to the treatment of
children at the border. In the 1990's and through the early 2000's, the
Border Patrol routinely apprehended around 100,000 children a year,
primarily from Mexico (see Figure 1). Concerns about their treatment
led to the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000,
which first codified heightened protections for unaccompanied children,
including access to Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. Similar concerns
about the treatment of children in the custody of the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service led Congress to define the term
``unaccompanied alien child'' in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and
transfer care of those children to the Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (``ORR'').
Figure 1: Apprehensions of Children and Adults, fiscal year 2001-
2021\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Customs and Border Protection, Stats and Summaries, Sector
Profiles fiscal year 2000 to 2019, available at https://www.cbp.gov/
newsroom/media-resources/stats?title=Border+Patrol; Customs and Border
Protection, ``Southwest Land Border Encounters,'' https://www.cbp.gov/
newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters. Estimates of the
number of children apprehended in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 are
generated by first applying a .518 multiplier to family unit
apprehensions (the multiplier for fiscal year 2019) and then adding
unaccompanied children apprehensions.
Source.-- U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
In 2014, the United States first experienced a significant increase
in unaccompanied children and asylum-seeking families at the border,
with 68,541 unaccompanied children taken into Border Patrol custody
that fiscal year. The Obama administration responded to this in ways we
are familiar with today: Emergency influx shelters for unaccompanied
children and crackdowns on asylum-seeking families.
Advocates documented severely inadequate conditions of confinement
in Border Patrol facilities designed primarily for single adults from
Mexico. These conditions included children and adults being forced to
sleep on cold concrete benches in overcrowded jail cells.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Human Rights Watch, ``In the Freezer: Abusive Conditions
for Women and Children in US Immigration Holding Cells,'' February 28,
2018, https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/02/28/freezer/abusive-conditions-
women-and-children-us-immigration-holding-cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 revealed that the U.S. Government has severe deficiencies in
its ability to process unaccompanied children safely and efficiently at
the border. But despite the opportunity to use 2014 as a lesson, the
Government instead doubled down on deterrence-based policies for asylum
seekers and failed to adequately prepare for the arrival of more
unaccompanied children.
This cycle has repeated itself several times since then, including
in 2016 and 2019. More unaccompanied children and families come to the
border, Border Patrol is caught off guard, ORR is forced to stand up
emergency influx shelters, and politicians rattle sabers. Then
inevitably the spike ends, apprehensions go back down, and we continue
to avoid the difficult work of finding permanent solutions to the
deficiencies in the U.S. humanitarian protection system.
But even when the media spotlight on unaccompanied children goes
away, the children themselves continue to go through their immigration
cases. Recent data from the DHS Office of Immigrant Statistics
published in December revealed an incredibly important fact:
Unaccompanied children generally win their cases. When considering all
non-Mexican unaccompanied children who have arrived at the border since
2013, 57 percent of those whose cases were completed by mid-2020 were
given permission to remain in the United States.\6\ This vital fact
underscores the dire conditions from which children are fleeing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration
Statistics, ``Enforcement Lifecycle Reports,'' https://www.dhs.gov/
immigration-statistics/special-reports/enforcement-lifecycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2020, after the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the Trump administration
put in place what has become known as the Title 42 policy. Under Title
42, the Border Patrol began expelling all migrants arriving at the
border asserting National security concerns based on public health,
regardless of whether they were families seeking asylum or
unaccompanied children--or indeed whether or not they were infected
with COVID-19. Unaccompanied children could not be expelled to Mexico
and were instead put on planes and deported to their home countries,
often after they had tested negative for COVID-19, a prerequisite for
deportation to some countries.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Dara Lind and Lomi Kriel, ``ICE Is Making Sure Migrant Kids
Don't Have COVID-19--Then Expelling Them to `Prevent the Spread' of
COVID-19,'' ProPublica, August 10, 2020, https://www.propublica.org/
article/ice-is-making-sure-migrant-kids-dont-have-covid-19-then-
expelling-them-to-prevent-the-spread-of-covid-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 13,000 unaccompanied children were expelled under Title
42 before November 18, 2020, when a Federal judge ruled that the
practice was illegal.\8\ On January 29, after a Federal appeals court
briefly put that decision on hold, the Biden administration chose not
to resume expelling unaccompanied children and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (``CDC'') issued an order formally exempting
them from Title 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Hamed Aleaziz, ``Border Officials Turned Away Unaccompanied
Immigrant Children More Than 13,000 Times Under Trump's Pandemic
Policy,'' Buzzfeed News, October 28, 2020, https://
www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/border-officials-turned-away-
unaccompanied-immigrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite Title 42, the number of people coming to the border,
including unaccompanied children, began rising steadily after lockdowns
lifted across Mexico and Central America in May 2020. This rise
followed shocks to the region caused by severe economic instability due
to the pandemic, escalating violence in places like the Mexican states
of Michoacan and Guerrero, devastation caused by Hurricanes Eta and
Iota, and long-term problems such as corruption, violence, impunity,
and climate change.
Beginning in spring 2020, the number of single adults coming to the
border seeking to enter the United States began rising rapidly, from a
low of 14,754 in April 2020 to 62,041 in December 2020. Under Title 42,
single adults would be rapidly processed at the border and sent right
back to Mexico where they could try to cross again the same day. The
rate at which people crossed the border multiple times rose from 7
percent in March 2020 to 40 percent by October 2020. This increase in
repeat attempts was in part driven by people's inability to obtain
safety while waiting at the border for the United States to begin
accepting asylum requests again, and the growing backlog of people
waiting for months, if not years, for the resumption of humanitarian
processing at the border.
By September 2020, border apprehensions had already reached levels
for a September not seen since 2006 (see Figure 3). This trend
continued through the fall, and October 2020, November 2020, and
December 2020 were all the highest apprehension totals for those months
since 2006.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Customs and Border Protection, ``U.S. Border Patrol Monthly
Apprehensions (Fiscal Year 2000--Fiscal Year 2019),'' https://
www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2020-Jan/
U.S.%20Border%20Patrol%20Monthly%20Apprehensions%20%28FY%202000%20%20FY%
- 202019%29_1.pdf
By December 2020, apprehensions of unaccompanied children had hit
levels last seen in fall 2019 and ORR was already at 67 percent
capacity.\10\ Despite the clear trends, the Trump administration made
no effort to expand shelter capacity until January 15, just 5 days
before President Biden took office.\11\ When significantly more
unaccompanied children and families began coming to the border in late
January, insufficient bed space in ORR shelters led once again--as it
did in 2014 and 2019--to high numbers of unaccompanied children stuck
in Border Patrol custody.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Dara Lind, `` `No Good Choices': HHS Is Cutting Safety Corners
to Move Migrant Kids Out of Overcrowded Facilities,'' ProPublica, April
1, 2021, https://www.propublica.org/article/no-good-choices-hhs-is-
cutting-safety-corners-to-move-migrant-kids-out-of-overcrowded-
facilities.
\11\ Julia Ainsley, Jacob Soboroff, and Laura Strickler, ``
`Sitting on their hands': Biden transition officials say Trump
officials delayed action on child migrant surge,'' NBC News, March 24,
2021, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/sitting-their-hands-
biden-transition-officials-say-trump-officials-delayed-n1261934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increase in unaccompanied children is also driven by policies
kept in place by the Biden administration, including the closure of
ports of entry to asylum seekers and the practice of expelling families
back to Mexico under Title 42. Some families forced back to Mexico have
made the agonizing decision to send their children across the border
alone,\12\ making the decision that Moses' mother made thousands of
years ago--better to send your child into the arms of a kind stranger
than risk death by remaining where they are now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Dianne Solis, ``Parents face decision to send migrant children
alone across border in rising numbers,'' Dallas Morning News, April 9,
2021, https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2021/04/09/parents-
face-decision-to-send-migrant-children-alone-across-border-in-rising-
numbers/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 3 months, the Biden administration has begun standing
up an extensive network of emergency influx shelters to reduce the
bottleneck in CBP custody. This effort has proven successful in
reducing the number of children held in CBP custody. Over the last
month, the number of unaccompanied children in CBP custody has dropped
from a high of 5,767 on March 28 to a low of 1,741 on April 22 (see
Figure 4).
While influx shelters are necessary given the current situation at
the border, we must not accept them as a new norm. Emergency influx
shelters are exempt from State licensing requirements and there have
been prior reports of abuse carried out by insufficiently vetted influx
shelter staff.\13\ Given the concerns raised about conditions in these
shelters, ORR should ensure that no child is held in an influx center
for longer than the absolute minimum amount of time required to place
the child with a sponsor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Monique O. Madan, ``Sex abuse claims revealed at Homestead
shelter, where staff was not vetted for child abuse,'' Miami Herald,
July 15, 2020, https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/
article244244402.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data also suggests that we have already hit at least a temporary
peak in the arrival of unaccompanied children. Despite predictions that
the number of unaccompanied children encountered at the border would
continue rising in April,\14\ current data suggests a drop in
unaccompanied children of roughly 10-15 percent from March to
April.\15\ This will hopefully give the Biden administration breathing
room to begin the long-overdue process of restoring access to
humanitarian protections at the border for all, not just unaccompanied
children, and ensuring that asylum seekers are treated in a safe,
humane, and efficient manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Stef W. Knight, ``Scoop: Kids' border surge expected to last
7+ months,'' Axios, March 28, 2021, https://www.axios.com/border-
crisis-record-number-migrant-kids-89cd0b23-a588-4f01-9547-
d6f04b262542.html.
\15\ Nick Miroff, ``Border crossings leveling off but remain near
20-year high, preliminary April data shows,'' Washington Post, April
23, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mexico-border-
crossings-april/2021/04/23/31206e82-a459-11eb-8a6d-
f1b55f463112_story.html (``About 550 teens and children have been
crossing the border without parents each day in recent weeks, data
show, down 10 to 15 percent from late March.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite claims to the contrary, the U.S. border is not open. Even
those seeking asylum at ports of entry are turned away nearly
universally. Halfway through the fiscal year, just 945 unaccompanied
children have been processed at ports of entry across the U.S.-Mexico
border, compared to 4,614 in the entire fiscal year 2019 and 8,624 in
the entire fiscal year 2018. CBP claims these restrictions on
processing asylum seekers at ports of entry are necessary to protect
the Nation from COVID-19. But while restrictions on non-essential
travel remain in place at ports of entry, nearly 290,000 people cross
the border every day from Mexico, with no testing requirements in
place.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Department of Transportation, Monthly Border Crossing Data,
https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-products-and-data/border-
crossing-data/border-crossingentry-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because asylum seekers waiting in Mexico cannot begin the asylum
process at the ports of entry, some have become desperate and chosen to
cross the border between ports of entry and hope they will be allowed
to seek protection that way. The Department of Homeland Security has
long been aware that its practice of choking off access to asylum at
ports of entry will drive some to cross improperly between ports of
entry,\17\ yet it continues to keep restrictions in place with no
apparent plan to process those who have been waiting according to
current Government policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., Department of Homeland Office of Inspector General,
``CBP Has Taken Steps to Limit Processing of Undocumented Aliens at
Ports of Entry,'' October 27, 2020, https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/
default/files/assets/2020-10/OIG-21-02-Oct20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we are seeing once again, a failure to make long-term
investments in our humanitarian protection systems has led to repeated
cycles of self-inflicted chaos. Decades of deterrence-based policies
have not produced anything beyond short-term declines in the number of
people seeking asylum, which reverse once push factors in people's home
countries become too high. If there is one thing we can learn from our
experience with asylum seekers and unaccompanied children in recent
years, it is that the solution is not to turn families and children
away and send them back to harm in their home countries.
Solutions to the current situation at the border should not have
``reducing numbers'' as their primary goal, but instead to ensure the
creation of a unified humanitarian approach for all groups--whether
single adults, families, or children--so that asylum seekers can access
protection without falling into the hands of the cartels or being
treated like security threats by CBP. Some steps toward that end
include:
Building a new border infrastructure that allows for the
efficient and humane processing of children that is flexible
enough to address extraordinary migration events.
Stop blocking access to asylum at ports of entry through
metering, which drives migrants, including unaccompanied
children, into the hands of the cartels.
Embed ORR staff into every step of the border processing
system, allowing them to begin the sponsorship process for
unaccompanied children immediately after apprehension and
process non-parental relatives such as grandparents as sponsors
immediately, avoiding family separations.
Expand access to licensed child welfare workers at the
border.
Ensure that no child goes through the immigration court
process without a lawyer.
The American Immigration Council looks forward to working with the
committee on these solutions.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you for your testimony.
With that, I would now move to recognize Mayor Robert
Garcia to summarize his statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GARCIA, MAYOR, CITY OF LONG BEACH, LONG
BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Garcia. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking
Member Higgins, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee.
My name is Robert Garcia. I am the mayor of Long Beach,
California, and I am here today to address the subcommittee
about our city's support of what is really a humanitarian
mission, and that is establishing a Federal migrant shelter
here at the Long Beach Convention Center.
Now, Long Beach is approximately home to about half a
million people of all backgrounds. We are in southern
California, and we have a rich history of welcoming immigrants
from around the world, in particular Cambodian refugees that
fled persecution.
Now, my personal history is also one of an immigrant. I
came to this country when I was 5 years old from Peru and under
different circumstances, but still poor and without many
services. I became a U.S. citizen when I was 21. It was the
proudest day of my life. So I come to the subcommittee with the
lived experience of an immigrant also seeking a better life.
Now, the Long Beach Convention Center is currently set up
to host a total of a thousand migrant children at any time from
5 to 17. I want to be very clear, these facilities should be
temporary and the goal should be quick family reunification.
Now, the city's role in this humanitarian effort is to
provide the facility and to connect HHS with local service
providers while HHS operates the site. The goal is quick family
reunification and our temporary shelter is through August 2,
2021.
Now, every child that comes to the Long Beach facility is
provided with the best of care. HHS is very dedicated to this.
These children are welcomed. We are grateful that they are
shown kindness, similar to other immigrants and even myself
when I came to the United States, from many people around the
community.
These children are provided 3 meals a day with snacks
prepared by our convention center staff. Classrooms are set up.
They get education for multiple hours a day from folks from
around the community and the surrounding area.
Now, the Long Beach facility also offers outdoor space and
activities for children to enjoy. There are indoor recreational
activities and outdoor, including books, video games, and
movies.
Important services are being provided by HHS and partner
agencies to every child, most importantly medical service. UCLA
Medical Center actually has a full-size clinic with diagnostic
and immediate care that is provided. The utmost care to each
child's needs is being met within the center.
In addition, there are other services: Social workers,
mental health care, legal representation, and resources to
manage their needs. We have tried to pair also our HHS partners
with local organizations to help in this endeavor to make the
Long Beach shelter as much of a success as possible.
Now, it is important enough that these children have come
from the border. Most arrive alone without parents or family,
and bringing them to shelters like ours is certainly more
humane than leaving them at the border.
Now, HHS is focused on quick family reunification. It is
important to note that temporary sites like the Long Beach
Convention Center are necessitated by this humanitarian
mission, but these sites should not replace immigration
reforms.
Now, it breaks my heart that we have an immigration system
that is broken. It has been decades since we have had any type
of immigration reform, and strong immigration reform that is an
investment to our neighbors, humanitarian missions, and
diplomacy are needed to address current migration of children
and others.
Now, central to any immigration reform effort, as we all
know, must be a clear and fair pathway for citizenship for all
those that are undocumented in this country. That includes
support for Dreamers and those in the military. They should go
to the front of the line. A strong guest worker program that
must be developed with support of our neighboring countries. We
must provide additional aid and support to Mexico and Central
American countries.
Now, these reforms are not only necessary but would be
transformational to our economy, National security, and
millions of families. But we must also expand resources for
asylum seekers, so the unaccompanied children at the border
have access to legal counsel, interpretation, and other
critical services.
We should be looking at rescinding Title 42 and fully
restoring access to asylum at our borders. We must ensure that
children are not held at border facilities, which, honestly,
are no place for children. We need to care for children in
facilities that are scaled to meet their needs, and we must
partner with local agencies on the ground to help get resources
as fast as possible to these children.
Now, our top priority should be to address the underlying
reasons why these temporary facilities are needed in the first
place. With additional resources and immigration reform
efforts, we can prevent the need for these types of shelters,
period.
Now, I want to thank you for welcoming me to address the
subcommittee. We are grateful to be able to help in this
humanitarian mission, and I look forward to any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Garcia
April 27, 2021
Good afternoon Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member Higgins, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee.
My name is Robert Garcia, and I am the mayor of Long Beach,
California. I am here today to address the subcommittee about our city
supporting what really is a humanitarian mission--helping to establish
a Federal migrant children emergency shelter at the Long Beach
Convention Center.
Long Beach is home to approximately half a million people of all
backgrounds. Located in Southern Los Angeles County, our city has a
rich history of welcoming immigrants and refugees from around the
world. In particular, refugees from Cambodia that fled persecution are
an important part of our community.
My personal history is also one of an immigrant. I came to this
country from Peru when I was 5 years old. I came under different
circumstances than the children we are hosting, but still poor and
without many services. I became an American citizen when I was 21 years
old, and it was the proudest day of my life. I come to this
subcommittee hearing today with the lived experience of an immigrant
seeking a better life and the American dream.
The Long Beach Convention Center is currently set up to host a
total of 1,000 migrant children at any given time, ranging from ages 5
to 17. I want to be very clear that these facilities should be
temporary and that the top goal needs to be quick family reunification.
This partnership with HHS was approved unanimously by the Long Beach
City Council because our city believes it was the right and
compassionate thing to do. The city's role in this humanitarian effort
is to provide the facility and to connect HHS with local service
providers, while HHS operates the site. The mission of the facility is
quick family reunification, using the space temporarily through August
2, 2021.
Every child that comes to the Long Beach facility is provided with
the best of care. It's very important to me that these children are
welcomed and cared for in every way--much like those who showed my
family and me kindness when we came to the United States.
They are provided with 3 meals a day and snacks prepared by our
convention center catering staff. Multiple classrooms are set up, and
every child is provided with hours of class time a day, with teachers
from Long Beach and the surrounding area.
The Long Beach facility also offers outdoor space and activities
for children to enjoy. In addition, there are indoor recreational
activities, including books, video and board games, and movies.
Important services are being provided by HHS and partner agencies
to every child--most importantly, medical service. In partnership with
UCLA medical center, the Long Beach site has a full-size clinic where
diagnostic and immediate care is provided. The utmost care is being
taken to look after each child's medical needs to ensure their safety
and the safety of those around them. This is in addition to other
services, including social workers, mental health care, legal
representation and resources to manage their needs.
We have paired the Federal Government in Long Beach with local
organizations and providers to help in this endeavor. This is a whole-
of-Long-Beach approach to make this shelter a success.
These children have come directly from the border. Most arrive
alone without parents or family. Bringing them to shelters like ours is
a more humane approach to caring for children than keeping them at the
border. HHS is focused on quick family reunification. Temporary sites
like the Long Beach Convention Center are necessitated by this
humanitarian mission, but we must ensure that these sites do not
replace lasting immigration reforms. These sites should not become the
norm.
It breaks my heart that we have an immigration system today that is
broken. It's been decades since we've had any kind of immigration
reform. Strong immigration reform, investment in our neighbors,
humanitarian missions, and diplomacy are needed to address the current
migration of children and others.
Central to any immigration reform effort needs to be a clear and
fair pathway to citizenship for those who are undocumented in our
country.
DREAMERS and those who have served in the military should go to the
front of the line. And a strong guest worker program must be developed
with input and support from neighboring countries. We must also provide
additional aid and support to Mexico and Central American countries.
These reforms are not only necessary but would be transformational for
our economy, National security, and millions of families.
We must also expand resources for asylum seekers, so that
unaccompanied children arriving at the border have access to counsel,
interpretation, and other critical services. We should be looking at
rescinding Title 42 and fully restoring access to asylum at our
borders. We must ensure children are not held at border facilities,
which are no place for children. We need to care for children in
facilities that are scaled to meet their needs. And we must work with
HHS and local partners to identify sponsors and resources for these
children as fast as possible.
Our top priority should be to address the underlying reasons why
these temporary facilities are needed in the first place. With
additional resources and immigration reform efforts, we can prevent the
need for emergency intake sites period.
Thank you for welcoming me today to address this subcommittee. I
look forward to your questions.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you for your testimony, Mayor Garcia.
Much appreciated.
Now we will move on to our next witness. I would like to
recognize Ms. Podkul to summarize her statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER PODKUL, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY AND
ADVOCACY, KIDS IN NEED OF DEFENSE (KIND)
Ms. Podkul. Thank you, Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member
Higgins, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. My name
is Jennifer Podkul. I am the vice president of policy and
advocacy at Kids in Need of Defense. KIND is a preeminent U.S.-
based non-Governmental organization devoted to protection of
unaccompanied and separated children.
KIND envisions a world in which every unaccompanied child
on the move has acces to legal counsel and has their rights and
well-being protected as they migrate alone in search of safety.
Since its inception, KIND has received referrals for more than
21,000 cases and now serves over 5,000 children annually.
I am grateful the subcommittee is holding today's hearing
to explore the ways we can transform our protection system into
one that fully upholds children's rights and well-being as they
migrate alone in search of safety. There have been high numbers
of children, both unaccompanied as well as those traveling with
their parents or legal guardians, coming to our border asking
for protection for almost a decade. This has been due to the
perpetually high levels of violence, including sexual and
gender-based violence, abuse, and impunity, that have
devastated many countries in Central America. These dangers
have only been exacerbated by the COVID pandemic and 2 recent
devastating hurricanes.
Despite many attempts by prior administrations to deter
kids from making the journey and seeking protection in the
United States, they have continued to flee here. This is
because you can't deter away a refugee situation.
