[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                   EXAMINING TITLE 42 AND THE NEED TO RESTORE 
                               ASYLUM AT THE BORDER

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                     BORDER SECURITY, FACILITATION,
                             AND OPERATIONS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 6, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-52

                               __________

       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                    
48-221 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                 

                     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)
            Brieana Marticorena, Subcommittee Staff Director
           Natasha Eby, 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.............................................     5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on 
  Homeland Security:
  Prepared Statement.............................................     7
The Honorable John Katko, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of New York, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 
  Security:
  Prepared Statement.............................................     7

                               Witnesses

Mr. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Senior Policy Counsel, American 
  Immigration Council:
  Oral Statement.................................................     8
  Prepared Statement.............................................    10
Mr. Kennji Kizuka, Associate Director, Research and Analysis for 
  Refugee Protection, Human Rights First:
  Oral Statement.................................................    21
  Prepared Statement.............................................    23
Dr. Adam Richards, Associate Professor of Global Health and 
  Medicine, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George 
  Washington University:
  Oral Statement.................................................    31
  Prepared Statement.............................................    32
Mr. Mark Dannels, Sheriff, Cochise County, Arizona:
  Oral Statement.................................................    35
  Prepared Statement.............................................    37

                             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:
  Statement of Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)....................    83
  Statement of First Focus on Children...........................    85
  Statement of Daniella Burgi-Palomino, Co-director, Latin 
    America Working Group (LAWG).................................    88
  Statement of Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL)..    90
  Statement of the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights..    91