Not only have the drivers of migration worsened, but the
use of Title 42 authority against children, in violation of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, created an
artificial build-up of kids languishing in Northern Mexico, who
had no choice but to request protection again. Thousands of
children were simply told the United States was closed for
business and then they were summarily dumped on the other side
of the border, with no concern for their safety, exposing them
to a heightened risk of trafficking or other grave harm.
For example, 3 children between the ages of 3 and 9 were
traveling with their mother to the U.S.-Mexico border.
Tragically, the mother died. When the children were orphaned,
they were taken in by the taxi driver who drove the mother to
the hospital. They lived with this stranger until they were
finally allowed to present to U.S. officials.
Each child asking for protection at the border has a story.
Too many have suffered this kind of unimaginable trauma which
has brought them to our doorstep.
The Biden administration has already made important strides
in restoring access to protection and due process for
unaccompanied children. They have put policies in place to
expedite reunification so children do not needlessly languish
in Government custody, such as eliminating the information-
sharing agreement between DHS and HHS and streamlining sponsor
requirements. They are restarting the Central American Minors
Program, to allow children to apply for protection closer to
their country of origin so that some may not even have to make
the dangerous journey. Finally, they have made a commitment to
investing in sending countries to finally address the root
causes of migration so that children never have to leave their
homes.
These initial commitments will go a long way. However, we
need systematic change that will ensure we are not here time
and again having to scramble to put children in unlicensed,
make-shift facilities, and to make sure children do not have to
wait years for the resolution of their applications for
humanitarian aid.
We need to establish a fundamentally humanitarian reception
model at the border that includes CBP hiring child welfare
professionals to screen and care for children, and have an HHS
staff collocated at the reception centers to expedite the
transfer of children to licensed facilities and expedite family
reunifications.
ORR must move away from running influx facilities and
instead expand capacity in family-based and small-scale
shelters that can be more responsive to migration trends.
Finally, we need to ensure children's cases are considered
fairly and efficiently and that a child always has an attorney
to support them through the complex process. We all win when we
do right by these kids.
Let me just close with a quote from a KIND client who
joined the U.S. Marines after winning his asylum case. He said:
I will always be deeply grateful for those who helped me along
the way. I am only here now because of them, and I pledge to
help others as this country has helped me. I will defend the
values of freedom, liberty, and justice for all as only one who
has been denied those fundamental rights can.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Podkul follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jennifer Podkul
April 27, 2021
Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member Higgins, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the way forward
to a humanitarian protection system that safeguards unaccompanied
children throughout their migration journey.
My name is Jennifer Podkul, and I serve as vice president of policy
and advocacy for Kids in Need of Defense (KIND). Kids in Need of
Defense (KIND) is the preeminent U.S.-based non-Governmental
organization devoted to protection of unaccompanied and separated
children. KIND envisions a world in which every unaccompanied child on
the move has access to legal counsel and has their rights and well-
being protected as they migrate alone in search of safety. In 2008,
KIND was founded by the Microsoft Corporation and UNHCR Special Envoy
Angelina Jolie to address the gap in legal services for unaccompanied
minors. KIND now has offices across the United States and in Mexico
that provide unaccompanied children with holistic care that includes
legal assistance and social services. Through strategic partnerships,
we provide pro bono legal representation for refugee and migrant
children across the country. Since its inception, KIND has received
referrals for more than 21,000 cases and now serves over 5,000 children
annually in partnership with nearly 700 law firm, corporate, law
school, and bar association partners. In addition, through our
comprehensive social services programming, KIND complements its legal
efforts by bringing a truly holistic approach to protecting children
after their arrival in the United States. We have connected thousands
of children--and their caretakers--with essential medical care, mental
health care, educational opportunities, and crisis intervention to
ensure their safety and well-being.
Beyond U.S. borders, KIND's Mexico-based offices and its
programming in Central America works with partners on the ground to
address the root causes of migration, protect children during
migration, and connect repatriated children to essential services.
Through its European Initiative, KIND and partners in Belgium, France,
Greece, Ireland, and the United Kingdom work to ensure access to high-
quality pro bono legal assistance for unaccompanied children in Europe.
Each of these efforts informs KIND's robust State, National, and
international advocacy and public education work to champion policies
and laws that protect unaccompanied children on the move no matter
where they are in their migration journey.
KIND's experience yields a unique vantage into the challenges
facing the large numbers of unaccompanied children currently seeking
protection in the United States. It is important to underscore that
these children are one of the world's most vulnerable groups. Without a
parent or legal guardian, they have fled hundreds or thousands of miles
to the United States to escape dangers including severe violence,
abuse, and human trafficking. KIND has observed how increases in
arrivals of unaccompanied children during prior administrations brought
into relief the need for fundamental reforms that would ensure--both
during and outside of influx periods--the safety and well-being of
those children along with the operational efficacy of the Government
agencies charged with their fair and humane treatment. Unfortunately,
many of those reforms have gone unadopted. Today's hearing presents an
opportunity to address how the Biden administration and this Congress
can chart a different course, and by doing so, transform our protection
system into one that fully upholds children's rights and well-being as
they migrate alone in search of safety.
recent increase in unaccompanied children seeking protection at the
u.s. southern border
Over the past decade, significantly increased numbers of
unaccompanied children have fled to the United States in pursuit of
humanitarian protection. In fiscal year 2014, CBP encountered 59,692
unaccompanied children at the U.S. Southern Border.\1\ That figure
climbed to 72,875 in fiscal year 2019 \2\--a 1-year record. More
recently, encounters of unaccompanied children began rising in April
2020, then continued into the current year.\3\ In March 2021, over
18,500 unaccompanied children were encountered at the U.S. Southern
Border--the highest total of any month.\4\ At present, unaccompanied
children continue to request protection at the U.S. Southern Border on
a large scale, though in recent weeks arrivals have declined.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Congressional Research Service, ``Unaccompanied Alien
Children: An Overview'' (Oct. 9, 2019); https://fas.org/sgp/crs/
homesec/R43599.pdf.
\2\ Id.
\3\ American Immigration Council, ``Facts About the Current
Situation at the Border'' (Mar. 23, 2021); https://
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/facts-about-current-situation-
border.
\4\ Julia Ainsley ``Record number of unaccompanied children crossed
the border in March'' NBC News (Apr. 2, 2021); https://www.nbcnews.com/
politics/immigration/record-number-unaccompanied-children-crossed-
border-march-n1262901.
\5\ Nick Miroff, ``Border crossings leveling off but remain near
20-year high, preliminary April data shows'' Washington Post (Apr. 23,
2021); https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mexico-border-crossings-
april/2021/04/23/31206e82-a459-11eb-8a6d-f1b55f463112_story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in the past, the high number of unaccompanied children currently
seeking humanitarian protection reflects a host of intersecting
factors. Chief among them is the on-going humanitarian crisis in the
northern Central American nations of El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras: The countries of origin of most unaccompanied children
arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. Wide-spread gang violence; sexual-
and gender-based violence; corruption; poverty; natural disasters; and
other dangers plague the region.\6\ In key respects, the COVID-19
pandemic and the devastation caused by Hurricanes Iota and Eota
intensified these perils.\7\ As a consequence, many children have no
choice but to escape their countries of origin and seek safety abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Paula Dupraz-Dobias; ``No easy solutions for tackling the
Central American roots of the migration crisis'' The New Humanitarian
(Apr. 21, 2021); https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2021/4/21/
tackling-root-causes-of-migration-crisis-in-central-america.
\7\ Nicole Narea, ``Migrants are heading north because Central
America never recovered from last year's hurricanes'' Vox (Mar. 22,
2021); https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/3/22/22335816/
border-crisis-migrant-hurricane-eta-iota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than strengthen foreign assistance to the region to address
these root causes of forced child migration, the Trump administration
reduced that aid.\8\ It also weakened or dismantled in-region
protection mechanisms, like the Central American Minors Refugee/Parole
(CAM) program,\9\ that enabled certain vulnerable children to relocate
to safety without a dangerous trek north. These and other actions only
heightened the forces compelling children to flee to the United States
for protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Lesley Wroughton, Patricia Zengerle, ``As promised, Trump
slashes aid to Central America over migrants'' Reuters (Jun. 17, 2019);
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump/as-promised-
trump-slashes-aid-to-central-america-over-migrants-idUSKCN1TI2C7.
\9\ David Nakamura, ``Trump administration ends Obama-era
protection program for Central American minors'' Washington Post (Aug.
16, 2017); https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-
administration-ends-obama-era-protection-program-for-central-american-
minors/2017/08/16/8101507e-82b6-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Trump administration policies created an artificial
bottleneck at the U.S.-Mexico border that has contributed to the
increase in unaccompanied child arrivals this year. In March 2020,
invoking a rarely used public health law under Title 42 of the U.S.
Code, the administration issued an order broadly suspending the entry
of protection seekers, including unaccompanied children, into the
United States.\10\ Though the Trump administration characterized this
``Title 42'' policy as a necessary public health response to the COVID-
19 pandemic, independent public health experts have made clear that it
lacks a valid public health rationale and that the U.S. Government is
fully capable of upholding our humanitarian laws and values while also
protecting public health and safety.\11\ Pursuant to Title 42, the
Trump administration ``expelled'' over 15,000 unaccompanied children
\12\--swiftly returning them to Mexico, Central America, and other
countries--and to the very dangers they fled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 85 Fed. Reg. 17060
(March 20, 2020).
\11\ Priscilla Alvarez, ``Health experts slam Trump
administration's use of public health law to close border'' CNN (May
18, 2021); https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/18/politics/border-closure-
public-health/index.html.
\12\ Camilo-Montoya-Galvez, Adam Verdugo, ``Nearly 19,000
unaccompanied children entered U.S. border custody in March--an all-
time high'' CBS News (Apr. 2, 2021); https://www.cbsnews.com/news/
immigration-unaccompanied-children-border-custody-record-19k/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These expulsions violated the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) by stripping children of vital
legal safeguards and ultimately any meaningful opportunity to seek
humanitarian relief.\13\ As a result, expelled children faced a
heightened risk of human trafficking, persecution, and other grave
harm--precisely the outcomes that the TVPRA was intended to prevent.
For instance, by eliminating screenings of these children at the border
for trafficking concerns, Title 42 meant that CBP failed to observe and
respond to any evidence that children were trafficked into the United
States for commercial sex or forced labor or would have faced return
into trafficking situations.\14\ Moreover, by abandoning the legal
definition of ``unaccompanied alien child'' provided for in the
Homeland Security Act \15\ in the course of expulsions, the Trump
administration incentivized the rapid return of children to Mexico
together with unscreened adults who could have posed a danger to them.
Expelled children were also deprived of intakes and assessments by
attorneys and social workers specially trained to identify protection
needs among this vulnerable population following their transfer to ORR
custody and release to sponsors. Far from deterring or disrupting human
trafficking, Title 42 increased the risk that children would face
exploitation and harm by unlawfully and callously disregarding anti-
trafficking safeguards codified by Congress.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ KIND Policy Brief, ``Sending Children Back to Danger,'' (Oct.
8, 2020); https://supportkind.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Updated-
Expulsions-at-US-MX-border-10.8.- 20.pdf.
\14\ Id.
\15\ Pub. L. 107-296.
\16\ KIND Policy Brief, ``Border Closure Exposing Children to
Heightened Risk of Trafficking and Exploitation'' (Apr. 28, 2020);
https://supportkind.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/UC-Expulsion-and-
Trafficking-5.19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the process, thousands of children expelled at the border were
left with no viable means of obtaining protection amid perilous
conditions exacerbated by the pandemic and natural disasters in the
region. Facing the same or worse dangers that initially compelled their
flight to the United States in search of safety, many of these children
had no other option but to request protection at the border once more
when the Biden administration exempted unaccompanied children from
Title 42,\17\ helping ensure that policies governing the treatment of
these children complied with Federal law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Camilo Montoya-Galvez, ``U.S. will not expel unaccompanied
migrant children under Trump-era policy now being reviewed'' CBS News
(Feb. 3, 2021); https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migrant-children-biden-
administration-will-not-expel-trump-policy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
current challenges at the u.s. southern border and in the orr shelter
system
Despite the 2014 and 2019 upturns in unaccompanied children seeking
protection at the U.S. Southern Border, previous administrations failed
to introduce changes necessary to ensure that the border and shelter
systems for unaccompanied children met those children's safety needs
and maintained operational efficacy, whether during or outside of
emergency situations. The large numbers of recently arrived children,
combined with a border model and ORR network long in need of
fundamental reform, have therefore presented significant challenges to
the welfare of those children and the functionality of those systems.
Over multiple administrations, for example, DHS has persisted in
upholding a predominantly ``law enforcement'' framework at the border--
rooted in policies of deterrence instead of protection--that neglects
the vulnerabilities of children, jeopardizes their safety, and
violates, rather than enforces, long-standing laws. Reflecting this
approach, DHS vests CBP law enforcement personnel, rather than child
welfare professionals, with responsibility for overseeing children's
care in CBP detention facilities and conducting sensitive protection
screenings of traumatized children, despite these personnel's lack of
expertise in trauma-informed interviewing and children's emotional,
physical, and developmental needs. This model has spawned perennial
violations of TVPRA requirements. In 2015, for example, the Government
Accountability Office documented extensive noncompliance by CBP agents
and officers with TVPRA screening protocols for unaccompanied children
from Mexico.\18\ Despite these systemic problems, DHS has failed to
fulfill Congress's directive in fiscal year 2021 appropriations report
language \19\ to hire specially-trained child welfare professionals at
all southern land CBP facilities who would perform children's
protection screenings and oversee their care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ GAO, ``Unaccompanied Alien Children: Actions Needed to Ensure
Children Receive Required Care in DHS Custody'' (Jul. 14, 2015);
https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671393.pdf.
\19\ H.R. Report 116-458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor has the Federal Government adopted reforms that would allow HHS
personnel with child welfare expertise to co-locate in CBP facilities.
Under this arrangement, those HHS staff could accelerate the sponsor
vetting process for unaccompanied children who arrive with trusted
caregivers. And for many years CBP has detained children in manifestly
unfit facilities characterized by substandard conditions that damage
their physical and psychological health and limit access to
counsel.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See, e.g., University of Chicago Law School--Global Human
Rights Clinic, et al, ``Neglect and Abuse of Unaccompanied Immigrant
Children by U.S. Customs and Border Protection'' (May 2018); https://
chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=-
ihrc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior administrations also failed to take up essential ORR reforms.
ORR has long relied on large-scale congregate care settings unsuitable
for vulnerable children, without sufficiently expanding capacity in
smaller-scale shelters and family-based care settings better aligned
with domestic child welfare laws, such as the bipartisan Families First
Prevention Services Act of 2018,\21\ and that serve children's best
interests. Not only that, but many ORR facilities have failed to
maintain proper conditions. On-going facility problems include the
incidence of sexual abuse of children by facility staff, inadequate
and/or misguided mental health treatment, and a lack of suitable
accommodations for particularly vulnerable children. Additionally,
under the Trump administration, ORR entered into an information-sharing
agreement with DHS \22\ that discouraged potential sponsors from coming
forward, delaying the release of unaccompanied children from ORR and
their reunification with loved ones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Enacted as part of Public Law (Pub. L.) 115-123.
\22\ KIND, A Timeline: How the Trump Administration is Rolling Back
Protections for Children (Jul. 2020); https://supportkind.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/A-Timeline_Updated-July-2020-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, DHS and ORR were poorly positioned to manage the
recent rise in arrivals of unaccompanied children at the U.S. Southern
Border. On March 27, CBP held 5,767 unaccompanied children in its
custody--the highest recorded total in the agency's history.\23\
Despite the TVPRA's requirement that DHS transfer unaccompanied
children into ORR custody within 72 hours, many of these children
languished in CBP detention facilities for well over 100 hours.\24\ CBP
law enforcement personnel, rather than child welfare professionals
trained in children's unique needs and challenges, have directed their
care and conducted their protection screenings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Prisclla Alvarez, ``Number of unaccompanied migrant children
in Customs and Border Protection custody falls 45 percent'' CNN (Apr.
12, 2021); https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/12/politics/border-migrant-
children/index.html.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children in ORR custody have also faced substantial challenges, as
has ORR itself. The capacity of ORR's network of licensed children's
shelters was already limited due to COVID-19 based occupancy
restrictions that many of these congregate care facilities have
operated under during the pandemic.\25\ The large numbers of arriving
children further strained that capacity. In response, ORR activated an
``influx facility'' in Carrizo Springs, Texas.\26\ ORR's on-line Policy
Guide defines an influx facility as ``a type of care provider facility
that opens temporarily to provide emergency shelter and services for
UAC during an influx or emergency'' and sets forth standards governing
such facilities' operations.\27\ Due partly to challenges in rapidly
standing up new infrastructure, ORR has since established a number of
emergency intake sites (EISs) where it is temporarily housing
unaccompanied children.\28\ The Policy Guide does not define EISs,
distinguish them from influx facilities, or identify minimum standards
or other policies associated with these sites. However, an April 2,
2021 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Fact Sheet
delineates program responsibilities relating to EISs, states that these
sites ``must provide basic standards of care to ensure the child's
physical safety, access to legal services information, and access to
emergency clinical services'' and acknowledges that, ``[d]ue to their
emergency nature, EIS may not be able to provide a full range of
services to UC . . . ''\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Priscilla Alvarez, ``Biden administration tells facilities for
migrant children to reopen to pre-pandemic levels'' (Mar. 5, 2021);
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/05/politics/immigration-border-crowding-
covid/index.html.
\26\ Department of Health and Human Services, ``Carrizo Springs
Influx Care Facility'' (Apr. 12, 2021); https://www.hhs.gov/programs/
social-services/unaccompanied-children/carrizo-springs-temporary-
influx-facility-update.html.
\27\ ORR, Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied:
Section 7; https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/policy-guidance/children-
entering-united-states-unaccompanied-section-7#7.2.
\28\ Joel Rose, ``Fewer Migrant Children Held In Border Detention
Facilities, But Challenges Remain'' (Apr. 15, 2021); NPR; https://
www.npr.org/2021/04/15/987615232/fewer-migrant-children-held-in-border-
detention-facilities-but-challenges-remain.
\29\ HHS, ``Fact Sheet: Unaccompanied Children (UC) Program'' (Apr.
2, 2021); https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/uac-program-fact-
sheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the administration works to expedite children's release from
emergency and licensed facilities, it will become even more critical
that ORR provides children with post-release services, include legal
representation and social services, to ensure due process, children's
awareness of immigration court processes and responsibilities, and the
safety and well-being of children in their sponsorship settings.
the way forward: improving care and treatment of unaccompanied children
In recent years, the Trump administration sought to address the
forced migration of unaccompanied children to the United States through
policies centered on cruelty, punishment, and deterrence. From
turnbacks at the border to the expulsion under Title 42 of more than
15,000 unaccompanied children \30\ without due process or required
protection screenings, this failed approach has only heightened the
vulnerability of children to trafficking and other harm. The way
forward will not be found in backward steps such as these that erode
critical safeguards developed through decades-long bipartisan
collaboration, but instead must be guided by the best interests,
safety, and protection of children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Camilo-Montoya-Galvez, Adam Verdugo, ``Nearly 19,000
unaccompanied children entered U.S. border custody in March--an all-
time high'' CBS News (Apr. 2, 2021); https://www.cbsnews.com/news/
immigration-unaccompanied-children-border-custody-record-19k/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Biden administration has already made important strides in
restoring access to protection and due process for unaccompanied
children. In February, the administration exempted unaccompanied
children from Title 42 expulsions while the policy is under review.\31\
This important policy change ensures that children will no longer be
rapidly expelled to the very dangers they fled and instead will be
processed consistent with vital anti-trafficking protections in the
TVPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Camilo Montoya-Galvez, U.S. will not expel unaccompanied
migrant children under Trump-era policy now being reviewed'' CBS News
(Feb. 3, 2021); https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migrant-children-biden-
administration-will-not-expel-trump-policy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration has also implemented a number of measures to
safely expedite the reunification of children with family members and
other sponsors who can care for them during their immigration
proceedings. These efforts include the important rescission of a 2018
information-sharing agreement between DHS and ORR that led to the use
of sponsors' information for immigration enforcement and deterred
family members from coming forward to care for unaccompanied
children.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ DHS, ``HHS and DHS Joint Statement on Termination of 2018
Agreement'' (Mar. 12, 2021); https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/03/12/hhs-
and-dhs-joint-statement-termination-2018-agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ample opportunities remain to improve the care and safety of
children in Government custody while simultaneously ensuring their safe
and prompt reunification with sponsors who can care for them throughout
their immigration proceedings. While many of these reforms can be
undertaken and bear results in the immediate term, others reflect
systemic changes that will require sustained commitment and cross-
agency collaboration to truly transform our immigration system into one
that prioritizes the best interests of children at every step of the
process. We include here recommendations for both immediate- and
longer-term measures, and stand ready to assist Congress and the
administration in efforts to advance the fair and appropriate treatment
of unaccompanied children.
A. Immediate-term reform measures
1. Hire child welfare professionals to oversee care of children in CBP
custody
For decades, children have been held at the border in CBP
facilities initially designed for single adults. These facilities are
wholly unsuited to children's needs and appropriate care and are
staffed by professionals trained in law enforcement, rather than the
development, welfare, and care of children. While broader reforms are
critical to ensure the humanitarian reception of children in child-
appropriate spaces, DHS can take immediate steps toward improving care
of children in Government custody by hiring licensed child welfare
professionals to oversee the care and screening of children in all CBP
facilities along the border. These professionals, who should be
licensed in social work and have requisite training and experience in
children's needs and development, cannot only make sure that children's
basic needs are provided for, but can also conduct screenings for
protection needs as required by the TVPRA. By assuming responsibility
for child care functions currently being performed by CBP officers,
child welfare professionals cannot only improve conditions for children
but ensure that CBP officers are able to dedicate their time to the law
enforcement functions for which they have received specialized
training.