 
    EXAMINING TITLE 42 AND THE NEED TO RESTORE ASYLUM AT THE BORDER

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, April 6, 2022

             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 1:32 p.m., in 
room 310 Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Nanette Diaz 
Barragan [Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Barragan, Correa, Green, Clarke, 
Jackson Lee, Escobar, Higgins, Guest, and Clyde.
    Chairwoman Barragan. The Subcommittee on Border Security 
Facilitation and Operations will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any 
time. Thank you for joining today's hearing to examine the 
administration's use of Title 42, its upcoming termination, and 
the need to restore access to asylum at the border.
    For 2 years, Customs and Border Protection has been 
expelling vulnerable migrants into Mexico and other countries 
without allowing them access to our asylum system. Vulnerable 
migrants are fleeing gang violence and persecution in El 
Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, political persecution and 
violence in Nicaragua, and kidnapping and political turmoil in 
Haiti. Because of Title 42, migrant families and adults have 
been unable to apply for asylum at ports of entry throughout 
the pandemic.
    I would like to remind the committee that applying for 
asylum is legal under U.S. and international law. Instead, CBP 
expelled approximately 1.7 million migrants from the United 
States and denied vulnerable individuals the opportunity to 
seek protection.
    While Title 42 order was supposedly based on a public 
health rationale, the science was never sound. A former senior 
official in the Trump administration called it a ``Stephen 
Miller special.'' This order was a pretext to close the border 
to Black, Brown, and Indigenous people. Leading medical experts 
have consistently argued throughout Title 42's use that there 
has never been a solid public health justification for closing 
our border just to asylum seekers. Even if this policy had been 
based on public health, we must recognize that we have come a 
long way since March 2020, when this policy was first 
implemented.
    With vaccines, masks, and other effective public health 
strategies now widely available, the United States can safely 
manage infections and the spread of the virus. There is no 
justification for denying vulnerable migrants the legal right 
to seek asylum. There is no justification for singling out 
migrants as a COVID risk. Republicans stoke fear about migrants 
bringing COVID-19 into communities, yet, they have fought to 
lift indoor mask mandates since the beginning of the pandemic.
    Republicans say there is no safe way to allow migrants to 
travel into and throughout the United States, yet, they sued 
the Federal Government to lift the mask mandate on public 
transportation. We know masks and vaccines work. There is no 
evidence that denying people access to our asylum system 
prevents COVID.
    However, we do know that Title 42 is harming migrants, 
including those who are most vulnerable. In fact, one of our 
witnesses here today has helped document nearly 10,000 
instances of people being kidnapped, tortured, sexually 
assaulted, and murdered after being expelled under Title 42. 
Title 42 has also resulted in family separations. Parents who 
traveled at the border with their children have been denied the 
opportunity to request asylum. They are presented with two 
options. They can wait for an indeterminate amount of time in 
dangerous border towns where they are vulnerable to kidnapping 
and violence. Or they can send their children to the border 
alone to seek refuge. No family should have to make this 
choice.
    I would also like to point out that CBP is not uniformly 
applying Title 42. For example, we have recently seen migrants 
from Europe exempted from this horrible policy, while Black and 
Brown migrants are quickly turned away. To be clear, Ukrainians 
should be allowed to enter the United States and seek 
humanitarian protection. But so should Haitians and Hondurans 
and Guatemalans, Africans, and others fleeing violence.
    The U.S. Government has the capacity to allow any migrant, 
no matter which part of the world they are fleeing, the 
opportunity to request asylum. The Department has a plan for 
increasing its processing capacity and ending Title 42. I am 
willing to work with them to make sure they are prepared to 
process people in an orderly and humane manner.
    We must also recognize that Title 42 did not stop migration 
to the United States. Although our Nation's doors were shut to 
asylum seekers for 2 years, migrants have been coming to our 
borders in large numbers. Conditions were so dangerous at home 
that they could not wait. Given the number of people already at 
our doorstep just waiting for a chance to ask for help, it is 
not surprising that the administration expects encounters to 
increase after Title 42 is lifted. But this is America, and our 
Government has the tools to safely process and screen people at 
the border as required by law to determine whether they qualify 
for asylum or other humanitarian protections.
    With the proper planning, this is an opportunity for the 
administration to uphold its promise of creating a just and 
orderly process at the border. The Department has set up a 
Southwest Border coordination center to coordinate planning and 
operations across the interagency. It is working to get the 
personnel and resources in place to not only process migrants 
in a safe and humane manner, but also to provide migrants with 
vaccines.
    I am just disappointed that the Department still needs more 
time to prepare to end Title 42. They have already had it for 2 
years, and they have had 2 years to plan to end it. As the 
Department deploys resources and personnel at the border, the 
administration must also proactively coordinate with non-
Government organizations and border communities in winding down 
the Title 42 order.
    I look forward to hearing recommendations from our 