Congress directed DHS to hire child welfare professionals at all
points along the Southern Border as part of both fiscal year 2020 and
fiscal year 2021 appropriations legislation.\33\ Yet DHS has failed to
implement this vital safeguard, sidelining both the well-being of
children and Congressional intent to improve conditions for them at the
Southern Border. Noncompliance with this directive directly undermines
DHS's ability to safely process the thousands of children currently in
CBP custody and must be immediately remedied through the hiring and
placement of appropriate child welfare staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ H.R. Report 116-180; H.R. Report 116-458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Co-locate DHS and HHS professionals in border facilities
Among the high numbers of unaccompanied children arriving at the
border are many children who traveled to the United States with family
members or caregivers such as aunt/uncles, grandparents, or adult
siblings who are not their parents or legal guardians. These children
meet the legal definition of an ``unaccompanied alien child,'' as
defined by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.\34\ Accordingly, they
must be afforded all the procedural protections accompanying this
status through the conclusion of their immigration proceedings. At the
same time, however, DHS and ORR can ensure that children do not face
prolonged custody in CBP or ORR facilities or unnecessary separation
from loving caregivers by immediately commencing the family
reunification process in CBP custody. Through the placement of HHS
Federal field specialists in CBP facilities, ORR could even consider
caregivers traveling with a child as potential sponsors and facilitate
the simultaneous release of the child and caregiver together. HHS staff
can also rapidly identify children with known vulnerabilities or
special needs and ensure their initial placement in facilities best
suited for their needs and similarly ensure that the process of
identifying potential sponsors for all unaccompanied children begins as
soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Pub. L. 107-296; William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act, Pub. L. No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044
(2008) (TVPRA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Ensure children's appropriate care in and prompt and safe release
from ORR facilities
Through a series of policies, the Biden administration has worked
to address bottlenecks and barriers to swiftly and safely reunifying
unaccompanied children in ORR custody with their families. These
efforts are beginning to demonstrate progress in achieving the safe
release of children from ORR as steadily high numbers of unaccompanied
children arrive from CBP custody. Additional efforts can help ensure
that reunifications continue apace and that ORR maintains sufficient
capacity to house and provide required services to unaccompanied
children.
A. Ramp up hiring of ORR case managers
ORR has recently streamlined sponsor vetting procedures to
eliminate requirements that delay release without a benefit to child
safety.\35\ While critical, these efforts will not be fully realized
without sufficient staff to ensure the implementation of policies on
the ground at ORR facilities. It is vital that ORR ensure it has
sufficient case managers throughout its network of facilities,
including at emergency intake and influx facilities to ensure
expeditious reunifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Nick Miroff, ``Biden administration spending $60 million
per week to shelter unaccompanied minors'' (Apr. 8, 2021); https://
www.washingtonpost.com/national/border-shelters-cost/2021/04/08/
c54eec3a-97bd-11eb-8e42-3906c09073f9_story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Establish standards and robust oversight and monitoring
of emergency intake facilities
Recently, ORR has created a host of ``emergency intake facilities''
for unaccompanied children amid high numbers of children arriving to
the United States.\36\ These facilities, which appear to differ from
ORR's licensed programs and influx facilities, must be held to
standards that ensure the safety and well-being of all children in
their care. We recommend that ORR establish and make transparent
standards for these facilities and conduct routine monitoring and
oversight to ensure compliance with them, while taking all measures to
ensure children can quickly be moved to licensed facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Joel Rose, ``Fewer Migrant Children Held In Border Detention
Facilities, But Challenges Remain'' (Apr. 15, 2021); NPR; https://
www.npr.org/2021/04/15/987615232/fewer-migrant-children-held-in-border-
detention-facilities-but-challenges-remain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Expand ORR's capacity of licensed placements
In tandem with efforts to expedite the release of children, ORR
must continue to prioritize the creation of capacity to care for
children in licensed, small-scale placements, rather than large,
congregate facilities. To date, ORR maintains licensed foster care beds
that are not currently in use due to criteria that limit placement of
children to those who have been determined to be eligible for legal
relief to remain in the United States. ORR should consider broadening
eligibility criteria for these licensed beds to maximize its ability to
care for children in the least restrictive and most appropriate
settings for them until they can be released to a sponsor.
Additionally, ORR must work with its existing network of foster
care providers to identify and activate additional beds that they may
have available for use, as well as conduct outreach to new foster care
providers with experience caring for children who may be interested in
serving unaccompanied children in ORR custody.
Naturally, the COVID-19 pandemic presents important considerations
for ORR as it manages facilities and works to implement public health
precautions to prevent transmission of the coronavirus. It is critical
that these measures, and any reductions in available bedspace, be based
on the latest and best public health information and guidance and that
they be developed in coordination with public health experts. ORR
should ensure that all licensed shelters ensure their compliance with
relevant public health precautions and continually reevaluate any
COVID-based occupancy restrictions if and as information changes.
D. Provide post-release services to all children released
from ORR
As ORR facilitates expedited releases of children from ORR custody
it will become increasingly important to ensure that all children are
provided with post-release legal and social services. Many
unaccompanied children have survived grave violence, abuse, or trauma,
and are uniquely vulnerable in the immigration system. This
vulnerability continues even after a child is released from ORR custody
and reunified with a sponsor, as children must navigate transitions in
living arrangements, language barriers, prior trauma, and immigration
proceedings in which they must present their legal case to remain in
the United States.
Post-release legal services can provide children with critical
information about their legal rights in the immigration system and
their responsibility to attend all court hearings, and also connect
children with screenings to evaluate their eligibility for legal
protection. These services are indispensable in orienting children to
the immigration system and are particularly important in the context of
expedited releases from ORR, as children may leave Government custody
before they have received legal orientation presentations, intakes, or
screenings. Post-release services also serve a protective function by
linking children with legal and social services professionals who can
assist them with needs and refer them to support services and
resources, from enrolling in school to working through trauma. Through
regular contact with children, post-release providers are able to
observe and interact with children, and in doing so, help ensure the
safety of a child's sponsor placement.
4. Rescind the Title 42 policy and ensure processing of all
unaccompanied children pursuant to the TVPRA
The Biden administration's exemption of unaccompanied children from
the unlawful Title 42 policy represents an important step forward in
ensuring that these children are afforded the legal protections
Congress created for them in the TVPRA to prevent their return to
trafficking or other harm. Currently, however, many unaccompanied
children are unable to avail themselves of these legally-required
safeguards as a result of COVID-related travel restrictions at ports of
entry.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ David Bier, ``Amid Crisis, Biden Admits 0.2 percent of Central
American Families & Kids Legally'' Cato Institute (Apr. 13, 2021);
https://www.cato.org/blog/amid-crisis-biden-admits-02-central-american-
families-kids-legally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Far from a mere administrative inconvenience, the denial of access
to ports of entry can result in turnbacks or expulsions of children who
have suffered life-threatening harm or force children to undertake more
dangerous routes to seek protection. In one tragic case, a mother
reached out to KIND for help in locating her child, who had gone
missing because the child believed they could only access protection
between ports of entry. The child was later found dead.
The safety of children and compliance with the TVPRA demand that
all unaccompanied children be afforded the opportunity to safely access
protection between and at ports of entry.
The administration must also immediately rescind the Title 42
policy in its entirety to ensure the safe processing of all protection
seekers at the U.S. border. Thousands of adults and families have been
expelled to countries in which their lives and safety are at risk under
Title 42 in recent months, with Black asylum seekers being
disproportionately affected by this unlawful policy.\38\ U.S. and
international asylum law do not permit the refoulement of protection
seekers, and public health experts have underscored that the Title 42
policy lacks a valid basis in public health.\39\ The Biden
administration must respond with due urgency to abandon and terminate
this unlawful measure and uphold the United States' long-standing
commitment to due process and to extending refuge to those fleeing
harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Melita Seibel, ``Title 42: The Cruel Trump Policy Continuing
Under Biden'' Human Rights First (Mar. 31, 2021); https://
www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/title-42-cruel-trump-policy-continuing-
under-biden.
\39\ ``Letter to Acting HHS Secretary Cochran and CDC Director
Walensky'' (Jan. 28, 2021); https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/
research/program-forced-migration-and-health/letter-acting-hhs-
secretary-cochran-and-cdc-director-walensky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longer-term measures
For decades, thousands of unaccompanied children have sought
protection at the U.S. Southern Border, fleeing persecution, abuse, and
other harms from which their countries cannot or would not protect
them. While critical progress has been made in advancing basic
protections for children through the TVPRA and the Flores Settlement
Agreement, broader policy efforts have long focused largely on measures
to deter the flight of children rather than addressing their protection
needs at their root. Border facilities similarly have failed to adapt
to the specific vulnerabilities and needs of the children, and instead
reflect law enforcement strategies and infrastructure designed
principally for adult populations. While immediately ensuring the
safety and well-being of all children currently in Government custody
is paramount, the administration must simultaneously prioritize broad-
based reforms that overhaul this outmoded policy and infrastructure
framework to usher in a system with child protection and welfare at its
very core. This includes not only providing for child-appropriate care
and access to protection for unaccompanied children in the United
States, but also fortifying protection systems and pathways for
children still in their countries of origin and on the move. We outline
here several recommendations for meaningfully transforming the current
system. While these changes will not happen overnight, efforts must
begin today.
A. Establish a fundamentally humanitarian reception model
for all children
Ushering a shift away from a law enforcement model to one that
treats migrant and refugee children as children first and foremost will
require dramatic changes to CBP facilities to create child-friendly
reception. It is critical that all facilities receiving children
provide for children's safety, be tailored to their emotional,
developmental, and physical needs, and treat children with humanity and
dignity. Appropriate staffing, including child welfare professionals,
pediatric-trained medical professionals, and co-located HHS specialists
are vitally important to oversee care that accords with standards,
relevant laws, and trauma-informed practices. Over the longer-term,
transforming the current system will require thinking in new ways about
how to deliver services and care to children.
B. Dramatically scale up ORR's capacity of family-based and
small-scale placements
Although ORR maintains a network of nearly 180 programs and
facilities, these placements are disproportionately in larger-scale
shelters. Best practices from the domestic child welfare system, as
reflected in the Federal Family First Prevention Services Act,\40\
underscore that family-based settings are most appropriate for
children, with facilities of 25 beds at the upper limit. To ensure
alignment with the domestic child welfare system and the best interests
of children, ORR must strategically plan for and rapidly expand its
capacity of licensed foster care placements. In addition to better
providing for children's unique needs, smaller-scale capacity can
enable ORR's nimble response to unexpected emergencies and influx
situations, reducing the need for reliance on institutional settings
that are both costly and ill-suited to the care of vulnerable children.
Through consistent and continuous outreach to and communication with
new families and providers, ORR can bring on-board new bedspace and
services and calibrate its capacity as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Enacted as part of Public Law (Pub. L.) 115-123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Address root causes and expand pathways to protection in
the region
Recognizing that deterrence measures are insufficient and
inappropriate to address the flight of children from harm, the Biden
administration has announced efforts to target the root causes of child
migration and requested significant funding to support this work.\41\
These efforts must involve the creation and expansion of refugee
processing and resettlement opportunities in the region as well as
targeted foreign aid and development assistance to civil society
organizations working with children and families. From KIND's work with
unaccompanied children throughout the region and in the United States,
we know that many children flee northern Central American countries in
search of protection from extreme gang violence and recruitment,
sexual- and gender-based violence, abuse, and other threats to their
lives and well-being. Aid must target these drivers of migration
through increased violence prevention programming, including
programming on gender-based violence, while strengthening the capacity
of National child welfare and protection systems throughout the region
to extend protection to children in need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See., e.g., Carrie Kahn, Franco Ordonez, ``Biden Aims to
Tackle Root Cause of Migrants Massing at U.S. Border'' NPR (Mar. 18,
2021); https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/978496031/biden-aims-to-tackle-
root-cause-of-migrants-massing-at-u-s-border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional measures must restore and create opportunities for
children and families to apply for refugee status and protection
without having to take dangerous journeys north. Recently, the Biden
administration announced the reopening of the Central American Minors
(CAM) program, which the Trump administration ended in 2017.\42\ CAM
enabled children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras with a
parent lawfully present in the United States to apply for refugee
resettlement while still in their country of origin. The previous
version of the program extended life-saving protection to many
children, but due to limited eligibility could not be accessed by many
children in search of safety. We applaud the Biden administration's
decision to restore the CAM program, and look forward to working with
the administration to improve CAM to ensure the greatest reach and
effectiveness.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Department of State, ``Restarting the Central American Minors
Program'' (Mar. 10, 2021); https://www.state.gov/restarting-the-
central-american-minors-program/.
\43\ For additional recommendations, please see KIND, ``Thwarted
Potential: The Need to Revive and Expand the Central American Minors
(CAM) Program As a Key Path to Protection for At-Risk Unaccompanied
Children,'' https://supportkind.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/Thwarted-
Potential_CAM-Report-FINAL-3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To this end, we recommend that the program be broadened to invite
applications from children with trusted relatives such as aunts,
uncles, or grandparents who can care for them, without regard to their
immigration status. Timely review and adjudication of applications is
similarly critical to ensure that children need not remain indefinitely
in dangerous conditions to secure U.S. protection. To maximize
participation in the program and outcomes for children, Federal
agencies should coordinate to make available a range of support
services for children applying for protection--from legal services and
language access to safe housing while they await consideration of their
applications.
Additional efforts should be undertaken to provide families with
opportunities to access refugee resettlement while still in-country.
The Protection Transfer Agreement (PTA), which has enabled the
resettlement of children and families at immediate risk, provides a
model for potential expansion.
D. Ensure that all unaccompanied children have attorneys
Despite their unique vulnerability in the immigration system and
legal provisions in the TVPRA providing for their access to counsel,
more than half of unaccompanied children lack an attorney to assist
them in navigating immigration proceedings with the highest of stakes
for their lives and safety.\44\ Government data illustrate the critical
difference legal representation can make in a child's immigration case.
From fiscal year 2018 through the first half of fiscal year 2019,
unaccompanied children represented by counsel were 70 times more likely
than unrepresented unaccompanied children to obtain legal relief.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ KIND Fact Sheet; https://supportkind.org/wp-content/uploads/
2019/12/KIND-Fact-Sheet-January-2020.pdf.
\45\ KIND calculated this figure based on Executive Office of
Immigration Refugee (EOIR) data published by the Congressional Research
Service in its report titled ``Unaccompanied Alien Children: An
Overview,'' p. 15 (Oct. 9, 2019); https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/
R43599.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While ORR currently provides financial support to a network of
nonprofit legal services providers to support legal representation for
unaccompanied children, need far exceeds current funding and capacity.
As numbers of unaccompanied children arriving to the United States
reach historic levels, this due process crisis will only expand without
sufficient support to ensure that no child faces immigration court
alone. To ensure the provision of legal orientations, screenings, and
legal assistance to the greatest number of children possible, it is
critical that additional funding be appropriated for post-release legal
services as part of fiscal year 2022 Labor, Health, and Human Services
appropriations legislation.
Additionally, KIND strongly supports legislative proposals that
would provide for Government-appointed counsel for all unaccompanied
children and dramatically improve the fairness of the current system.
conclusion
The challenges now facing unaccompanied children and the Government
agencies that engage with them are significant. But with the proper
resolve and policies, the United States can meet those challenges, and
in the process, transform our National and regional protection system
into one that fully upholds children's rights and well-being throughout
their journey to safety. Proper planning and reimagined reception will
ensure we are not having the same challenges every few years with the
orderly and humane reception of this vulnerable population. The
recommendations set forth in this statement light the way forward--KIND
urges the administration and Congress to seize it.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Ms. Podkul, for your testimony
today, and it is great to hear those stories.
I would now like to recognize our next witness, Ms. Ries,
to summarize her statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LORA RIES, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY
POLICY, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW FOR HOMELAND SECURITY, THE
HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Ms. Ries. Thank you, Chairwoman Barragan and Ranking Member
Higgins, for the opportunity to speak to you today about the
current border crisis. My name is Lora Ries, and I am a senior
research fellow for homeland security at The Heritage
Foundation. The views expressed here are my own and do not
reflect an institutional position for The Heritage Foundation
or its board of trustees.
We are witnessing record numbers of unaccompanied alien
children, or UACs, at our Southern Border. In March, nearly
19,000 UACs were encountered by CBP. In contrast, CBP
encountered only 741 UACs in April 2020. This staggering
increase has been driven by messaging and policy choices that
have endangered lives and knowingly enriched traffickers and
smugglers.
In February, border traffickers reportedly were making $14
million a day. Instead, the United States should have policies
that prevent illegal immigration and encourage lawful
immigration.
How did we get here? The 2000 Unaccompanied Alien Child
Protection Act. Its purpose was the permanent protection of
UACs. It offered them easier and expanded immigration benefits,
including prompt parole into the United States, taxpayer-funded
guardians ad litem and attorneys, Special Immigrant Juvenile
visas, an easier adjustment of status process, and exemption
from expedited removal. It was easy to predict that more
parents would send their children unaccompanied to the border
to take advantage of these benefits.
The bill ultimately passed in the 2008 Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act, or TVPRA. That bill states: To
prevent trafficking in persons, the United States shall ensure
that UACs in the United States are safely repatriated to their
country of nationality or last habitual residence.
But the law then distinguishes between processing UACs from
contiguous countries, who are generally returned to their
country, and those from elsewhere. For UACs from noncontiguous
countries, the law requires they be placed into U.S. removal
proceedings and receive the benefits described above.
Predictably, the number of UACs steadily increased in the
years that followed. In 2010, CBP encountered 18,400 UACs. That
number grew to 24,400 in 2012. After DACA was started, UACs
soon spiked to over 68,500 in 2014.
The makeup of contiguous nationals as compared to
noncontiguous nationals also changed. In 2009, children from
Mexico accounted for 82 percent of the UAC apprehensions at the
border, while those from Northern Triangle countries accounted
for 17 percent. By 2019, those proportions had flipped.
Another important pull factor for illegal immigration is
limited immigration detention and mandatory release into the
United States. Flores, a settlement agreement on detention
standards for unaccompanied minors, has been expanded and when
a single district judge ruled that unaccompanied and
accompanied children must be released from detention within 20
days. Because removal proceedings are not completed within 20
days, ICE releases UACs and family units into American
communities to comply with Flores.
We experienced a border crisis in 2019 when CBP encountered
over 76,000 UACs and 527 family units. The Trump administration
implored Congress to close its TVPRA, UAC, and Flores loopholes
to stop the flow of UACs and family units, but Congress refused
to do so.
With the Migrant Protection Protocols and negotiated Asylum
Cooperative Agreements with the Northern Triangle countries,
the numbers of illegal immigrants decreased, because would-be
migrants learned that they would not get into the United States
and would be sent back.
With campaign promises to end such enforcement measures and
to provide amnesty, smugglers encouraged more immigrants to
make the journey north, in anticipation of Joe Biden's
election. The new administration then quickly ended the Trump
administration's enforcement measures and agreements, resulting
in a more rapid increase in illegal immigration to now historic
numbers.
If leaders want to prevent smuggling and trafficking of
children and restore order to our border and immigration
system, Congress and the administration should prevent illegal
immigration by enforcing current laws and removing incentives
to come here unlawfully.
This includes resuming MPP, returning to the terms of the
Asylum Cooperative Agreements, completing the planned border
wall construction, treating all noncontiguous nationals the
same as contiguous nationals, removing benefits based on being
a UAC, returning to the 1997 terms of the Flores settlement
agreement, rescinding the February 2021 ICE priorities memo,
ending catch-and-release, rejecting amnesty for those who broke
our immigration laws, and applying the proper definition of UAC
as defined in the Homeland Security Act.
This concludes my statement, and I will respond to your
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ries follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lora Ries
April 27, 2021
My name is Lora Ries. I am the senior research fellow for homeland
security at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this
testimony are my own and should not be construed as representing any
official position of The Heritage Foundation.
We are witnessing record numbers of unaccompanied alien children
(UAC) at our Southern Border. In March, nearly 19,000 UACs were
encountered by the Customs and Border Protection (CBP).\1\ In contrast,
the CBP encountered only 741 UACs in April 2020.\2\ This staggering
increase has been driven by messaging and policy choices. These
statements and policies sadly endanger the lives of those migrating
here illegally, and knowingly enrich traffickers and smugglers. In
February, border traffickers made $14 million a day.\3\ Meanwhile,
traffickers and smugglers have no regard for life as they endanger,
rape, exploit, recycle, and leave for dead children and other
migrants.\4\ Instead, the United States should have policies that run
such operations out of business by preventing illegal immigration and
encouraging migrants to use lawful immigration programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Southwest Land Border
Encounters, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-
encounters (accessed April 26, 2021).
\2\ Ibid.
\3\ Emma Colton, ``Human Trafficking Business Is Booming at the
Border, with Cartels Raking in over $14M a Day in February: Report,''
Washington Examiner, March 22, 2021, https://
www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/criminal-organizations-trafficking-
border-14-million-a-day (accessed April 26, 2021).