witnesses on specific actions the administration should 
consider in order to restore the asylum process in a humane 
manner, as well as on the harms caused by Title 42. I want to 
remind everybody, Title 42 is a CDC authority. It is an 
authority, a public health authority, to stop the spread of 
COVID-19. It is not an immigration law or a policy. It is a 
public health authority.
    [The statement of Chairwoman Barragan follows:]
                Statement of Chairwoman Nanette Barragan
    Thank you for joining today's hearing to examine the 
administration's use of Title 42, its upcoming termination, and the 
need to restore access to asylum at the border. For 2 years, Customs 
and Border Protection has been expelling vulnerable migrants into 
Mexico and other countries without allowing them access to our asylum 
system. Vulnerable migrants are fleeing gang violence and persecution 
in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, political persecution and 
violence in Nicaragua, and kidnappings and political turmoil in Haiti.
    Because of Title 42, migrant families and adults have been unable 
to apply for asylum at ports of entry throughout the pandemic. I'd like 
to remind the committee that applying for asylum is legal under U.S. 
and international law. Instead, CBP expelled approximately 1.7 million 
migrants from the United States and denied vulnerable individuals the 
opportunity to seek protection. While the Title 42 order was supposedly 
based on a public health rationale, the science was never sound.
    A former senior official in the Trump administration called it ``a 
Stephen Miller special.'' This order was a pretext to close the border 
to Black, Brown, and Indigenous people. Leading medical experts have 
consistently argued throughout Title 42's use that there has never been 
a solid public health justification for closing our border just to 
asylum seekers.
    Even if this policy had been based on public health, we must 
recognize that we've come a long way since March 2020, when this policy 
was first implemented. With vaccines, masks, and other effective public 
health strategies now widely available, the United States can now 
safely manage infections and the spread of the virus.
    There is no justification for denying vulnerable migrants the legal 
right to seek asylum. There is no justification for singling out 
migrants as a COVID risk. Republicans stoke fear about migrants 
bringing COVID-19 into communities--yet they have fought to lift indoor 
mask mandates since the beginning of the pandemic.
    Republicans say there is no safe way to allow migrants to travel 
into and throughout the United States--yet they sue the Federal 
Government to lift the mask mandate on public transportation. We know 
masks and vaccines work. There is no evidence that denying people 
access to our asylum system prevents COVID. However, we do know Title 
42 is harming migrants--including those who are most vulnerable.
    In fact, one of our witnesses here today has helped document nearly 
ten thousand instances of people being kidnapped, tortured, sexually 
assaulted, and murdered after being expelled under Title 42. Title 42 
has also resulted in family separations. Parents who traveled to the 
border with their children have been denied the opportunity to request 
asylum.
    They are presented with two options. They can wait for an 
indeterminate amount of time in dangerous border towns where they are 
vulnerable to kidnapping and violence. Or they can send their children 
to the border alone to seek refuge. No family should have to make this 
choice.
    I'd also like to point out that CBP is not uniformly applying Title 
42. For example, we've recently seen migrants from Europe exempted from 
this horrible policy, while Black and Brown migrants are quickly turned 
away. To be clear, Ukrainians should be allowed to enter the United 
States and seek humanitarian protection. But so should Haitians, 
Hondurans, Guatemalans, Africans, and others fleeing violence.
    The U.S. Government has the capacity to allow any migrant, no 
matter which part of the world they are fleeing, the opportunity to 
request asylum. The Department has a plan for increasing its processing 
capacity and ending Title 42, and I am willing to work with them to 
make sure they are prepared to process people in an orderly and humane 
manner.
    We must also recognize that Title 42 did not stop migration to the 
United States. Although our Nation's doors were shut to asylum seekers 
for 2 years, migrants have still been coming to our border in large 
numbers. Conditions were so dangerous at home that they could not wait. 
Given the number of people already at our doorstep, just waiting for a 
chance to ask for help, it is not surprising that the administration 
expects encounters to increase once Title 42 is lifted.
    But this is America, and our Government has the tools to safely 
process and screen people at the border, as required by law, to 
determine whether they qualify for asylum or other humanitarian 
protections. With the proper planning, this is an opportunity for the 
administration to uphold its promise of creating a just and orderly 
process at the border.
    The Department has set up the Southwest Border Coordination Center 
to coordinate planning and operations across the interagency. It is 
working to get the personnel and resources into place to not only 
process migrants in a safe and humane manner, but also to provide 
migrants with vaccines. I'm just disappointed that the Department still 
needs more time to prepare to end of Title 42. They've already had 2 
years to plan.
    As the Department deploys resources and personnel at the border, 
the administration must also proactively coordinate with non-Government 
organizations and border communities in winding down the Title 42 
order. I look forward to hearing recommendations from our witnesses on 
specific actions the administration should consider in order to restore 
the asylum process in a humane manner, as well as on the harms caused 
by Title 42.