\4\ Jillian Kay Melchior, ``Biden's Border Crisis, Up Close,'' The
Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/
bidens-border-crisis-up-close-11617057522 (accessed April 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To identify the way forward, it is important to understand how we
got here. In 2000, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Representative
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) each introduced the Unaccompanied Alien Child
Protection Act (UACPA), which had the stated purpose to strengthen
policies for the permanent protection of UACs. It offered UACs easier
and expanded immigration benefits, including ``prompt parole'' into the
United States, taxpayer-funded guardians ad litem and attorneys, the
rarely used Special Immigrant Juvenile visa, an easier adjustment of
status process, and exemption from expedited removal. The bill clearly
incentivized UACs to cross the border, which meant more parents would
hand their children over to dangerous smugglers to enter the United
States in the hopes to gain a family foothold here. The bill would
endanger more children.
The UACPA repeatedly failed to pass Congress, but the sponsors
introduced the bill 5 Congresses in a row, until Representative Howard
Berman (D-CA) folded the benefits of the UACPA into a bill that would
be easier to pass: the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act of 2008 (TVPRA).
Under the heading of ``Enhancing Efforts to Combat the Trafficking
of Children,'' section 235 of the TVPRA has the stated purpose ``to
prevent trafficking in persons, the [U.S. Government] shall develop
policies and procedures to ensure that unaccompanied alien children in
the United States are safely repatriated to their country of
nationality or of last habitual residence.'' However, the legislation
then distinguishes between processing UACs from contiguous countries
(they are generally returned to their home country) and those from
elsewhere. For UACs from non-contiguous countries, the law requires
they be placed into U.S. removal proceedings and be given the generous
benefits described above.
Predictably, the number of UACs encountered by the CBP steadily
increased in the years that followed. In fiscal year 2010, the CBP
encountered 18,400 UACs.\5\ That number grew to 24,400 UACs in fiscal
year 2012.\6\ The pull factor of benefits for UACs grew stronger with
the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
Unsurprisingly, the number of UACs soon spiked to over 68,500 in
2014.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ United States Border Patrol, BP Total Monthly UACs by Sector,
fiscal year 2010-fiscal year 2017, https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/
files/assets/documents/2018-Jul/BP%20Total%20-
Monthly%20UACs%20by%20Sector%2C%20FY10-FY17.pdf (accessed April 26,
2021).
\6\ Ibid.
\7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the increasing number of UACs, the make-up of
contiguous nationals as compared to non-contiguous nationals changed.
In fiscal year 2009, children from Mexico accounted for 82 percent of
the UAC apprehensions at the Southwest Border, while those from the
``Northern Triangle'' countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
accounted for 17 percent.\8\ By fiscal year 2019, the proportions had
reversed, with Mexican nationals comprising 14 percent of the UAC
apprehensions at the border and the 3 Central American countries
comprising over 85 percent.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ William A. Kandel, ``Unaccompanied Alien Children: An
Overview,'' Congressional Research Service, October 9, 2019.
\9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another important pull factor for illegal immigration by UACs and
family units is limited immigration detention and mandatory release
into the United States. Reno v. Flores,\10\ a court case that started
in the early 1980's about detention standards for an unaccompanied
illegal alien minor turned into a 1985 class action lawsuit that
launched more than a 3-decade court process, resulting in a far more
expansive policy regarding when a minor alien must be released from
detention. After a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), then-INS Commissioner
Doris Meissner signed the Flores settlement agreement in 1997,
expanding the standards the INS would follow. Under the agreement, the
Government must release minor aliens ``without unnecessary delay'' to
the minor's parents, legal guardians, other adult relatives, or other
individual designated by the parent/guardian, who is in the United
States. A Federal district judge further expanded the Flores
requirements in 2015, ordering the Department of Homeland Security to
release detained minors and their mothers. This added accompanied
minors for mandatory release in addition to unaccompanied minors. The
judge went further, interpreting the Flores settlement language
``without unnecessary delay'' to mean no more than 20 days of
immigration detention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because removal proceedings are not completed within 20 days,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement released UACs and family units into
American communities to comply with the new Flores order, resulting in
a ``catch-and-release'' posture. Smugglers successfully market ``catch-
and-release'' to future unlawful migrants.
These pull factors caused a border crisis in fiscal year 2019, when
the CBP encountered over 76,000 UACs and 527,000 family units.\11\ The
Trump administration implored Congress to close its TVPRA UAC and
Flores loopholes to stop the flow of UACs and family units, but
Congress refused to do so. By standing up the Migrant Protection
Protocols (MPP) and negotiating asylum cooperative agreements with the
Northern Triangle countries, the Trump administration significantly
decreased the number of UAC and family unit encounters by 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Southwest Land Border
Encounters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With campaign promises to end the Trump administration's
immigration enforcement measures, and to provide amnesty, smugglers
encouraged more immigrants to make the journey north in anticipation of
Joe Biden's election. The new administration then quickly ended the
Trump administration's enforcement measures and agreements, resulting
in a more rapid increase in illegal immigration to now historic
numbers.
the way forward
If leaders want to prevent the smuggling and trafficking of
children and restore order to our border and immigration system,
Congress and the Biden administration should prevent illegal
immigration by enforcing current laws and removing incentives to come
here unlawfully. This includes:
Resuming MPP;
Returning to the terms of the asylum cooperative agreements
made under the Trump administration;
Completing planned border wall construction;
Treating all non-contiguous nationals the same as contiguous
nationals--with expedited removal;
Removing benefits based on UAC status;
Returning to the 1997 terms of the Flores Settlement
Agreement;
Rescinding the February 2021 ICE Priorities Memo;
Ending catch-and-release;
Rejecting amnesty for those who broke our immigration laws;
and
Applying the proper definition of UAC, as defined by section
462(g) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which is ``a child
who----
(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;
(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and
(C) with respect to whom----
(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or
(ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is
available to provide care and physical custody.''
Ms. Barragan. Thank you to the witness for her testimony.
I want to thank every witness for their testimony.
I will remind the subcommittee that we will have 5 minutes
each to ask questions of the panel.
I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes, and then
we will alternate between sides until we get through everybody.
If there is an opportunity, maybe we will have a second round,
depending on our time.
So, with that, I will start by recognizing myself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, I want to start with you. As an
approach to deter irregular migration, President Trump created
and implemented the family separation policy, tearing thousands
of families apart. After rescinding this awful practice, he
implemented more harmful policies, such as the Migrant
Protection Protocols, Title 42, and metering, to deny access to
asylum.
How would you describe the effect of the Trump-era border
policies in slowing migration at the Southern Border?
Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. I think what we saw with the Trump
administration policies, such as MPP, or Remain in Mexico, and
the so-called Asylum Cooperative Agreements, is that those
programs fundamentally did not work. They sent tens of
thousands of people into danger, sending them to a kidnappers'
paradise in Mexico.
It is possible that as many as 1 in 10 people sent back to
Mexico under MPP were subject to kidnappings, assaults, or
other violent acts by the cartels. So, in effect, under MPP and
as well under Title 42, families are being turned over into the
hands of the cartels and pushed into desperation.
I also want to make clear that the Asylum Cooperative
Agreements have been suspended since last year, and fewer than
a thousand people were ever sent to Guatemala under those
agreements. The Biden administration terminating those
agreements had absolutely no effect on the border. Similarly,
terminating MPP had very little effect, as just 1.2 percent of
people have been subject to MPP since Title 42 began.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mayor Garcia, I am so proud that our community is stepping
forward to help care for some of the vulnerable children
arriving at the Southwest Border. As you know, these are
children--they are scared and they are alone--who fled
unthinkable dangers and shocking conditions.
Last Thursday, the Long Beach Convention Center opened its
doors to young girls and boys seeking safety in the United
States. Can you tell us more about the process for establishing
an emergency intake site at the Long Beach Convention Center?
Mr. Garcia. Sure thing. We, of course, were reached out by
the Biden administration to see if we would be interested in
hosting this emergency shelter. Long Beach, with its history of
kind-of compassionate, you know, viewpoint with refugees and
with immigrants, brought it forward to the Long Beach City
Council, which voted unanimously to move it forward.
Then, of course, our city team got into many meetings with
our partners over at HHS as well as FEMA. They toured the site
before the children came multiple times. They brought in a full
medical team and doctors to ensure the site was safe, and they
brought also a bunch of social services on-site.
One thing that was really, I think, important for us in the
community as we talked to folks that this would be a temporary
site, because we believe in family reunification and how that
must be the goal, was that every child that arrives also has
legal counsel. So there is actually an organization called
Immigrant Defenders, who are well-respected, you know, here in
the state and the country, providing each child with advice and
legal counsel through that process as well. So HHS has really
done a great job of bringing resources in on the ground.
Ms. Barragan. Fantastic.
I would like to have the clerk post chart A, a chart that
was provided by our witness Reichlin-Melnick.
[The information follows:]
Ms. Barragan. This question is for you, Mr. Reichlin-
Melnick. I apologize. I have 5 minutes and we are trying to get
to what we can here. I thought this was a really helpful and
informative chart that you provided the committee.
When I look at the data, I see that more migrants were
processed into the United States in 2019 than what we are
seeing now. We keep hearing from folks on the other side of the
aisle that there is an open border policy, anybody can come.
Can you please tell us if this chart helps debunk the
narrative that President Biden has an open border policy, and
what other key takeaways can we take from this data in your
chart?
Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Thank you. I think this chart makes
clear that fewer people are getting into the border today than
were in 2019 under the Trump administration.
The Biden administration has expelled tens of thousands of
families back to Mexico, so even though there are fewer
families coming to the border today than there are under
President Trump in 2019. So as a result, because about a third
of all families right now are being sent back to Mexico,
significantly fewer families are being allowed to access asylum
under the Biden administration than were allowed to access the
asylum process under the Trump administration.
Ms. Barragan. Fantastic.
If the clerk can remove the chart here, I can also take a
look at the timer. I see that my time is expiring. So,
hopefully, we can get into this in the second round of
questions so that we can definitely hear from more of our
witnesses.
With that, I am going to turn it over to the Ranking Member
for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Regarding legal immigration, legal residency, and the
pathway to citizenship in America, let me say that our Nation
is a compassionate and generous country, with arguably the most
receptive and accessible immigration policies of any prominent
sovereign nation anywhere in the world.
Myself and my conservative colleagues, we encourage legal
immigration, and we refer to the simple fact that America is a
very generous Nation. I challenge you to find another that is a
prosperous world power with an immigration policy as receptive
as our own.
Ms. Ries, let's talk about some of the policy issues you
have articulated in your statement regarding immigration
loopholes and policies that have led to the unprecedented
volume of unaccompanied minors we are seeing at the Southwest
Border right now.
The Biden administration has announced plans to spend $4
billion of American treasure on foreign aid to address ``root
causes'' but that still leaves us with the legal and policy
gaps that you have laid out.
In your opinion, what do we do first? I believe we should
secure the border and end these policies that are pull factors,
but what do you advise Congress should be working on right now
to address Flores and TVPRA loopholes?
Ms. Ries. Thank you. So the first thing that needs to be
done is to stop the pull factors and stop putting children into
the arms of smugglers and traffickers. That comes about a few
different ways. One is in TVPRA, treating nationals from Mexico
and Canada different than other countries. Even President Obama
himself had asked that this loophole be fixed during the 2014
crisis that he and then-Vice President Biden had faced.
In addition, changing the Flores ruling by a single U.S.
district court judge, where she declared that not only would
accompanied children in addition to unaccompanied children be
released, but they be released within 20 days.
Everyone agrees that removal proceedings should happen more
quickly. DHS has also shown that when aliens are detained
during those removal proceedings, that a high percentage, 98
percent of those folks are removed if they are not eligible for
relief.
So the Homeland Security Advisory Committee in 2019 had
concluded that there was a gross inadequate amount of detention
space for family units, and so that needs to be changed as
well.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for that. I look forward
to speaking with you further about it.
I introduced legislation last week to finish the sections
of the wall system that were already appropriated for or
obligated prior to the Biden administration's suspension of
construction.
Would you share with America if you recognize that the
legitimate deterrence of a 21st-Century wall system and the
completion of those sections, how important they are? These
sections have been requested by Customs and Border Protection
and Border Patrol. Do you support that legislation and do you
recognize a wall as a deterrent?
Ms. Ries. The planned wall construction should be
completed. Border Patrol agents have long said they need 3
things: They need personnel, they need technology, and they
need infrastructure. The wall system--it is not just the wall,
it is the access road, it is cameras, the sensors, et cetera--
is a key part of that. It buys them time. It gives them
awareness of what is happening on the border. Congress has
appropriated that money, and so it should be completed as
planned.
Mr. Higgins. I agree.
Madam Chair, I can't see the clock right now, how much time
I have remaining.
Ms. Barragan. Twenty-three seconds.
Mr. Higgins. I have one further question for Ms. Ries.
Ms. Barragan. Twenty-three seconds.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Ries, would you address the accusations that the Trump
administration essentially dismantled the asylum system? I
don't believe that is accurate.
Ms. Ries. It is incorrect. I mean, if you measure asylum in
terms of grants, the Trump administration granted more asylum
cases in its first 3 years than the highest 4 years during the
Obama administration of an 8-year term, 2 terms.
What the Trump administration went after was fraud in
asylum and fraudulently using the generous program of asylum to
come to the United States and to remain here indefinitely.
Mr. Higgins. Exactly. Thank you for that clarification.
Madam Chair, thank you for your consideration. I yield.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. TVPRA and Flores aren't gaps. They
are protections that Congress and the courts have put in place
to protect vulnerable children. So I am looking forward to
continuing this conversation.
With that, I would like to recognize for 5 minutes--well,
let me back up for a quick second. I am getting ahead of
myself.
The Chair will recognize other Members for questions that
they may wish to ask the witnesses. As previously outlined, I
will recognize Members in order of seniority, alternating
between Majority and Minority. Members are reminded to unmute
themselves when recognized for questioning.
With that, I now have the pleasure and the honor of
recognizing the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Thompson
from Mississippi.
Mr. Chairman, I believe you are still on mute.
We still have a hard time hearing you.
OK, Mr. Thompson, we still can't hear you. Maybe we can
have somebody take a look at your technical issues, and we will
move to our next Democratic colleague for the moment. I see
that we have Representative Correa.
Mr. Correa, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me OK?
Ms. Barragan. We hear you loud and clear.
Mr. Correa. Yes? Thank you very much.
First, I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
most important hearing.
Having children, unaccompanied children in harm's way is
never something to be taken lightly. I, like you, have gone to
El Paso, Texas. I have had the opportunity to speak to those
children in their language. I also had the opportunity to meet
Yareli and Yasmina, the 3-year-old and the 5-year-old girls
that were thrown over the border by the smugglers. If wasn't
for the Border Patrol that actually saw them, those young
ladies would have perished in the middle of the desert.
I have also had the opportunity to visit deported families
in Tijuana, Mexico, deported under Title 42 of the health code.
As I was sitting there looking at these families, looking at
these children, I am reminded that this is nothing new. In
2008, I also had the opportunity to visit similar places with
children, similar faces, similar circumstances in California.
This issue is nothing new. It has been going on for 30 to
40 years. If we don't do something to address the root causes,
it will continue for the next 20 or 30 years. It is just not
correct for us to ignore the root causes.
It doesn't matter how dangerous the trip is from Central
America. It doesn't matter how expensive the trip is. A lot of
those families are telling me they paid $15,000 to the
smugglers. It doesn't matter how hard it is to cross the
border. These families, if they are hungry, if they fear for
their lives, they will take the trip north. Of course, our
efforts cannot be day-to-day, month-to-month, but, rather,
consistent.
We are concluding our efforts in Afghanistan, our
involvement in that war, 20 years. Iraq, dozens of years. Yet
this is our backyard. We need a Marshall Plan. We need to
stabilize Central America. That is long-term. That is where we
need to go.
But for today, Madam Chair, if I can, I would like to ask
some of our witnesses, Ms. Podkul, some questions.
Ms. Podkul, how feasible would it be to provide legal
services to these migrant families in Central America?
Ms. Podkul. To provide services for them once they are here
and they are asking for protection?
Mr. Correa. While they are still in Central America.
Ms. Podkul. Yes. So, you know, the Biden administration has
just committed to restarting the Central American Minors
Program so that unaccompanied children can ask for refugee
status while they are there. We think it is imperative for
those children to understand the process and understand how
they tell the story so our refugee officers can decide whether
or not that person qualifies.
So it is very important for them to make sure that they are
able to get know your rights information and have an attorney
explain to them how they should tell their story in a way that
will make sense to an adjudicator.
There are lots of law firms who are willing to provide
services pro bono for free who want to work and help people so
that they can apply for protection closer to home. We want to
make sure that we do that and we still allow people to come to
the border and ask for protection, in compliance with U.S. law.
Mr. Correa. I ask this question of you because I saw in
those faces of those children that have had a long trip, a very
treacherous and dangerous trip. I saw a young lady 14 years old
that had gotten raped a number of times by a number of men on
that trip. I, as a father, as a human being, want to figure out
what is the best way to provide asylum to these refugee seekers
so they don't have to make this treacherous trip through Mexico
and Central America.
In your opinion, can we come up with a system that we can
provide the rights, protect the rights of asylum seekers while
they are still at home?
Ms. Podkul. Yes, absolutely. I think expanding the Central
American Minors Program to allow children to ask for refugee
status closer to their country of origin, closer to home, I
think we can do that for families.
We already have regional protection mechanisms, and we can
expand those so that we can do refugee processing for people
while they are still closer to home. They can make decisions.
It will alleviate the burden, some of the pressure at the
border. It will ensure safety, so people don't always have to
make a journey to ask for help.
Mr. Correa. So, ma'am, what can we do as Congress to make
sure that we implement this new Biden policy immediately of
providing legal access to legal services to refugees in Central
America? What can we do?
Ms. Podkul. Sure. So I think appropriating funds to ensure
that counsel can be provided and that information can be
provided. I think funding information campaigns, like DHS and
HHS have done in the past. I think being supportive of a
Presidential request for refugees, so that when people make
those applications, we have the numbers and we are able to
support the resettlement to those who are approved.
Mr. Correa. Would you say----
Ms. Barragan. Mr. Correa, your time has expired.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. The gentleman yields.
Now I will recognize Representative Guest for his 5
minutes.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
To all of our witnesses here today, I want to thank you for
joining us to be part of this discussion on a very important
topic for our entire country.
I had the chance, along with other the Members of the
Homeland Security Committee, roughly 2 weeks ago to visit the
Southwest Border. We visited the processing center there in
Donna, Texas, where we saw, at that time, 4,000-plus children
in a facility that was only designated to hold 250. So I
understand that this is an issue that Congress must address.
This is not something that we can turn a blind eye to, and we
must begin to address the root causes, how we are going to
address this long-term, but also how we are going address this
in the immediate future.
Ms. Ries, in your written testimony, you speak of the fact
that in March, there were 19,000 unaccompanied minor children
which were taken in there at the border, that this was the
largest number ever seen in recorded history. You go on in your
report also to talk a little bit about the border crisis of
2019.
So what I want to ask you to do is to contrast the response
of the administration, the previous administration, in dealing
with the surge that we saw in 2019 versus the response that the
current administration is taking to rectify or to intervene in
the surge that we are seeing here today.
Ms. Ries, I think you are on mute for me.
Ms. Ries. Sorry about that.
The border crisis in 2019, as well as now, involves not
only a lot of unaccompanied alien children, but family units.
So after the Trump administration asked Congress to close the
loopholes that led to those types of flows, the Trump
administration implemented the Migrant Protection Protocols, or
Remain in Mexico program. This is something that Congress had
passed in the 1996 law that said you can come and apply for
asylum, but you can wait for those proceedings in Mexico.
When future migrants learned that they could not abuse the
asylum system to get into the United States and then disappear
into the interior, they stopped coming. Those with valid asylum
applications obviously then could apply. But it greatly
decreased the number, again, preventing fraud.
The other key aspect of it was the asylum agreements made
with the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras,
and instituting what was called the notion of safe third
country, which is, if you are truly fleeing for your life, you
should seek protection in the first safe country in which you
arrive, not traverse 2, 3 countries just to apply for asylum in
the United States. So it prevented forum shopping. It helped
those countries build up their respective asylum systems, which
everybody should be for, and enforcing their respective
borders.
Mr. Guest. Ms. Ries, you are entirely correct; much of the
surge we are seeing today is coming from our Northern Triangle
countries, and those immigrants are coming through Mexico. They
are not requesting asylum in Mexico. They are being allowed for
safe passage through Mexico and then they are coming in the
United States and there they are requesting asylum. So you are
exactly right; that is something that we are not addressing,
that the public is not talking about is that Mexico is allowing
these individuals to pass through and they are not even
attempting to apply for asylum there.
You also talked about the Remain in Mexico policy, and I
think it is your testimony that you believe this was an
effective policy. We have heard from other witnesses that they
believe that this policy had no or very little impact.
Would you please talk, as far as your opinion, how big of
an impact the Remain in Mexico policy had once it was put in
place by the administration, and now that that policy has since
been withdrawn, what we are seeing as far as the increase in
numbers along the Southwest Border?
Ms. Ries. Well, [inaudible] is a very visual sign of the
flows of illegal immigrants that were coming here in 2018,
2019. Also, the numbers; whereas in March of this year, 19,000
unaccompanied alien children, in April 2020, there were 741, so
a significant difference in numbers.
But it is also not just about the numbers. It is how are
the people--what does the U.S. Government do with them when
they come here? Are they simply being processed more quickly
into the United States and released, which is a catch-and-
release posture, and it is a extremely strong pull factor for
more future illegal immigration? Or are they quickly given an
opportunity to seek relief from removal, and they are either
granted or, if they are denied, then removed.
Mr. Guest. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I believe my time is up, so I yield back.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Guest.
The gentleman yields back.
Just for clarification, when we say Remain in Mexico, it is
the same as the MPP program that we are referencing. When we
talk about concerns about cartels, it is exactly that. It put
families into the hands of cartels.
With that, we will go back to the Chairman of the full
committee and see if our audio is OK. Chairman Thompson, the
gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Can you hear me now, Madam Chair Lady?
Ms. Barragan. We can hear you loud and clear, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Mayor, one of the concerns some communities have had about
accepting unaccompanied minors in their area, can you kind-of
describe for the committee your experience with the
unaccompanied minors that have come to Long Beach from the
standpoint of are they on drugs or are there criminal elements?
So just describe to the committee what you have found.
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely. I think what we have found is that
the kids that are arriving are just like any other children
that you would see in our country or anywhere else. Obviously,
when they arrive at the border, many of them are frightened.
Some, of course, have been through trauma, but they are
immediately cared for, and they have the same smiles, the same
love, the same needs that any other kid would have. There is no
criminal activity. They are actually being treated. We ensure
that they are all healthy.
Most importantly, they are kids. I mean, right now, as this
hearing is going on, we have children that are receiving care.
They are receiving a hot meal. They are able to read books.
They are playing with each other and, most importantly, they
are being--the focus is on reuniting with their family. So
these are children, regardless of where they are from, and I
think it is important for us to take care of them as best
possible.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Now, again, say thanks to you and the people of Long Beach
for reaching out and understanding that.
Ms. Podkul, can you explain some of the misguided and
perhaps unlawful policies that were created during the previous
administration that have been done away with by the Biden
administration?
Ms. Podkul. Sure. I can start off with talking about Title
42 which, you know, eviscerated the ability for children to
even ask for help from the United States, right? That was
really the most devastating when the United States just slammed
the door in the faces of these kids. So having the Biden
administration, first the courts and then the Biden
administration say we are going to go back to complying with
the law, complying with the Trafficking Victim Protection Act,
and allowing children to ask for protection has been most
important so that children are even able to ask for safety
right now.
You know, then there is other things that they have done
that have been really helpful. So as I mentioned before,
allowing for children to ask for protection closer to home to
apply for refugee status is incredibly important. They have
also put into place many procedures and expedited procedures to
screen and identify the sponsors to get the kids out of
Government custody so that when they are going through the very
complex court process, they are able to do so while living in a
home of a family member or a sponsor, so that when they start
that very arduous process of going through the court system
that we have, they are able to do so outside of Government
custody.
Mr. Thompson. I am glad you mentioned that. Can you explain
the importance of having access to counsel while this process
is going on?
Ms. Podkul. Yes, I mean, it is hard to overstate the
importance of counsel, especially for a child. I mean, these
are children, very, very young in some cases, many of whom do
not speak English. The burden is on them to prove to the
Government that they have a case, that they have a claim for
protection. It is not the Government's burden. So you have a
kid, alone. They have the right to bring an attorney with them,
but they are not always given an attorney or given a free
attorney.
So it is almost impossible for a kid to go through this
system without counsel. In some instances, you have a child who
has to go to immigration court. They have to apply for their
visa or protection with USCIS. They might need to go to a State
court for part of it. So we are talking about 3 different
adjudication bodies, and expecting a child to navigate that
complex system is next to impossible.
So it is crucial kids have it. It is also crucial for our
system. Right? We want to get it right. We want to get to the
bottom of the kids' story and figure out which are the ones
that really do need protection and need to stay here. We can
only do that if the child has an attorney.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With that, seeing no other Republicans at the moment, we
will move to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, for--you
are recognized for your 5 minutes.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me raise a couple of issues based on what is going on.
I would like one of our witnesses, any of the witnesses to
describe what the administration is doing right now in terms of
a long-term solution. Maybe I asked the wrong question.
Unless--I think and I have heard here in the committee
today that the Vice President had not been down to the border
and so she is not working on the issues. I just wanted to make
sure that we all are operating from the same facts, which is
that she was not appointed to work at the border. She is
working with the heads of a number of the Central American
states--the Triangle that was brought up earlier.
But what I would like for all of the witnesses to do is,
what can you do--what do you think we can do right now as a
major step toward dealing with the kids at the border that is
both legal and effective?
Ms. Podkul. I am happy to start. Thanks for that question.
I mean, I think this is a really crucial question because we
don't want to be here, having the same conversation year after
year, having to stand up influx facilities.
I think there are 2 major things. One is really thinking
about how we are receiving them. What happens in that moment
when the U.S. Government first comes into contact with the
child, right? Making sure that we are doing it in a
humanitarian way, right, so that we have child welfare
professionals who are trained experts in talking to children,
interviewing children in the trauma-informed way, making sure
that we are doing appropriate screenings for them, and that we
are quickly handing them off to the agency that is tasked with
child welfare, ORR.
Then ORR has to make sure that they are not caught in the
cycle of having to stand up emergency facilities over and over.
Right? We want children in smaller facilities, in home-based
facilities, and in licensed care to make sure there is adequate
standards and adequate oversight only until the child can be
reunified. Right? Then we have to make sure our justice system
can support efficient and quick adjudications so that the
children's cases are resolved. We don't want a child to have to
wait for years to find out what is going to happen to them.
So I think if we are able to really think about this
system, reimagine the reception, make sure we have a more agile
ORR system and Government care until the kids can get into the
system, and then adequately resource our judicial system so
that we can decide the kids' cases, it will be much more
efficient. It will be much more fair. We won't be here again in
the long term.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you very much.
I appreciate very much your response. I spoke to a judge
here who was a State judge in State court here in Missouri, and
then after he retired, he became one of the judges down at the
border. I don't think we call them judges but, anyway, that is
essentially what he was. So he requested a meeting with me to
tell me what he thought was needed.
He said that he believed that right now, that there was a
need for approximately another 100 to 200 judges, so that when
people come the system, that judge has time to listen to their
story. He said because what is happening is that it is an
assembly line, judicial assembly line. Because they don't have
the time and they have so many people and they know that they
have to get individual after individual in and out, that he
said he is absolutely certain that they make mistakes.
Do you see that as one of the top 5 moves that we should
make?
Ms. Podkul. I think an adequately-resourced judicial system
is very important. Now, for unaccompanied children, when they
are making applications for relief, those actually go to USCIS.
So we also need to make sure that the Department of Justice is
allowing immigration judges to manage their dockets in a way
where they say this child doesn't need to keep coming before me
because I am waiting for my colleagues over here at DHS to
decide on the visa application. So I am just going to put this
child's case on hold until DHS can do it. That way judges can
conserve the resources, so that even though we do need to hire
more, if they can manage their own dockets and have a little
bit more flexibility than they did before the Trump
administration, I think we will see a lot of efficiencies
realized that way as well.
Mr. Cleaver. All right. Thank you.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you for the questions. The gentleman
yields back.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, is recognized for your
5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I sincerely believe that there are some people
who see the solution as just keep the problem on the other side
of the border. As long as they are over there, doesn't matter
what the circumstances happens to be in the city that they are
in; just keep it on the other side of the border. I am not one
of them.
We have a humanitarian crisis in the Triangle, as we are
calling it, but in Central America, and we have to do something
about it. I just don't believe that the solution is fence them
out. Someone drops a baby over the border, I don't think they
will say toss the baby back. But there seems to be a belief
that the baby shouldn't have fallen over. I am not one of those
people. I want to help the people in Central America.
My belief is that President Biden has a good idea to fund a
plan to help stabilize Central America, and possibly to help
other countries as well. Mexico should be helped. They have
taken on a huge amount of responsibility when persons were just
getting to the wall, stacking up. Mexico doesn't have a better
economic order than we have, but we were perfectly content to
just let them stay on the other side of the wall in Mexico. I
am not one of those people.
So now, regardless of what happens to me, I believe the
good samaritan asked the question, what is going to happen to
that person if I don't help, not what is going to happen to me
if I try to help.
So let me just ask you this, Ms. Podkul. Ma'am, these
mothers, fathers, they know that what they are paying to have
their children come, thousands of dollars, is too much. They
know they shouldn't put their children in the hand of a
stranger. Yet they do it. They know of the dangers along the
way. Yet they send them.
My assumption is that you have talked to some of these
children. What do the children tell you that parents tell them
when they embrace them for the last time and say, ``Be on your
way? I will come and get you at some point, but you need to go
now.'' What do they tell their children?
Ms. Podkul. Thank you for that question. I am a parent
myself, and so being in that position is completely
unimaginable, having to make those kinds of decisions.
I think what is remarkable is that we think about, you
know, we are sometimes sitting in a place of judgment and
really trying to put ourselves in their shoes, how difficult
that must be. You know, a parent would only ever, ever do that
if they felt that, even though they know it is so dangerous and
there is so many things that could happen to their child, that
what is happening to them in that moment is worse, right, than
the risks that they would send their child on. So no parent
makes that decision lightly.
I will also say, talking to these children, a lot of times
children are making the decision on their own to protect their
families. Right? I spoke to an 11-year-old once who the gangs
started to recruit him, and he was worried that they were going
to harm his younger siblings because to try to convince him to
join the gang. So he left without even telling his mother, and
that is what broke his heart the most is that he didn't get to
stay goodbye to her, but he did it to protect her and to
protect his younger siblings and he was only 11.
Mr. Green. Well, I was at the border. I think the child was
5 years old, screaming for her older brother that traversed
this distance with her. When the brother arrived, the brother
was 8 years old, a 5-year-old and an 8-year-old. This is not
just about numbers, thousands of children showing up at the
border. This is about children and about decency and about who
we are as a country.
So either we are going have a heart and say to people, we
will help because we know you need help. It is not as though
they don't need it. They are not thinking it. Our intelligence
tells us that they need it.
I thank you for your answer.
I will yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Barragan. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman yields back.
Now we will recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Ms.
Clarke. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. First of all, thank you, Chairwoman Barragan
and Ranking Member Higgins, for holding this timely hearing
today and to address the issue of unaccompanied minors at the
border.
I thank all of our witnesses for appearing before us,
albeit virtually today.
We are in a critical moment to address the impact of what I
believe was a cruel and ineffective immigration policy of the
Trump administration, policies that ripped thousands of kids
from their parents, leaving many still not yet reunited with
their loved ones. It is time that we assess the current state
of U.S. immigration policies and support the Biden
administration's efforts to increase capacity to shelter these
unaccompanied children in a humane way.
With that, I will now move on to my questions.
Ms. Podkul, migration trends at the Southern Border have
changed dramatically over the last decade. Yet it still appears
that our border policies are outdated, as they are originally
developed with single adults in mind instead of unaccompanied
minors.
What immediate actions should DHS, HHS, and Congress take
to resolve the gaps that exist between our border policies and
our recent migration trends?
Ms. Podkul. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. I
think there is a few things that could be done immediately. I
think ensuring that Customs and Border Protection hires child
welfare professionals, right, to care for and screen the
children that they are encountering. Right? We want to make
sure we have trained professionals engaging with them and so we
can get our law enforcement agents back out, doing law
enforcement work and not taking care of children.
We also think that there would be a lot of efficiencies
realized if Health and Human Services could be co-located in
Customs and Border facilities where children are being held and
screened, because right immediately then HHS officials could be
starting to consider extended family members as potential
sponsors so that children may even not even have to go to ORR
custody. They could really identify what is going to be the
best placing if they do have to send a child to Government
custody, where would that be, so that they can get the child to
a sponsor right away and that you are not losing any time when
you are starting to identify and screen the sponsor.
I think the other thing too is ensuring that Government is
funding counsel for children. As I said before, that is going
to--we are going to see a lot of efficiencies in the judicial
system if kids are represented, because they will understand
how to go through the process and we can make sure they know
how to comply with the entire court process and we can get to
the bottom of their story.
Ms. Clarke. These were great suggestions. I think they are
common-sense suggestions. But what should be done over the
longer term, in your estimation?
Ms. Podkul. You know, so I think, you know, a lot of people
have talked about how do we address these root causes, right?
That is a long-term solution. Right? I think these are going to
take time, but it is important to start the investments now and
show these countries that we are serious, and really focus our
fiscal support and training support and educational support to
these countries on really addressing issues of child adversity.
Right? What is it that is making these kids leave in the first
place? Really focus our aid and support to those kinds of
solutions.
Then I think also ORR, you know, they are struggling right
now with the numbers of kids being referred to them by CBP. So
there is kind-of the short-term trying to open up the
facilities like the mayor is running, but what they need to do
is really pivot in the long term and think about how can we
make sure that we don't have to rely on these kinds of
facilities. So making sure that they are matching what Congress
has already said for the domestic child welfare system is
appropriate, not large, congregate care. Put kids in homes. Put
them in smaller group homes. Make sure that ORR is mimicking
that for this population of kids so that we are treating all
children the same and we are getting kids to family members and
sponsors as quickly as possible.
Ms. Clarke. Would you talk to the sort-of the plight of the
Black migrant that is seeking asylum? Can you speak to how
Trump-era border policies, such as family separation and Title
42 disproportionately affect Black migrants and their children,
and what should be done to address this problem?
Ms. Podkul. Yes, absolutely. I mean, first of all, I think
we are spending a lot of time talking about Central American
children. Right? We are serving kids who are coming from
Africa, that are coming from Caribbean countries, from all over
the world. Right? So there are a lot of Black migrants who are
being disproportionately affected, both because it is the
reason--it is because of their race that they are being
targeted and felt like they had to leave in the first place,
but then also, for example, Title 42, right, the way it
affected Haitian asylum seekers and Haitian families has been
terrible. They weren't able to be put in MPP, right, so they
weren't part of the unwinding of MPP, but then also deportation
flights were continuing at a time when there was incredible
instability in Haiti.
So I think we really need to take a close look at that and
think about how do we make sure that our policies are not
discriminatory and that we are also taking into account
discrimination based on race, and how can we make sure that we
are protecting those individuals.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
The gentlewoman yields back.
We will have a second round of questioning, and I will
recognize myself for questions.
Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, we have heard today during today's
testimony a number of arguments that are being made about the
TVPRA causing increase in migration, being these pull factors.
We are hearing about these arguments that the Flores agreement
is the cause for an increase and there has been expansion. What
is your response to those arguments?
Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. I think you hear a lot about push
factors and pull factors. It is important to note that the push
factors are the why people are leaving, whereas the pull
factors are often why now.
For people in emergency situations, they have to leave
immediately. We saw for years that Central American minors in
particular were affected by the violence in those countries.
Honduras and El Salvador were 2 of the most violent countries
in the world and, in fact, we have seen when violence is
dropped in El Salvador over the last few years, fewer
unaccompanied children are coming to our borders, making clear
this is a direct result of instability in people's home
countries.
As for Flores, there is no evidence whatsoever that the
Flores settlement agreement's change had any impact on
unaccompanied children.
Similarly, unaccompanied children were exempt from their
Remain in Mexico, or MPP, program. Title 42 was the first and
only program at the border specifically targeting unaccompanied
children, and yet the number of unaccompanied children coming
to our borders rose every single month while Title 42 was in
place, even as the Trump administration was expelling thousands
of children back to their home countries.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mayor Garcia, it has been really amazing to kind-of see the
reception from our community in the accepting these children
that are fleeing violence. Can you talk a little bit about how
you have received--let me back up a little.
Have you received much outreach from nonprofits or
community organizations that want to help? Can you also help
describe what the community's reception has been to
establishing this emergency facility in Long Beach?
Mr. Garcia. Yes, I mean, the overwhelming response has been
really positive. Obviously, there is a huge amount of
overwhelming support as it relates to assisting the children. I
think for most folks in our community this is not a political
issue; this is about helping kids, about being compassionate,
about being kind. We have already in just a few days have
received thousands of books and toys that have been donated by
the community. We have community groups that have assisted to
volunteer. We have had a lot of folks just come in and just
really want to help.
Obviously, there is also a lot of conversation, like any
effort. There is a conversation about the future of immigration
policy. There is a lot of folks in our community that want
immigration reform done now and that our shelter is not a
substitute for strong immigration policy. That is something
that we have heard and that I support. But the support has been
really strong and, it is evident in both the council's
unanimous vote but also vast majority of the messages we have
received have been overwhelmingly positive.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you.
Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, one of the things that really struck
me in your testimony, which I went through and starred when I
was reading it, was this concept that unaccompanied children
generally win their cases in immigration court or they are
allowed to stay in the United States.
I represented a child from Guatemala and, while asylum may
be hard, there are things that were withholding of removal and
that child got to stay here. Can you--is there anything that
you--else that you want to share with this committee or, you
know, combat some of the myths out there that we keep hearing,
drowning out what is really happening and the dire conditions
that these children that are coming legally to seek refuge here
and asylum here for protections?
Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Thank you for the opportunity. So I
think that the first thing I want to make clear is that seeking
asylum is legal. Right now, the only way for families and
unaccompanied children to seek asylum is to cross between ports
of entry, because the ports of entry remain closed to all those
seeking asylum, even at a time when 340,000 people cross at
legal ports of entry every day going from Mexico into the
United States for traffic, shopping, or whatever.
Importantly, when you actually look at long-term outcomes
of unaccompanied children's cases, over the last few years
since 2013, most children did end up winning their cases or
being granted the right to stay. When we talk about families
and other asylum seekers, the previous administration often
made false claims that those people wouldn't show up in court.
But a study done by the American Immigration Council that
looked at 2.8 million hearings from 2008 to 2018 found
immigrants appear overwhelmingly [inaudible] 83 percent of the
case. Those few that missed their hearings usually missed their
hearings because of Government error and not because they are
intentionally failing to appear.
So that is why we need to access case management services
that help people go through a confusing court process and not
simply say that those few who do miss court are somehow bad
actors. People know that if they want to have a chance at
staying in the United States legally, they have to go through a
process. We should make sure that process is easier to go
through so that people don't fall through the cracks through no
fault of their own.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
My time has expired. I will now move on to Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
To any of the witnesses in particular, just one question I
had deals with reunification. I know we have talked about
reunification being a goal of the unaccompanied minors who come
into the country. For those individuals that do not have family
members in the United States, what should our long-term policy
be as far as placement of these children?
Ms. Podkul. I can start. So for about--traditionally, about
10 percent of the unaccompanied children don't have anyone, any
family member, anyone who is able to sponsor them when they
arrive. So what happens is they stay in Government custody
through the duration of their case. So at the end of their
case, they either win their case. If they win legal status,
they are eligible for the Unaccompanied Refugee Minor Program,
which is a Federal foster care program where they can stay
until they are 21 because they have their green card and they
will be on their path to citizenship. If they lose their case,
then they are removed by the Government just like anyone else
would be removed by ICE.
Mr. Guest. Let me ask you, Jennifer. I think maybe you told
the story about the 11-year-old child who came to the United
States without even consulting with his family. Assuming that
he had family in his home country who wanted him back, who
wanted to care for him and love for him and allow him to live
in their home, should that be taken into consideration as to
where the best placement for the child is?
I am thinking of many times, as we deal with minor children
here in United States and we are looking at things such as
custody and what parent should get custody and where the best
place for the children to grow up, and I often hear and in our
chancery or family law court we talk about reunification,
placing them back with parents, grandparents, with aunts and
uncles.
Are those matters taken into consideration? If not, should
they not be taken into consideration as to where there are
close family members where these children can reside and live
in those homes?
Ms. Podkul. That is a great question. You know, we don't
have the consideration of the best interests of the child in
U.S. law. Right? So there is different elements. You know, in
some forms of relief, in some considerations, you can talk
about what might be in that child's best interest. But there
really isn't a legal standard here that we are applying in our
U.S. immigration system for these children. Right? We think it
is very important, right, just like you do, that we are taking
into account all the considerations about this child's life and
what is really going to be in their best interest.
I also think it is important, when we are talking about why
aren't people asking for protection in Mexico, right, Mexico
has a law in which they are required to consider the best
interest of the child. Right? It is important for the Mexican
government to be able to talk to the U.S. Government and say,
hey, for example, we have a child here in Mexico who is
considering applying for asylum but their mom lives in Chicago.
Right? Should we--if they have support there, is the child
eventually going to wind up--want to end up with her? Does it
make more sense for the United States to adjudicate this
application for asylum?
So I think it is really important not just for the United
States to consider the best interest of the child, but for us
to be talking about it in a regional way with countries in the
region to make sure that we are doing right by these kids and
families.
Mr. Guest. Would you agree that that should be--I know it
is not but it should be one of the things the courts should
look at as the best interest of the child, whether that child
remain in the United States, whether that child live in Mexico
with family members, or return back to their country of origin?
Should that not be at least one of the factors that the court
addresses as we are dealing with, you know, unaccompanied
minors who in some cases would have to go into some sort of
foster care family or foster care system here versus being able
to return to family members who would like them to be in their
homes in other countries?
Ms. Podkul. Yes. So many factors need to be taken into
account and, most important, is where that child would be the
safest. Right? So it is who can care for them, where does the
family live, and where would they be most safe. Those should
all certainly be things that the Government considers.
Mr. Guest. So you would say that that should be a factor we
should consider?
Ms. Podkul. Where they have family? Yes, where they have
family, where they have support system, absolutely, but the
priority also has to be, which is already under U.S. law, where
they are going to be safe. Right? So we can't just----
Mr. Guest. Can people be safe outside the United States? I
understand we may not return them to their country of origin.
But if they had family in Mexico or they had family somewhere
else and those family members wanted those children, should
that not be taken into consideration?
It seems to me the argument has been that everyone who
comes into the United States, regardless of where they are
going to be placed, should remain here. I believe that many
should, but I also believe that there are certain circumstances
where you have family members, particularly the 11-year-old boy
who left his family, I think those parents should have some
say.
If my child left at 11, as a parent, I have legal rights in
the United States that my child can't make that decision. As a
parent, I get to be involved. It seems to me that that should
be something that we should have in our court system, and it
seems to me to be something that is lacking and has not been
part of the conversation.
Madam Chair, I know I am out of time, so at this time I
yield back.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Guest.
You raised an interesting point that, frankly, I have been
to the border many, many times, I have spoken to family
members, and I don't generally see this situation. It is quite
opposite. It is where the parents are sending the kids because
of the violence, because they have already lost a kid, or
because they are trying to protect them. Also, the number of
family members that we have that actually have come and
sponsored a child, that number is very high of kids who have
family in the United States.
But thanks so much for your questioning and for the points
that you have made.
I will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I have been to the border, and I have also
been across the border. I had a constituent, Mr. Escobar. He
was reporting to ICE. He reported pursuant to agreements, and
he had his American-born wife and American-born child with him.
He was removed from his family without the kind of notice that
we would like to have, and he was sent to El Salvador--San
Salvador with the clothes on his back and about $20 in his
pocket. It took us more than 2 years, I believe, to get him
home.
But in the process, I went there to see him, and I went to
San Salvador and I went to a repatriation center. One of the
things that concerned him greatly was when people are brought
back into the country, they are literally people who will wait
for them, waylay them, harm them. It is really not a pretty
picture when you have an opportunity to see it up close and how
these people are fearful of leaving the repatriation center.
I believe one of our speakers, Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, sir,
you talked about the harm. I want you to just revisit that.
There are some things that bear repeating. Tell us about what
could happen to people when we send them back to harm's way.
Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Thank you very much for that
question. We saw the problems that this caused in particular
under the Remain in Mexico program and continue to occur under
Title 42, when people were sent back to Mexico, multiple
people, hundreds if not thousands of people were kidnapped
within minutes or hours after they were sent back to Mexico,
sometimes right after their court hearings.
When Congress held a hearing on MPP 2 years ago, we
submitted a statement for the record about one mother who had
crossed the border for a court hearing with her 7-year-old,
nonverbal, disabled child. After asking not to be sent back to
Mexico because of the danger, the previous administration
ignored her pleas and sent her back to Mexico, and within 5
minutes she was kidnapped at knifepoint, held, assaulted with
her and her daughter, and ultimately ended up ordered deported
for missing a court hearing because she was in the hands of her
kidnappers when that court hearing was scheduled to occur.
Even today, the cartel station people outside the ports of
entry, waiting for the United States to send people back. As
you said, this occurs in San Salvador as well, but it is most
particularly egregious in Mexico right at the border. The State
Department says that the Mexican State of Tamaulipas where many
people are returned is a Level 4 security risk, comparable to
Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan, where no one should go. Yet we
are still sending families back there every single day.
We have to keep those risks in mind when we talk about
sending people back and making them wait in Mexico, because, as
we know, those situation are not safe, especially for migrants
and especially for Black migrants who are particularly at risk
in Mexico where there is often frequent discrimination against
them.
Mr. Green. With reference to the gentleman that I mentioned
earlier, sir, Mr. Escobar, he had to stay at home most of the
time. He was accosted when he left. Mind you, he was dropped
off at the airport. Hadn't been to El Salvador in 15 years.
Dropped off at the airport. Just a few dollars in his pocket.
He and some others had to get together, pool their resources,
and try to get a vehicle to get them outside of the city to a
safe place before it got too dark. They had to literally try to
escape from the airport to avoid harm.
This is not a pretty picture. You have to actually see the
people and how they fear for their lives to appreciate what is
happening to them. There is a lot of fear, and my hope is that
what you have said will have some meaning to us about just
sending people back to harm's way. I appreciate your
commentary.
Madam Chair, I thank you for the second opportunity. I just
pray that this will have a better ending than it seems that we
are headed for.
I yield back.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Green, for sharing with us and
for yielding back.
That is all we--that is all we have for questions for
Members.
I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony
and the Members for their questions.
The Members of the subcommittee may have additional
questions for the witnesses, and we ask that you respond in
writing. Without objection, the committee record shall be kept
open for 10 days.
I also want to ask unanimous consent to submit for the
record letters from CHIRLA, the Lutheran Immigration and
Refugee Service, Catholic Charities, Amnesty International,
First Focus on Children, and Young Center for Immigrant
Children's Rights, their submitted testimony.
Hearing no objection, we will include those as well.
[The information follows:]
Letter From the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)
April 27, 2021.
Chair Nanette Diaz Barragan,
Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border Security,
Facilitation, and Operations, Washington, DC 20515.
Ranking Member Clay Higgins,
Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border Security,
Facilitation, and Operations, Washington, DC 20515.
Chair Bennie Thompson,
Ranking Member John Katko,
Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Hearing ``Unaccompanied Children At The Border: Stakeholder
Perspectives On The Way Forward''
Dear Chairs Barragan & Thompson & Ranking Members Higgins & Katko:
On behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), the
largest State-wide immigrant rights organization in California, I
submit this statement for the record for today's hearing entitled
``Unaccompanied Children At The Border: Stakeholder Perspectives On The
Way Forward.'' CHIRLA is such a stakeholder, both as a steadfast
advocate for the immigrant community at large as well as for the
children who have recently arrived in southern California and for their
families with whom they must be reunited without delay. Below is our
perspective on what we as an organization are doing to help with this
process and what can be done more generally.
chirla's role in southern california
As an organization serving the immigrant community for the past 35
years, we have worked to gain and maintain both trust and credibility
as a reliable source of accurate information. To that effect, we field
numerous inquiries from both our own members and the broader community
every single day.
For the unaccompanied minors and their families, we therefore
opened up our toll-free National hotline specifically to family members
seeking information about their children's whereabouts. We did so as
soon as the first buses starting arriving to the Long Beach Convention
Center--the second Emergency Intake Site (EIS) opened under the
auspices of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
in California after the one in San Diego--and we expect to continue
doing so when the Pomona Fairplex opens up its doors and if other
cities do so as well.
California in 2021 is now a pro-immigrant State, and we are
grateful to the city of Long Beach, the County of Los Angeles and
Pomona as well as non-profit partners like Immigrant Defenders (who
will be providing legal services to the children) for rising to this
occasion. Beyond the children's physical and mental health and the
immediate search for their family members, this has, for example,
extended to the current on-going book and toys drive organized by the
city of Long Beach, which we are supporting.
Last Thursday April 22, I toured the Long Beach Convention Center
with Mayor Robert Garcia, Representative Lowenthal, Chair Barragan's
office and others. I saw how this all-hands-on-deck approach from
California assists HHS and helps ensure that the well-being of the
children is front and center of this essential mission. CHIRLA commits
to continuing its partnership with all other stakeholders at the local,
State, and Federal levels to help reunite these children with their
families.
chirla's perspective on policy solutions
Aside from the on-going multi-year process, led by the Biden
administration and Vice President Kamala Harris, of dealing with the
root causes that compel the children and their families to migrate, we
believe there are immediate actions that the Federal Government can
take to improve the situation. These include:
1. End the Use of Title 42 to Expel Immigrants Arriving at the
Border.--While this has been ended for children, it has not for
families arriving together or for single adults. For families, this is
particular harmful and risk leading to unnecessary family separation,
where a family member is faced with a Hobson's Choice of allowing a
minor to face danger while waiting in Mexico or seeing that minor enter
the United States alone.
2. HHS Personnel Must be Co-Located at All CBP Facilities.--When
the Title 42 is ended, this is essential so that children who arrive
with non-parental caregivers can be quickly reunited with each other
following processing by HHS and CBP.
3. Increase the Use of Intensive Case Management and Assist
Children, including with transportation costs, so they can be reunited
with their families once located.
Finally, from addressing root causes to modernizing our broken
immigration system including the asylum processing destroyed by the
previous adminstration, CHIRLA believes that the U.S. Citizenship Act
(H.R. 1177 and S. 348) as well as other immigration legislation that
offers permanent relief need to be passed by Congress and sent to
President Biden's desk forthwith.
Thank you for considering CHIRLA's statement. Please contact our
policy counsel, Carl Bergquist, at cbergquist@chirla.org, should you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Angelica Salas,
Executive Director, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA).
______
Statement of Susannah Cunningham, Advocacy Manager, Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service
April 27, 2021
cbp data shows the rise of unaccompanied children under title 42
LIRS has decades of experience in policy and programming with
children who come into the immigration enforcement system in the United
States. We are a solutions-oriented organization that works closely
with our Federal partners and a National network of local affiliates to
ensure every child who enters the United States is treated with the
dignity and care that we would wish for our own children.
introduction
Mounting evidence indicates that the historic number of arrivals of
unaccompanied children at the Southern Border is the result of a
specious ``public health order,'' Title 42--a Trump-era U.S. policy
that can and should be reversed.
Evoked in March 2020, the regulation halted asylum access for
families and individuals presenting themselves at southern ports of
entry, while the border remained open to hundreds of thousands of
people crossing daily for non-essential travel. When legal challenges
arose, Federal courts found reason to make exception for unaccompanied
children and President Biden chose to keep the carve-out in place--
making unaccompanied children among the select few individuals
permitted access to life-saving refuge. This policy functionally forced
families to decide to stay together amid unsafe conditions in Mexico or
to separate in the hopes of safeguarding their children.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David Bier, ``Immediate Solutions for Migrant Children,'' Cato
Institute, March 17, 2021, https://www.cato.org/publications/immediate-
solutions-migrant-children#release-children-nonparental-adult-family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the impact of 2 devastating hurricanes and regional
instability have pushed migrants out of the Northern Triangle in
Central America, many of these asylum seekers and migrants are also
pulled by the hope of safe haven, the assurances of seasonal work (i.e.
agriculture), and annual weather patterns that make the route to the
border more survivable. These colliding factors, timed with pent-up
demand from delayed travel during the 2020 pandemic, have driven a
cyclical migration influx that we have seen in previous years,
including each year of the 1980's and as recently as 2014 and 2019.\2\
As many have noted, what is unusual this year is the historic number of
arrivals of unaccompanied children at the border, which could be
decreased if the Biden administration were to end Title 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Refugee Council USA ``No Justification: The Administration's
Crusade to Ban All Refugees,'' July 19, 2019, https://rcusa.org/
resources/strongno-justification-the-administrationsnbspcrusade-to-ban-
all-refugeesnbspstrong/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
what is title 42?
On March 20, 2020, the Trump White House--in collaboration with
then-Acting Secretary Chad Wolf--directed a new order, stipulating that
those ``introducing'' themselves at Southern ports-of-entry to apply
for asylum should be turned away and ``expelled'' back to Mexico or
their home countries.\3\ This directive functionally suspended the
long-guaranteed right to seek asylum for individuals who arrive at our
Southern Border and ask for protection. The expulsions were carried out
by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under the evocation of a little-
known provision of U.S. health law, section 265 of U.S. Code Title 42.
Despite being billed as a public health order at the time, the Center
for Disease Control's (CDC) own scientists disputed the public health
merit of the order while the United States still permitted robust
commerce and non-essential travel across the border, and CDC officials
refused to sign it.\4\ Originating from the West Wing and then-Acting
Secretary Chad Wolf's agency, the order would remain in effect despite
wide-spread criticism by leading public health officials.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Dara Lind, ``Democratic Senators Demand Answers on Trump's
Secretive Border Expulsions,'' ProPublica, April 8, 2020, https://
www.propublica.org/article/democratic-senators-demand-answers-on-
trumps-secretive-border-expulsions. And ``Acting DHS Secretary Wolf
Speaks to Reporters,'' C-SPAN, March 20, 2020, https://www.c-span.org/
video/?470541-101/dhs-secretary-wolf-limiting-cross-border-travel-
coronavirus-crisis.
\4\ James Bandler et al, ``Inside the Fall of the CDC,'' Pro
Publica, October 15, 2020, https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-
the-fall-of-the-cdc.
\5\ ``Public Health Experts Urge U.S. Officials to Withdraw Order
Enabling Mass Expulsion of Asylum Seekers,'' Columbia University
Mailman School of Public Health, May 18, 2020, https://
www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/public-health-
experts-urge-us-officials-withdraw-order-enabling-mass-expulsion-
asylum-seekers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP would subsequently report that 90 percent of expulsions in May
2020 were under the Title 42 Order.\6\ Subsequent investigations found
that CBP had controversially and possibly illegally expanded the
jurisdiction of the original Title 42 order to apply beyond those
``introducing'' themselves to the United States, deciding that the
order extended authorization to also expel those who had already
crossed into the United States.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Rafael Bernal, ``90 percent of People Apprehended at Border
Expelled under New Coronavirus Order,'' The Hill, May 7, 2020, https://
thehill.com/latino/496632-90-percent-of-people-apprehended-at-border-
expelled-under-new-coronavirus-order?rl=1.
\7\ United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
``PJES v. Chad Wolf, Case 1:20-cv-02245-EGS-GM U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia,'' November 18, 2020, https://www.dropbox.com/
s/plbuv0knoth1623/PJES%20opinion.pdf?dl=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
who is crossing the border under title 42?
Hundreds of thousands of people cross the U.S.-Mexico border on a
daily basis, mostly for commerce and non-essential travel.\8\ Sixteen
million individuals crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in March 2021
alone.\9\ However, a combination of the previous administration's
Remain in Mexico program as well as the Title 42 order has ensured that
shamefully few of those millions of individuals crossing monthly are
those seeking life-saving asylum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Border Crossing/Entry Data,'' Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, April 26, 2021, https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-
products-and-data/border-crossing-data/border-crossingentry-data.
\9\ ``Border Crossing/Entry Data,'' Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, April 26, 2021, https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-
products-and-data/border-crossing-data/border-crossingentry-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent analysis by the American Immigration Council indicates,
``last month, 72 percent of all people encountered at the border were
sent back to Mexico or expelled to their home countries. And while
unaccompanied children and some families at the border have been
allowed to come into the country and challenge their deportation in
immigration court, they represent a fraction of overall entrants.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Facts About the Current Situation at the Border,'' American
Immigration Council, March 23, 2021, https://
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/facts-about-current-situation-
border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
what evidence is there that title 42 is creating the influx of
unaccompanied children?
CBP officials have reported the phenomenon publicly. Brian
Hastings, who leads the busiest Border Patrol sector in the United
States reported, ``what we are seeing, more and more, is the families
are self-separating in Mexico.''\11\ From February 24 to March 23,
2021, Border Patrol documented 435 incidents in just one sector (in the
south Texas region) where children were apprehended crossing the border
alone after previously being expelled with their family under the Title
42 order. When the unaccompanied children arrive at ports of entry or
are found alone by Border Patrol, they are first placed in the custody
of CBP--most of them held in in-take facilities that we have seen
images of in the news, with children laying in overpacked pods, wrapped
in mylar blankets behind plastic screens. The children are then
transferred to the custody of Health and Human Services--most after
spending an average of 122 hours in CBP custody, despite mandates that
they be transferred within 72 hours.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Geneva Sands, ``Families are `self-separating' in Mexico after
being expelled from the US, Border Patrol says,'' CNN, April 6, 2021
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/06/politics/families-self-separating-
mexico-border-patrol/index.html.
\12\ Priscilla Alvarez, ``How the Biden Administration is
Responding to a Record Number of Unaccompanied Children at the US-
Mexico Border,'' CNN, April 23, 2021, https://www.cnn.com/interactive/
2021/04/politics/biden-administration-border-crisis/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March, Border Patrol apprehended 18,656 unaccompanied minors at
the Southwest Border, a record since at least October 2009. This is
about twice as many apprehensions as in February and continues an
upward trend dating back to last fall, according to the agency's
data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Priscilla Alvarez, ``How the Biden administration is
responding to a record number of unaccompanied children at the US-
Mexico border,'' CNN, April 23, 2021, https://www.cnn.com/interactive/
2021/04/politics/biden-administration-border-crisis/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
we have seen this before
In January 2020, under the Trump administration's Remain in Mexico
program, which forced asylum applicants to wait in Mexico pending their
asylum hearings, we saw record numbers of unaccompanied minors arriving
after Border Patrol officials had initially encountered them with
family members and deported them.\14\ How they separated from their
family members varies, but reports suggest both concerning
disappearances of family members as well as self-separation of families
that decided that the squalid and unsafe conditions in Mexico were too
dangerous for their children.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Priscilla Alvarez, ``At least 350 children of migrant families
forced to remain in Mexico have crossed over alone to US,'' CNN,
January 24, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/24/politics/migrant-
children-remain-in-mexico/index.html.
\15\ Priscilla Alvarez, ``At least 350 children of migrant families
forced to remain in Mexico have crossed over alone to US,'' CNN,
January 24, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/24/politics/migrant-
children-remain-in-mexico/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
other important implications
An additional implication of Title 42 is its unjustified and
immoral use to deport Black Haitian immigrants to Mexico or back to
Haiti without asylum proceedings or access to legal representation,
violating codified U.S. law forbidding refoulement.\16\ Given that many
of the expulsions and deportations of immigrants back to Mexico were
based on agreements with the Mexican government related to Central
American asylum seekers, its use to violate American law and deport
Haitian asylum seekers back to Haiti is unconscionable. As Tom Ricker,
policy director with the Quixote Center, points out, ``the entire
justification for the Title 42 policy is the claim that the United
States lacks the capacity to safely detain people. Yet, the United
States is holding people for weeks . . . How do you deny someone asylum
who has been placed in detention--with no legal representation at all--
based on the argument that there is no capacity to detain them?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Dara Lind, ``Leaked Border Patrol Memo Tells Agents to Send
Migrants Back Immediately--Ignoring Asylum Law,'' Pro Publica, April 2,
2020, https://www.propublica.org/article/leaked-border-patrol-memo-
tells-agents-to-send-migrants-back-immediately-ignoring-asylum-law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rescinding title 42
For the reasons stated above, Lutheran Immigration and Refugees
Service joins UndocuBlack Network, Southern Border Communities
Coalition, the National Council of Churches, the CATO Institute, and
186 other groups and leaders in calling for the end of the meritless
Title 42 policy.\17\ Rescinding Title 42 would create a path forward
for families who wish to remain together as they seek safety, one that
is consistent with our values as a Nation and would end the continuance
of a deeply shameful policy of family separation under the Trump
administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ David Bier, ``Immediate Solutions for Migrant Children,'' Cato
Institute, March 17, 2021, https://www.cato.org/publications/immediate-
solutions-migrant-children#release-children-nonparental-adult-family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
lutheran immigration and refugee services
For 80 years, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service has assisted
forcibly uprooted people from round the globe. As the largest faith-
based organization focused on serving migrants and refugees, we seek to
provide assistance and protection to vulnerable populations when they
can no longer safely remain in their home countries. Informed by a
Lutheran legacy of welcoming the stranger, the sanctity of family, and
decades of experience with migrants and refugees, we have empowered
more than 500,000 families and individuals fleeing conflict,
persecution, and war. We provide a host of services, which include:
Migrant Services
LIRS coordinates services for asylum seekers at the Southern
Border, departing immigration detention, and at their final
destinations, including the provision of necessities such as food,
clothing, and hygiene supplies, medical triage and basic care, Know
Your Rights counseling, emergency housing, and case management
services.
Safe Release Support Services
Safe Release Support sites perform background checks on potential
guardians to ensure that children are reunited into safe and secure
homes. Safe Release staff identify various needs of the family such as
pro bono legal counsel, food banks, counseling services, English
classes, job training, and medical care, and connect them to these
services. During the 2018 family separation crisis, LIRS was 1 of only
2 agencies working to reunite families.
Transitional Foster Care for Unaccompanied Children
The Transitional Foster Care program provides safe and caring
foster homes to particularly vulnerable children who will be reunified
with their families. The program specializes in serving minors under
the age of 12, pregnant/parenting youth, youth with disabilities, and
sibling groups while their families are located. All children in
transitional care receive individualized assessments, acculturation and
adaptation services, case management, education, weekly group and
individual counseling, legal support, mental and medical health care,
and access to religious services.
Long-Term Foster Care for Unaccompanied Children
Unaccompanied children without family reunification options but who
have the possibility of receiving legal immigration protections are
placed in Long-Term Foster Care where they receive on-going case
management support as they integrate into their new communities.
Children in Long-Term Foster Care are placed with loving foster
families until their immigration case is resolved and typically will
transition into the Unaccompanied Refugee Minors program.
Home Study and Post-Release Services
For particularly vulnerable unaccompanied children, LIRS offers
community-based case management services. These include inspection of
home environments once the child and the caregiver are together in the
home, connecting families to community resources, and empowering
families with the resources and knowledge they need to make informed
decisions about schooling, legal representation, medical health, mental
health, and recreational and religious services.
______
Letter From Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA)
April 27, 2021.
The Hon. Nanette Barragan,
Chairwoman, U.S House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Border
Security, Facilitation, and Operations, 2246 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Hon. Clay Higgins,
Ranking Member, U.S House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Border
Security, Facilitation, and Operations, 572 Cannon House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairwoman Barragan and Ranking Member Higgins: I write on
behalf of Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA), the national office for 167
Catholic Charities agencies across the country and the U.S.
territories, to express our appreciation for the opportunity to submit
our written statement for the record about unaccompanied children along
the Southern Border.
Our border agencies are actively working to assist all migrants
along the Southern Border, including families and unaccompanied
children. We are in regular communication with Federal agencies to
identify services our network of agencies can provide to meet the needs
of these children. Last year, Catholic Charities agencies provided over
160,000 migrants with shelter and respite care. We have over 100 years
of experience serving and responding to the needs of newcomers. Each
day Catholic Charities agencies witness first-hand both the unique
hardships faced by migrant communities and the incredible contributions
they continue to make to our country.
We are encouraged to hear policy discussions and a renewed focus on
the root causes of migration. Our agencies hear incredible stories of
struggles from the migrants we serve. They have been forced to leave
their homelands due to a range of perilous issues: Devastating
hurricanes that destroyed entire villages, caused crop failures and
washed away homes; gang violence that is a constant threat to daily
life; and high levels of poverty. Many arrive at our border as a means
of survival. Hearing of the root causes that compel families to make
the difficult decision of sending their children to our country in the
hope that they may reunite with family members simply to survive should
cause all Americans to pause and contemplate such a decision. Their
situation could not be more dire. CCUSA urges Congress, the
administration, and Homeland Security agencies to treat all migrants
humanely when arriving in the United States and along our borders. We
also encourage serious debate on comprehensive immigration reform for a
more just and humane immigration system.
CCUSA stands ready to work with Congress in support of just
immigration policies and will continue in our ministry of assisting
those in need.
Sincerely,
Sister Donna Markham,
OP, PhD, President & CEO.
______
Letter From Amnesty International USA
April 26, 2021.
Representative Nanette Barragan,
Chair, Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation,
& Operations.
Representative Clay Higgins,
Ranking Member, Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border Security,
Facilitation, & Operations.
Re: Amnesty International USA Statement for Hearing: Unaccompanied
Children at the Border: Stakeholder Perspectives on the Way Forward
Dear Chairperson Barragan, Ranking Member Higgins, and Members of
the Subcommittee: On behalf of Amnesty International USA and our
members and supporters in the United States, we submit this statement
for the record on the treatment of unaccompanied children at the U.S.
Southern Border.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amnesty International is an independent, Nobel Peace Prize-
winning, global human rights movement of more than 10 million people.
Amnesty International USA is the movement's U.S.-based section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Biden administration continues to welcome children seeking
safety at the U.S. Southern Border, we call on the Government to take
bold action to transform how it welcomes children--and all people--into
this country and ensure their human rights.
The Biden administration has inherited a chaotic, punitive system
that does not prioritize the well-being of people seeking safety in the
United States--including unaccompanied children. The consequences are
playing out now on the U.S. Southern Border, where the gross negligence
from the previous administration--a lack of planning and resources
invested in facilities to welcome children seeking safety--is creating
challenges for processing. COVID-19 precautions have also constrained
capacity.
In 2018 and 2019, Amnesty International USA visited the temporary
influx facilities for unaccompanied children at Tornillo and Carrizo
Springs in Texas, and the notorious Homestead facility in Florida, as
well as permanent facilities for children in Florida and Texas.\2\
Advocacy groups such as ours sounded the alarm, calling for
accountability for human rights violations at Homestead in particular.
We demanded an end to the cruel policies that had necessitated the use
of these facilities at all--forcibly separating families and using
children as bait to deport their potential sponsors through the
Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'') and the Office of Refugee
Resettlement (``ORR'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Amnesty International USA, No Home for Children: The Homestead
`Temporary Emergency' Facility (July 2019), available at
www.amnestyusa.org/reports/no-home-for-children-us-government-
detention-of-children-at-homestead-facility-cruel-and-unlawful/.
\3\ Women's Refugee Commission and National Immigrant Justice
Center, Children as Bait: Impacts of the ORR-DHS Information-Sharing
Agreement (March 2019), available at https://immigrantjustice.org/
sites/default/files/content-type/research-item/documents/2019-03/
Children-as-Bait.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the immediate context necessitating the use of temporary
influx facilities is different, the Biden administration is still
obligated to hold children in conditions that meet international human
right standards and U.S. standards that support their best interests.
No matter the situation or who is heading the administration, the
Government must uphold its human rights obligations.
The Government is taking responsive steps and a holistic approach
to move children from Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'')
facilities to Office of Refugee Resettlement (``ORR'') facilities
quickly, but it needs to do more and faster. Children must be held in
conditions that meet their best interests and safely reunified with
families and sponsors much more quickly.
Now is the time for transformation. As the administration adapts to
current challenges, it must concurrently set in motion the systemic
changes needed for reforming the border reception and ORR systems for
unaccompanied children, so children are held in CBP facilities for
minimal time; the need for influx facilities in the future is
eliminated; the use of detention is not assumed; and children's safe
and speedy release and reunification with parents, caregivers, and
other sponsor is prioritized, as both U.S. and international human
rights law require.
human rights standards governing the detention of immigrant children
Under international human rights standards, all actions concerning
children should be guided by the best interests of the child.\4\ Under
that ``best interests'' principle, the U.N. Committee on the Rights of
the Child has underscored that ``protection and care'' should be
provided that ensures ``the child's `well-being' and development.
Children's well-being, in a broad sense includes their basic material,
physical, educational, and emotional needs, as well as needs for
affection and safety.''\5\ The United States has incorporated this
principle at the Federal and State levels. Congress has incorporated
the best interests of the child standard into multiple immigration law
provisions respecting children.\6\ All 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and U.S. territories require consideration of a child's best
interests in decisions about the child's custody.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (``CRC''), Art. 3(1)
(November 20, 1989), available at www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/
crc.pdf. The United States signed the CRC in 1995, though it is the
only country that has yet to ratify it. As a signatory to the CRC, the
United States is prohibited under customary international law from acts
that would defeat its object and purpose.
\5\ Committee on the Rights of the Children, General Comment No.
14, 71 (2013), available at www2.ohchr.org/English/bodies/crc/docs/GC/
CRC_C_GC_14_ENG.pdf.
\6\ See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J); Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Guidelines for Children's Asylum Claims
(December 10, 1998), at 2, 6, 9. Federal agencies that take
unaccompanied children into custody must place them in the least
restrictive setting that is in their best interests. 8 U.S.C.
1232(c)(2).
\7\ See Child Welfare Information Gateway, Determining the Best
Interests of the Child (2012), available at www.childwelfare.gov/
pubPDFs/best_interest.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children should not be detained, whether unaccompanied or
accompanied, as it is not in their best interests.\8\ If children are
detained, they must only be detained as a last resort for the shortest
possible time and in the least restrictive setting possible, in a
facility that is appropriate to the child's needs and complies with
both international and U.S. standards.\9\ Whenever a child is detained,
they should be treated ``in a manner that takes into account the needs
of persons of his or her age.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(``ICCPR''), Art. 9(3); U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees
(``UNHCR''), UNHCR's Position Regarding the Detention of Refugee and
Migrant Children in the Migration Context, January 2017, at 2,
available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/5885c2434.html.
\9\ See CRC, Art. 37; see also General Comment from UNHCR on ICCPR
Art. 9; Joint General Comment No. 3 (2017) of the Committee on the
Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their
Families and No. 22 (2017) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child
on the general principles regarding the human rights of children in the
context of international migration, Art. 32(f) (November 16, 2017).
\10\ CRC, Art. 37(c)129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Flores Settlement Agreement (``Flores Agreement'') lays out
standards for the detention, release, and treatment of immigrant
children--whether unaccompanied or accompanied.\11\ The Flores
Agreement is based on 2 principles: The best interests of the child and
family unity. It requires the Government to release immigrant children
as quickly as possible, and to hold them in the least restrictive
setting possible--generally, in a non-secure facility licensed by a
State child welfare entity. It provides for exemptions to the care and
oversight of children ``in the event of an emergency or influx of
minors into the United States.''\12\ The Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (``TVPRA'') similarly requires that
children be placed in the ``least restrictive setting that is in the
best interest of the child,'' and notes that children ``shall not be
placed in a secure facility absent a determination that the child poses
a danger to self or to others.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Flores v. Lynch, No. CV 85-04544 DMG (Ex), Central District of
California (August 21, 2015,) available at www.aila.org/File/Related/
14111359p.pdf [hereinafter Flores Agreement].
\12\ Flores Agreement.
\13\ William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) 235(c)(2); 8 U.S.C. 1232(c)(2), Pub. L.
No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
response at the border and a way forward
The administration is taking a whole-of-Government approach to
welcome children more in line with its obligations. It has revoked the
dangerous agreement between DHS and ORR that endangered children and
their sponsors--which advocacy groups like ours fought for years.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ www.cnn.com/2021/03/12/politics/biden-rescinds-trump-
immigration-migrants-minors/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobilizing FEMA for emergency intake sites is helping to swiftly
and humanely address children's welfare by moving them out of border
facilities. CBP facilities are no places for families or children to
stay a moment longer than absolutely necessary.
Putting creative processes into place to get children out of ORR
shelters faster right now--from reducing quarantine time to paying for
transportation of children and sponsors--will not only release children
more quickly and create more capacity, but it also charts a path for
reform.
Nonetheless, the administration must move faster to get children
out of CBP stations more quickly, while taking immediate steps that
will lead to long-term reforms, so the Government is not here in the
same situation in another year.
At the border, ORR should start the sponsor-vetting process rather
than at a later stage. This would potentially allow for release of
children to their parents, families, and other sponsors from the
border. Additionally, ORR and CBP should test not only children but
also their sponsors for COVID-19 to enable quicker release and even
potentially allow children to quarantine with their sponsors, who are
often parents and family members.
Beyond the border, the administration must start right now to
expand its network of ORR facilities. The facilities should be
permanent, licensed, and small scale. Children should not be warehoused
in facilities with 500 beds as if they are in a processing plant.
Detention should not be assumed as the model, and foster care options
must be expanded.
This expansion process will take time, and that is why the
administration must act urgently. The United States must not continue
using temporary influx facilities because of a lack of planning or
investment in the infrastructure to care for unaccompanied children. In
emergency situations, influx facilities are an imperfect stopgap
measure. The Government must move away from their use.
While these facilities are in use, the Biden administration must
ensure stringent safeguards are in place to care for children. Unlike
before, the use temporary facilities should have the same services and
standards of care as permanent ones. Children's rights should not be
short-changed because of where they are held; the Government is
obligated to uphold their rights equally. Children be released as
quickly as possible from them to parents and other sponsors. The
Government must also ensure regular access to these facilities for
independent monitors, child welfare experts, and attorneys to ensure
children's welfare and oversight and accountability. Influx facilities
are not appropriate for prolonged use, and they should be de-activated
as quickly as possible.
In addition to expanding system capacity, the sponsor-vetting
process must be streamlined and case management services immediately
and heavily invested in so children can have a place to call home.
Efficiencies do not mean compromising thoroughness; the well-being of
the child is always paramount. There must need immediate investment in
processing sponsorship applications much more quickly as well as
increasing post-release services to ensure children's welfare. Most
unaccompanied children have families and sponsors waiting to welcome
them, and that's where they belong--the Government is not a parent.
Challenges bring opportunities for change, and systemic reform must
begin now to stop this cycle of urgent response at the border for the
reception of unaccompanied children and release to their parents,
caregivers, and other sponsors. The United States has the capacity, and
must marshal the political will, to act.
stop the misuse of title 42
The exemption of unaccompanied children from Title 42 is welcome
and was long overdue, as it conflicts with the TVPRA and human rights
obligations.
However, continuing to apply Title 42 to adults and families is
unlawful, not based on science, and perpetuates the systemic racism
permeating the United States' punitive immigration enforcement system.
It also creates family separation and endangers children when parents
expelled under Title 42 and placed in a desperate situation, allow
their children to travel to the United States alone to ask for
protection.
The misuse of Title 42 violates the United States' obligations
under international and domestic law to uphold the right to seek asylum
and not forcibly return individuals to a place where they would face
persecution. Since Title 42 it has resulted in the summary expulsion of
over 500,000 immigrants and asylum seekers.\15\ Title 42 has
particularly affected Black immigrants and asylum seekers, who have
been summarily returned to the countries they fled because the Mexican
government is largely only receiving immigrants and asylum seekers from
the northern countries of Central America who are expelled under Title
42.\16\ Over the course of Black History Month in February 2021 and
then in March 2021, the Biden administration expelled over 1,200
Haitians to danger in Haiti, including children, infants, and
families.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border
Protection, Nation-wide Enforcement Encounters: Title 8 Enforcement
Actions and Title 42 Expulsions (April 7, 2021), available at
www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/title-8-and-
title-42-statistics.
\16\ www.dhs.gov/news/2021/03/16/statement-homeland-security-
secretary-alejandro-n-mayorkas-regarding-situation.
\17\ Haitian Bridge Alliance, The UndocuBlack Network, and The
Quixote Center, The Invisible Wall: Title 42 and its Impact on Haitian
Migrants (March 2020), available at www.quixote.org/wp-content/uploads/
2021/03/The-Invisible-Wall.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States' public health laws should not be used to evade
U.S. obligations under human rights and refugee law. The U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees has made clear that blanket measures
restricting access to asylum on health grounds, without safeguards to
protect against refoulement, is discriminatory, does not meet
international standards for protection, and cannot be justified.\18\ As
President Biden assumed office, UNHCR yet again reminded governments:
``The right to seek asylum is a fundamental human right. The COVID-19
pandemic provides no exception.''\19\ Yet, the Biden administration
continues to use Title 42 to expel people seeing safety under the
pretext of public health, violating their right to seek asylum and
protection against refoulement--bedrock principles of refugee
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ UNHCR, Key Legal Considerations on access to territory for
persons in need of international protection in the context of the
COVID-19 response (March 16, 2020), available at www.refworld.org/
docid/5e7132834.html.
\19\ UNHCR, UNHCR warns asylum under attack at Europe's borders,
urges end to pushbacks and violence against refugees (January 28,
2021), available at www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/press/2021/1/601121344/
unhcr-warns-asylum-under-attack-europes-borders-urges-end-pushbacks-
violence.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the use of Title 42 does not advance the public health
justifications on which it is purportedly based. The use of Title 42
contradicts public health experts, who have clearly assessed and
confirmed that there is no public health rationale for denying people
their right to claim asylum at the U.S. border.\20\ Despite experts at
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determining there
was no public health rationale to close the border, the order invoking
the use of Title 42 was still issued over their objections.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/program-forced-
migration-and-health/letter-acting-hhs-secretary-cochran-and-cdc-
director-walensky.
\21\ See www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-closed-borders-
migrant-children-covid-19; https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-
pandemics-public-health-new-york-health-
4ef0c6c5263815a26f8aa17f6ea490ae.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply put: There is no public health rationale to treat immigrants
and asylum seekers differently, but it is causing irreparable harm to
them. Public health experts have published a series of recommendations
on how to restart the asylum process safely by using common-sense
measures.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/
public-health-experts-issue-recommendations-protect-public-health-and-
lives-asylum-seekers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The welcoming of children at the border--while continuing the
expulsion of families with children as well as adults--demonstrates
that the use of Title 42 is arbitrary and serves as a cruel and
unlawful form of border management. UNHCR has warned that ``[m]easures
restricting access to asylum must not be allowed to become entrenched
under the guise of public health.''\23\ We urge the administration to
heed that warning and stop the misuse of Title 42 and the practice of
summarily expelling immigrants and people seeking safety--including
families with children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ UNHCR, Inclusion key to protecting refugees and their hosts
amid COVID-19 pandemic (November 4, 2020), available at www.unhcr.org/
news/press/2020/11/5fa2f16b4/inclusion-key-protecting-refugees-hosts-
amid-covid-19-pandemic.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion and recommendations
In the midst of National debates urging the Biden administration to
close the border and framing children as a threat to National security
and the immigration system, the focus must remain on our collective
humanity. These are children who are seeking safety. Their well-being,
safety, and security must be the north star. The United States must
take urgent steps to improve conditions at the border and ensure the
safe, expedited release of children to their families and other
sponsors. The alternative is unacceptable and unlawful: Children must
not be expelled under Title 42. Children--and all people--seeking
safety can and must be welcomed. It is the United States' legal and
moral obligation, and it is their human right to ask for safety.
Amnesty International USA recommends:
Unaccompanied children should not be detained. However, if
detention is necessary, children should be placed for the
shortest period of time possible in foster care facilities or
small-size, State-licensed, permanent facilities while they are
reunified with their families or matched with other appropriate
sponsors.
ORR should fully utilize existing transitional foster care
(TFC) beds and long-term foster care (LTFC) beds and expand
available TFC and LTFC capacity so that more children can
be placed in foster care rather than congregate care
facilities.
ORR should immediately begin efforts to expand placement
capacity for permanent, licensed, small-scale facilities
containing under 25 beds.
Decisions regarding the release of unaccompanied children to
sponsors must always made in a child's best interests,
supported by adequate staffing and resources to ensure that
children are placed with appropriate sponsors as quickly as
possible, and not based on the sponsor's immigration status or
used for immigration enforcement. Whenever possible, all effort
should be made to place unaccompanied children in ORR
facilities as close to their potential sponsors as possible.
HHS should fully adopt co-location of HHS personnel at CBP
facilities to initiate the release of children arriving
with trusted caregivers at the border to facilitate
expedited, safe release of children. For children arriving
with trusted caregivers who are not their parents or legal
guardian, HHS personnel should be provided with a separate
space to initiate an evaluation of these caregivers as
potential sponsors while they are in CBP custody and, if
approved, release the child and caregiver together when
possible. This would avoid the need to separate children
from their caregivers, transfer them to ORR custody, and
only then begin the sponsorship process. Children who
arrive and are released with trusted caregivers meet the
legal definition of unaccompanied child and should be
afforded all protections for unaccompanied children
provided by the TVPRA. For children arriving alone, HHS
personnel should interview these children to identify any
special needs the child may have as well as any potential
sponsor(s), which should be shared immediately with the
child's case manager to speed up the sponsor vetting
process. All unaccompanied children whose family
reunifications are expedited, whether through direct
release at co-located CBP facilities or other means, should
be ensured legal counsel and post-release services.
ORR should implement intensive case management as standard
practice to safely expedite children's release.
ORR should increase post-release services to ensure
children's welfare.
ORR should continue the practice of paying for the child's
transportation to their sponsor once the release process is
approved. ORR should also pay for the care provider staff
member's transportation costs if necessary, to escort the
child to their sponsor.
ORR should not re-enter into any information-sharing
agreement regarding an unaccompanied child for use or
reference during removal proceedings or for immigration
enforcement.
Policies and practices regarding the care of unaccompanied
children conform to the best interests of the child standard as
outlined in domestic and international human rights standards,
no matter the type or location of ORR facility.
ORR should ensure that temporary influx facilities follow
State licensing requirements as well as the Flores
standards for permanent ORR shelters and international
human rights standards.
ORR should ensure that temporary influx facilities have
the same services and standards of care as permanent
facilities. The Government must also ensure regular access
to these facilities for independent monitors, child welfare
experts, and attorneys to ensure children's welfare and
oversight and accountability.
Access to counsel should be guaranteed.
Guarantee all children in Government custody legal counsel
to conduct ``Know Your Rights'' presentations, interview
children, conduct legal assessments, and establish contact
with representation in the community where the child will
be released.
Establish a right to counsel for children and ensure
children are guaranteed legal counsel in all immigration
court proceedings.
A far-sighted planning process should be developed that has
the elasticity and responsiveness necessary to accommodate
variations in unaccompanied children populations while
complying with domestic and international human rights
standards.
Congress should allocate funds for the above, and ensure
appropriate oversight.
Congress should place limitations on funding for contracts
with for-profit corporations, as they will not be properly
incentivized to care for children. The detention of children
should not be a business. Congress should place strict limits
on ORR's ability to contract with for-profit corporations to
ensure that corporations are not wrongly incentivized to cut
corners and prolong child detention, particularly detention in
influx facilities ill-suited to children's care.
We urge the Biden administration to take critically-needed steps to
uphold its rights obligations to meet the best interests of children
through immediate and systemic change, as it works to welcome children
with humanity, compassion, and care. We call on the Biden
administration to approach this issue with the urgency, accountability,
and transparency it deserves--the United States cannot be back here in
another year. Children's futures depend on it.
For more information, please contact Denise Bell at [] and
dbell@aiusa.org.
Sincerely,
Joanne Lin,
National Director, Advocacy and Government Affairs.
Denise Bell,
Researcher, Refugee and Migrant Rights.
______
Statement of First Focus on Children
April 27, 2021
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Katko, and Members of House
Committee on Homeland Security, we thank you for the opportunity to
submit this statement for the record. First Focus on Children is a
bipartisan child advocacy organization dedicated to making children and
families a priority in Federal policy and budget decisions. As an
organization that advocates for the health and well-being of all
children, we have long urged both Congress and various administrations
to uphold the best interests of the child in all immigration policy.
Approaching policy with this principle would lead to clear solutions
for foreign policy, border policy, and care of children within the
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), ensuring that children are
adequately cared for and have a fair opportunity to seek protection in
the United States.
It is imperative that we treat the current situation as one that
originates in children's countries of origin. For many years, children
have fled violence, abuse, and persecution in Central America and other
countries of origin to seek protection in the United States.\1\ In
2020, not only were these on-going safety crises continuing, but also
the whole world was hit with a deadly pandemic that led to loss of life
and livelihoods, putting children and families in even more dire
situations.\2\ Additionally, in late 2020 Guatemala, El Salvador, and
Honduras were hit by 2 hurricanes--Hurricanes Eta and Iota--which
further exacerbated conditions in the region.\3\ With little protection
from traffickers, gangs, and gender-based violence in the region and
with no other channels to safely resettle, children and families are
fleeing to seek safety at our borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Central American Migration: Root Causes and U.S. Policy,
Congressional Research Services (Apr. 22, 2021), https://
s3.amazonaws.com/fn-document-service/file-by-sha384/67af38233d69-
4a1d8d7781e777d6b472dea23629425105dcacbb646e31d4fec58c4a8a98611df2b1aaac
4cc98a88- 1abb.
\2\ Id.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once children arrive, they face a complex immigration system set up
for adults, with few but vital protections that take into account their
status as children and their unique needs. Under the 2008 Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), unaccompanied children
from countries that do not border the United States are immediately
transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR),
where they are placed in shelters with access to legal, medical, and
mental health services before being promptly and safely released to a
sponsor, most often a family member.\4\ The TVPRA echoes protections in
the Flores Settlement Agreement, which sets minimum standards for the
care of children in Government custody.\5\ Unaccompanied children also
have the right to first pursue their claim for protection in a non-
adversarial process before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), and are exempt from the safe third country and 1-year filing
deadline bars for asylum.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 8 U.S.C. 1232(b-c).
\5\ Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Flores v. Reno, No. CV85-4544-
RJK (Px) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 1997).
\6\ 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(E),(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than these protections, unaccompanied children generally face
the same complex immigration system as adults. They must still appear
for adversarial proceedings before an immigration judge, without the
guarantee of legal representation and often in some form of detention.
Without a focus on their liberty and without legal representation,
unaccompanied children are often deprived of a fair opportunity to make
their claim in a manner that takes their status as children into
account, which may likely result in their return to the very
trafficking, abuse, or persecution situations that they fled.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As of August 2018, over half of children with pending cases did
not have legal representation. Children with legal representation are
granted relief 70 percent of the time, while children without
representation are granted relief only 9 percent of the time. Karen
Berberich & Nina Siulc, Why Does Representation Matter? The Impact of
Legal Representation in Immigration Court, Vera Institute of Justice
(November 2018), https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/why-does-
representation-matter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We strongly opposed the previous administration's deterrent-focused
approach to unaccompanied children arriving at our border, from family
separation to children's prolonged detention in ORR custody, to
expediting children's cases in a manner that denied them due process.
We commend the Biden administration's commitment to build a more fair
and humane immigration system, which includes the preservation of vital
protections in the TVPRA and the Flores Settlement Agreement. However,
we are concerned with continued policies that separate children from
their families and deny children the family and community-based
placements that are best for their healthy development.
In particular, while the administration has exempted unaccompanied
children from the misuse of Title 42 of the U.S. Code (otherwise known
as the Title 42 policy), we note that the continued use of the policy
has serious impacts for unaccompanied children and children in
families.\8\ Despite unaccompanied children's exemption from this
policy, a Human Rights First report found that unaccompanied children
have been denied access to protection at ports of entry, forcing them
back into danger in Mexico.\9\ Reports have also confirmed that because
of Title 42, families who are returned to dire harm in Mexico have made
the impossible choice to send their children to safety in the United
States.\10\ Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials have stated
that over 400 children who arrive unaccompanied were previously
expelled when they tried to seek safety with their parents.\11\
Separation from parents, particularly for children who have already
experienced trauma, leads to additional toxic stress and negative
impacts for children's mental, physical, and emotional health that
could be life-long.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Letter to President Biden on Title 42, First Focus on Children
(Apr. 12, 2021), https://firstfocus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/
First-Focus-on-Children_Title42-2.pdf.
\9\ Failure to Protection: Biden Administration Continues Illegal
Trump Policy to Block and Expel Asylum Seekers to Danger, Human Rights
First, Haitian Bridge Alliance, Al Otro Lado (April 2021), https://
www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/
FailuretoProtect.4.20.21.pdf.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Rosa Flores, Sara Weisfeldt, & Catherine E. Schoichet, Her Son
Held Hands, Cried, and Cross the Border Alone, CNN (April 14, 2021),
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/14/us/border-family-separation/index.html.
\12\ Hajar Habbach, Kathryn Hampton, & Ranit Mishori, You Will
Never See Your Child Again: The Persistent Psychological Effects of
Family Separation, Physicians for Human Rights (February 25, 2020),
https://phr.org/our-work/resources/you-will-never-see-your-child-again-
the-persistent-psychological-effects-of-family separation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time, the Government has interpreted the TVPRA to
require children's separation from adult caregivers with whom children
arrive who are not children's parents or legal guardians, including
extended family members like older siblings, grandparents, aunts, and
uncles. It is important that children arriving without a legal guardian
retain the protections of unaccompanied status. However, evidence shows
that children's separation from loving caregivers that they know and
trust has the same impact as separation from a parent.\13\
Additionally, the Government's failure to track family relationships
means this practice results in children's prolonged stay in ORR
custody. Now is the time for the administration and ORR to think
creatively about how to ensure that children retain their unaccompanied
status while also preventing the prolonged separation of children from
loving caregivers at the border and making better, more efficient use
of Government resources. One solution is to co-locate HHS child welfare
experts at the border to evaluate family relationships and expedite
children's release to these caregivers as sponsors. Such a policy would
also support better use of Government resources, focusing on providing
children with legal, child advocate, and post-release services in the
community rather than unnecessarily having children in ORR custody. HHS
officials at the border could also jumpstart placement in custody and
reunification services so that children are safely and promptly
reunited with family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Key Points: Traumatic Separation and Refugee & Immigrant
Children, The National Child Traumatic Stress Network, https://
www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/resources/tip-sheet/
key_points_traumatic_separation_and_refugee_immigrant_children.pdf
(last visited Apr. 23, 2021) (noting that a child's relationships with
a primary caregiver is critical to a children's ability to thrive, and
that separation is one of the most potent stressors a child can
experience).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the increasing numbers of unaccompanied children either newly
arriving or returning to the border after being expelled, the Biden
administration has sought to keep children out of inappropriate CBP
facilities and transferred to the care of ORR by expanding capacity
through the use of unlicensed influx facilities and large emergency
intake sites (EIS).\14\ While we recognize that the previous
administration failed to increase ORR capacity during the COVID-19
pandemic when there were fewer children in care, the use of these
facilities must be temporary. Social science shows that large,
institutionalized settings are inherently inappropriate for
children.\15\ In the immediate term, the Biden administration should
ensure that these facilities meet State licensing standards for the
care of children and have clear and consistent monitoring and
oversight. They should also increase services, particularly case
management and legal services, in these facilities to facilitate
children's safe and quick release to sponsors. At the same time, the
Biden administration must work to ensure that institutionalized
settings are a thing in the past for the care of unaccompanied
children. Rather, ORR's primary model of care--whether for a short
period of time before release to a sponsor or for a longer period for
children without a sponsor--should be family-based settings like foster
care or small-scale group homes and shelters that allow individualized
care for children.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Press Release, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Long Beach Emergency Intake Site for Unaccompanied Children Opens
Today, (April 22, 2021), https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/04/22/
long-beach-emergency-intake-site-unaccompanied-children-opens-
today.html.
\15\ What are Outcomes for Youth Placed in Congregate Care
Settings, Case Family Programs (February 5, 2018), https://
www.casey.org/what-are-the-outcomes-for-youth-placed-in-congregate-
care-settings/.
\16\ Mary Dozier, et al., Consensus Statement on Group Care for
Children and Adolescents: A Statement of Policy of the American
Orthopsychiatric Association, American Orthpsychiatric Association
(2014), https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/ort-0000005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the recommendations above, we believe more can be
done to consider the best interests of unaccompanied children, from the
communities they and their families come from through to the end of
their immigration case here in the United States. The American people
agree that providing safe treatment for unaccompanied children at the
border should be a high priority for the Federal Government.\17\ We
encourage Congress and the administration to implement the following
recommendations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Erin Snodgrass, New Poll Shows Majority of Americans Care More
About Prioritizing the Safety of Children At the Border than Increased
Security, Business Insider (April 6, 2021), https://
www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/new-poll-shows-majority-of-
americans-care-more-about-prioritizing-the-safety-of-children-at-the-
border-than-increased-security/articleshow/81922861.cms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Support children's well-being in their countries of origin and
through safe pathways to the United States.--U.S. foreign
assistance to Central America and other parts of the world
should prioritize outcomes that are in the best interests of
children, such as addressing child poverty, improving child
protection systems, better access to education, nutrition,
medical and mental health care, and support for whole families.
We applaud the administration for restarting the Central
American Minors Program and urge the expansion of that program
and the beginning of other programs that run parallel to the
asylum process.
2. Preserve and build upon protections in the TVPRA and Flores
Settlement Agreement.--These laws represent the only
consideration of children's specific needs in our immigration
system. They should be championed and built upon so that our
immigration system keeps children safe and grants them a truly
fair opportunity to seek legal protection in the United States.
3. Keep families together.--In addition to ensuring children are
not separated from their parents, the Government must ensure
that children are kept with their loving caregivers through
HHS-facilitated expedited release at the border. ORR should
also support family unity by streamlining the sponsor
reunification process to ensure safe and prompt release of
children to sponsors, acknowledging that parents have a unique
and Constitutional right to the care and custody of their
children.
4. Establish a best interest standard for all immigration
decisions.--All Federal agencies that deal with unaccompanied
children should adopt a best interest of the child standard to
consistently guide all decisions made regarding their care and
their eligibility for humanitarian relief.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Jennifer Nagda & Maria Woltjen, ``Best Interests of the Child
Standard: Bringing Common Sense to Immigration Decisions,'' Big Ideas
2015--Pioneering Change: Innovative Ideas for Children and Families, 11
March 2015, https://firstfocus.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Best-
Interests-of-the-Child-Standard.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We thank you again for this opportunity to submit this written
testimony. We look forward to working with you to implement common-
sense policies that help children and families thrive, both in the
United States and in their countries of origin. Should you have any
further questions please contact Miriam Abaya, Senior Director for
Immigration and Children's Rights at miriama@firstfocus.org.
______
Statement of the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights
April 27, 2021
As the Biden-Harris administration re-opens the border to people
seeking protection, it must develop new strategies for caring for
immigrant children who arrive at the border with non-parent family
members. Because of the pandemic, it must prioritize opportunities to
keep children out of congregate care settings, including unlicensed
facilities.
Many children arrive with trusted, loving caregivers with whom they
can be safely released. At present, they are separated, and the
children placed in ORR care. At that point, HHS begins the process of
identifying family with whom the child can be reunified, including the
same adult with whom the child arrived. To ensure children's rights to
health, safety, and family unity are protected, we propose a model for
expediting the release of children who arrive with non-parent family
members directly from the border, using the existing expertise of ORR
staff to evaluate family relationships in real time. We propose that
the Government co-locate DHS and HHS staff at the border so that HHS
can staff can assess the relationship, and if the relationship is
confirmed and determined to be safe, approve the child's release to the
adult family member while the child retains the legal designation of
``unaccompanied,'' which preserves the legal protections for children
who arrive without a legal guardian. This would avert some family
separations, minimize health risks to both children and adults,
preserve ORR's resources, and ensure children remain with their adult
caregivers, avoiding the months needed to reunify them under the
current process in which they are separated.
This model can be implemented now by creating designated space for
HHS within CBP facilities while the Government can work to establish
new, integrated reception centers.
parameters for expedited border reunification (co-location) model
CBP immediately transfers any unaccompanied child
apprehended with a non-parent, adult family member to a
designated reception center (ideally located within 4-6 hours
of CBP field stations or POEs, for prompt transport and to
maximize time for HHS screening).
HHS-ORR staff detailed to the reception centers work to
verify the relationship and screen the child for trafficking
and safety concerns; ORR staff use the same tools utilized in
ORR custody, including document review, observations, and
interviews of the child and family.
If ORR determines the accompanying family member to be a
safe sponsor using its existing expertise, CBP approves the
sponsor for release (absent exigent circumstances) and
transfers physical custody of the child from CBP to ORR in a
designated space within the reception center so that ORR can
promptly release the child directly to the adult sponsor.
The child will retain the ``UC'' designation and
accompanying legal protections as a child who lacks a parent or
legal guardian.
Reception centers must be staffed with NGO legal services
providers to provide KYR screenings to children and families
being considered for direct release.
ORR must make a reunification decision within 72 hours of
CBP's UC designation; children whose safe release cannot be
approved in that time will be transferred to ORR custody.
1. Release unaccompanied children with family members directly from the
border
Children who arrive at the border with relatives or trusted
caregivers who are not their parent or legal guardian must be
designated as ``unaccompanied'' by CBP and transferred to the custody
of HHS within 72 hours.\1\ To prevent separation of these families, HHS
could conduct its evaluation of accompanying family members as sponsors
for the child's care while they are in CBP custody, and release them
jointly at the border. This would avoid a traumatic separation of the
child from their adult caregiver, and reduce the number of children
waiting for reunification in ORR placements. ORR staff would normally
make these same evaluations after a child's traumatic separation, while
the child is in ORR custody. Under a new model, if ORR staff determines
that the relationship is legitimate and that the accompanying adult
does not pose a risk to the child--work ORR already does after children
are referred to its facilities--the child should be released into the
family member's custody directly from the border. These adults are not
legal guardians and therefore the child will maintain the
``unaccompanied'' designation and the legal protections provided for
children without a parent or legal guardian. In cases where ORR has
concerns about the accompanying adults' legitimate relationship with
the child or the child's safety it could decline to approve
reunification and the child would be transferred to ORR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
Sec. 235(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1232(c)(2)(A) (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Child protection agencies evaluate kinship relationships in this
time frame
This can be done. Outside of the immigration context, child welfare
experts evaluate the suitability of ``kinship'' care sponsors in
similar time frames.\2\ Across the country, child protection agencies
have developed a number of strategies to find safe placements for
children in short time frames, to minimize children's time in
Government custody. Many States have a process for placing children
with relatives or even fictive kin in 48 hours.\3\ Federal law and HHS-
ACF policies (outside of ORR) increasingly prioritize keeping children
with trusted family members as research shows that ``removing children
from their families is disruptive and traumatic and can have long-
lasting, negative effects.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ana Beltran and Heidi Redlich Epstein, Improving Foster Care
Licensing Standards around the United States: Using Research Findings
to Effect Change 18-19 (2013), https://grandfamilies.org/Portals/0/
Improving%20Foster%20Care%20Licensing%20Standards.pdf (noting several
States including Idaho, Illinois, and New York that provide for
expedited approvals for relatives).
\3\ Casey Family Programs, How Can We Ensure a Child's First
Placement is With a Family?, https://caseyfamilypro-wpengine.netdna-
ssl.com/media/SF_First-placement-family-placement.pdf (last modified
August 2018).
\4\ Child Welfare Information Gateway, Placement of Children with
Relatives, https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/placement.pdf (last
modified Jan. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In select cases, there is no need to put immigrant children through
the additional trauma of separating them from family members.
Instituting a new procedure in which ORR staff evaluate family
relationships at the point of arrival would not only kickstart the
reunification process at the earliest stage, but also would avert some
family separations, minimize health risks, and preserve ORR's resources
and ensure children remain with the adults critical to their legal
case.
3. Utilize CBP or integrated reception centers where ORR staff can
evaluate family caregivers; or in the alternative, release to
shelters while HHS completes its evaluation
Over time, adapting larger CBP facilities into reception centers
for evaluating the most vulnerable migrants--including unaccompanied
children--would create an organized setting for authorities from CBP to
complete their required tasks while qualified ORR experts provide
child-appropriate and trauma-informed care for immigrant children,
consistent with international standards.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.N. High Comm'r for Refugees, Refugee Protection and Mixed
Migration: A 10-Point Plan of Action 104 (Jan. 1, 2007), https://
www.unhcr.org/50a4c0e79.pdf (citing ``reception center'' models used
throughout the world that offer a range of services addressing the
``basic material and psychosocial needs of all arrivals (e.g.,
accommodation, food, clothing, and medical services),'' and provide for
processing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But right now, before making these modifications, the Federal
Government can quickly adapt existing CBP facilities to provide space
for ORR staff to work with families--allowing conversations with
children and family members apart from CBP officials and using HHS-
owned technology to review documents (computers, printers, scanners).
The agencies must demarcate CBP functions from those of ORR; this could
be as simple as separate rooms in which ORR can have confidential
conversations with children and family outside of an enforcement
context. In the longer-term, the 2 agencies could share a building or
campus, allowing CBP to process families on arrival and providing a
place for them to stay while ORR verifies family relationships and vets
sponsors.
Alternatively, CBP could release family units to non-governmental
shelters at the border, where families could stay and receive emergency
services while HHS evaluates the relationship and the ability of the
adult family member to care for the child.
4. HHS expertise with unaccompanied children and sponsors could prevent
many separations
This model capitalizes on HHS's existing expertise and will
decrease the demand for placement in ORR facilities. Co-locating HHS
staff in CBP facilities for the specific purposes of screening
unaccompanied children for direct release to trusted caregivers would
not require altering agency roles under existing law. CBP would
continue to be responsible for designating a child who arrives without
a parent or legal guardian as ``unaccompanied.'' As soon as CBP
encounters an unaccompanied child--a child not with a parent or legal
guardian--the agency would transfer the child, with any accompanying
adult family members, to the nearest CBP reception center where ORR
field staff would be on-site. These reception centers should be spaced
out across the border, so that CBP officials could transport a child
and family member(s) there within roughly 4 to 6 hours of apprehension.
ORR would work with any unaccompanied child who arrived with an
adult, non-parent family member for the remaining window in the 72
hours before the child would be transferred to an ORR facility. During
that time, ORR staff would screen the accompanying family member for:
(a) Validity of the relationship; (b) ability to care for child; and
(c) risk of trafficking or abuse. HHS field staff should be detailed to
these facilities for brief periods--perhaps weeks--to do this work.
This would allow for a speedier launch of the program and would help
ensure the independence of the ORR field staff, allowing them to
maintain their separate mandate and functions from those of CBP.
a. ORR staff can and does evaluate relationships and
ability to care for the child
ORR staff will be able to evaluate relationships and complete
sponsorship applications in short order for many families, using the
same procedures ORR and facility staff undertake when a child is in its
physical custody at an ORR shelter. Family members can be interviewed
on the spot and can complete any necessary paperwork on-site. ORR will
seek proof of the adult's relationship to the child, which would
require evaluation of the same types of evidence ORR uses to vet
potential sponsors for children in its custody, including interviews
with the child, accompanying adult(s), or family members elsewhere
(conducted by phone or video). Adults traveling with children may have
photographs, signatures on school forms or hospital records, letters of
designation or powers of attorney or can help to facilitate phone calls
with the child's parents. If needed, ORR can run criminal background
checks and take fingerprints on-site; but the biometrics and
information obtained by ORR through this process must not be shared
with ICE or CBP.
ORR staff will interview the child both together and separately
from the adult and ask the child questions about how long they have
known the adult and in what capacity. For young children and infants,
qualified social workers should spend time observing the interactions
between adults and children in addition to evaluating the documentary
evidence of relationship provided. Any case raising concerns, for
example, a child who doesn't appear to know their relative, would be
then be treated under existing processes: Referral to an ORR facility
to identify and evaluate an appropriate sponsor.
b. ORR staff can and does screen for trafficking and abuse
Some may worry that an expedited reunification process will not
provide the time or procedures required to adequately screen children
who are at risk of being trafficked or harmed in some way by the adults
with whom they are traveling. But there is no reason to believe that
screenings for signs of trafficking or abuse at the border need to be
any less robust than those performed in the sponsor verification
process while a child is in an ORR shelter. ORR staff at reception
centers can apply the same kinds of screening tools that facility staff
rely on when working with children in ORR custody. If there are any red
flags, ORR can decide not to reunify the child with the adult at the
border.
Qualified ORR staff conducting trafficking and abuse screenings at
the border would also have the opportunity to observe family
interactions before children are released--a benefit ORR does not
currently have when deciding whether to release children to sponsors
when children are in ORR care. ORR already employs staff trained to
identify and support children who are victims of trafficking as well as
children who are at greater risk for future victimization. By bringing
these resources to families at the point of arrival, ORR can release
children to relatives directly without the harms associated with
congregate care.
5. Value of detailing HHS officials to the border
ORR staff already make reunification decisions for immigrant
children and their sponsors. While they typically rely on information
gathered by staff at ORR-contracted facilities, they have the
professional training and expertise to speak with children and family
members (and often do so), and review documents showing family
relationships and a history of safe care. They engage with legal
service providers and refer vulnerable children for the appointment of
child advocates. They have a mandate to act in children's best
interests--not in the interests of law enforcement. They understand
that immigrant children and their families arrive from all parts of the
world, from a range of cultures, languages, and norms around family
life, and they can help children connect with family and services
across the country. Additionally, bringing ORR staff into CBP
facilities will increase transparency and could even avert situations
of deprivation or harm in CBP custody that create additional challenges
for ORR staff when children who have experienced those situations are
transferred into ORR custody.
6. Access to Legal, Child Advocate, Post-Release Services
The Flores Settlement Agreement and TVPRA require the Government to
provide all unaccompanied children with Know Your Rights (KYR)
presentations and screenings for immigration relief. HHS could work
with stakeholders to ensure that legal staff are detailed to these
sites to provide KYRs and screenings to unaccompanied children who stay
in CBP custody while their non-parent family member is evaluated by
ORR; ORR must ensure the family is linked to funded LSP services at the
immigration court where their case will be filed. Any children approved
by ORR for release with their family sponsor should also be referred to
a legal services provider who would be funded to represent the child
post-release. By co-locating ORR staff at the border and providing
KYRs, children would benefit from the expertise of Federal officials
expert in child welfare concerns and trained lawyers who could connect
them to programs to help them with their legal claims upon release.
Children denied release under this model would be appointed independent
child advocates upon arriving in ORR custody.
7. Cost savings
Keeping children in Government custody is detrimental to their
health and well-being and expensive; all the more so when the
Government is relying on influx facilities. Many children arrive with
trusted, loving caregivers with whom they can be safely released, and
then access community-based services tailored to their needs. Funds
saved from lower numbers of children in the physical custody of ORR
should be reinvested into community-based legal, child advocate, and
post-release services while children live at home with their family or
sponsors. This would allow ORR to focus its resources, developing high-
quality foster care beds for children without sponsors and increasing
post-release services for those living with family, all while
decreasing the need for unlicensed influx facilities. CBP would also
save the costs of transporting children to ORR facilities away from the
border.
For more information, please contact Jennifer Nagda
(jnagda@theyoungcenter.org) and Mary Miller Flowers
(mmillerflowers@theyoungcenter.org).
Ms. Barragan. Hearing no further business, the subcommittee
stands adjourned. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]