    Chairwoman Barragan. Now, the Chair would like to recognize 
the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Mr. Higgins of 
Louisiana, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank our 
witnesses for being here with us today, and for our panelist 
that is going to be joining us virtually.
    Title 42 is a legal mechanism that Border Patrol uses and 
our law enforcement professionals use to try and stem the tide 
of millions of illegal immigrants crossing our Southern Border. 
We are losing our country down there.
    In the summer of 2020, the criminal cartels were incredibly 
well-funded, very well-organized. They have deep council within 
their networks, within their chain of command, a lot of whom 
have been educated in America. They know American laws and 
American politics. These cartels run a vast, well-organized 
network that traffics human beings and drugs into America. Why 
are they coming to America? Because it is a big market for 
them. It is their business model and they are very good at it.
    By the summer of 2020, when it began to be part of the 
narrative that there was a chance that then-candidate Biden 
might win the Presidential election, the cartels used their 
networks to begin prepping. They got ready. They beefed up 
their infrastructure. Based on my data, on the ground through 
Central America and Mexico all the way through Venezuela and 
Colombia where the pipeline and the Western Hemisphere begins, 
I was advised that we can anticipate as many as 2 million 
illegal crossings in 2021.
    It never happened before. I talked about those numbers and 
it turned out I was off a little bit. I was low. We had 2.4 
million illegal crossings in 2021. Their pipelines were filled. 
They were not interrupted by a hurricane or a earthquake, which 
was a possibility but didn't happen. They ramped up their 
capacities in the summer. Nothing was stopping them. It is the 
equivalent to having a passenger in every seat.
    The cartels were making billions and sending untold amounts 
of incredibly deadly drugs into our country. They had 2.4 
million illegal crossings including 500,000 that were young men 
plugged into the criminal networks in Mexico and Central 
America hooked up through their cartel connections to cross, a 
lot of them, owing their crossing money in the form of criminal 
services by delivering sex, slave labor, prisoners, and tragic 
souls who had fallen into that trap, and by carrying drugs. A 
backpack at a time into our country. Where did those guys go? 
They went deep into America to a neighborhood near you.
    They all want to come here and be successful in their job 
and their job is to be part of the criminal network. Maybe they 
can get out of that trap, but it is very hard. You know, once 
someone goes down that path, it is very difficult for a young 
man that is involved in criminal networking, wherever he is, it 
is very hard to get out.
    So, they have crossed into our country and they have been 
disbursed across America now. This is why your border 
communities might not show this as part of the business model, 
and boy, if you work for the cartel, you better not mess with 
the cartel's business model, which requires passage across our 
Southern Border for human trafficking and drug trafficking.
    They have the category of human beings that cross over and 
want to interact with professional law enforcement. They turn 
themselves in. They are largely not violent. Some good people 
looking for a better life. We prefer that they come in legally 
and access our country through legal means, other than abuse of 
the asylum system, which those laws should be strengthened.
    But there is the other category of the young men that avoid 
contact with law enforcement at the border. They are coming 
here for no good. Title 42 has allowed us to stem the tide. If 
we take Title 42 away, our country cannot sustain. We are 
headed for 3 million this year. People looked at me like I was 
crazy at the beginning of last year when I said 2 million. But 
my sources were right and America cannot support it, regardless 
of how peaceful you find communities here and there, son.
    Our Nation cannot sustain this. I will say to my colleagues 
across the aisle in good faith, if you have a problem with 
Title 42, by all means use your Constitutional access to our 
judicial system, challenge it in court, and defeat it. If you 
think it is wrong and illegal, un-Constitutional, by all means, 
defeat it judicially. Right now, it is a legal tool that is 
needed on the border. If we take it away, I am afraid that the 
demise of our Nation will accelerate. What we are witnessing 
right now will become worse and worse and worse. Madam Chair, I 
yield.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Higgins follows:]
                Statement of Ranking Member Clay Higgins
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I am looking forward to this timely hearing 
on the importance of Title 42 and to hear from all of our witnesses 
today.
    The Biden administration has created one of the worst border crises 
in our Nation's history. Our Southern Border is completely out of 
control and being overrun by lawlessness, all due to this 
administration's open border policies.
    In fiscal year 2021, Customs and Border Protection recorded nearly 
2 million migrant encounters Nation-wide. To put that in perspective, 
that number is larger than the populations of Alaska and Delaware, the 
President's home State, combined.
    For scale, our borders have been overrun by the equivalent of 2 new 
States! Biden's own DHS estimates that many as 18,000 migrants per day 
will attempt to cross the border after Biden ends Title 42. That's 
roughly a brand-new Congressional district every 40 days.
    This fails to account for hundreds of thousands of gotaways who 
evaded law enforcement altogether. This administration and senior 
officials at DHS seem to throw all logic and reason out the window.
    Unfortunately, the Biden administration's announcement last Friday 
to terminate the use of Title 42 authority to expel illegal aliens 
arriving at land borders is a grave mistake and will only further 
weaken our already crumbling border security.
    The Trump administration began using Title 42 as means to keep the 
American people safe by preventing the excessive spread of COVID-19 
across our borders when the disease was wreaking havoc across the 
world. And it was successful. More than 1 million illegal aliens--
mostly single adults--were denied entry into the United States.
    On the campaign trail and from Day 1 in office, President Biden 
pledged to ``follow the science.''
    Well, his administration is refusing to lift the mask mandate on 
public transportation, Democrats refuse to fully reopen the U.S. 
Capitol, and according to the Speaker of the House, it is still too 
dangerous to end proxy voting. Yet, the Biden administration is opening 
our Southern Border to undocumented and largely unvaccinated 
populations. Where is the ``science'' behind that?
    Make no mistake, we have some of the finest men and women in law 
enforcement protecting the sovereignty of the United States, but their 
jobs are difficult, and they deserve to have every tool at their 
disposal, every authority necessary to protect themselves, our borders, 
and the American people.
    In rolling back Title 42 authority, President Biden is 
intentionally jeopardizing the sovereignty and security of our Nation. 
To end this authority without a plan to secure command and control at 
the border is horrendous. This change in policy is being made despite 
knowing that it will cause border crossings to surge. Despite the 
warnings of front-line agents and pleas from border States.
    Congress cannot sit idly by and watch the sovereignty of the United 
States be eroded.
    We need to provide Customs and Border Protection officers and 
Border Patrol agents with the means to manage the overwhelming flow of 
illegal immigration and smuggling at the border. Axios reported there 
are already as many as 25,000 would-be illegal immigrants amassed at 
the border, waiting for the termination of Title 42.
    Today, we are fortunate to have a true patriot and law enforcement 
leader with us--Sheriff Mark Dannels from southern Arizona. I look 
forward to hearing the sheriff's perspective on why Federal policies 
are important to State and Local law enforcement and the impact the 
Federal Government's policies have, either by following the law or 
disregarding it, on local communities.
    I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. You 
mentioned 2 million. I think Poland has welcomed 2 million 
Ukrainians and they are the small size of New Mexico. So, 
something like----
    Mr. Higgins. I appreciate that Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Barragan [continuing]. Two million.
    Mr. Higgins. I don't work for Poland. I work for the 
citizens of America but thank you.
    Chairwoman Barragan. OK. Well, I was just trying to put 
into perspective the numbers that you gave. Thank you, Mr. 
Ranking Member. I want to thank you for your opening remarks.
    Members are reminded that the subcommittee will operate 
according to the guidelines laid out by the Chairman and the 
Ranking Member in their February 3 colloquy. Without objection, 
Members who do not sit on the committee may participate in this 
hearing. Members may also submit statements for the record.
    [The statements of Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member 
Katko follow:]
                Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
                             April 6, 2022
    We know that Title 42 was never about public health. From the 
earliest days of the pandemic, the Trump administration sought to 
exploit COVID-19 to advance his anti-immigrant agenda. Simply put, the 
Trump administration used this order to prevent vulnerable migrants 
from seeking refuge in the United States.
    It is not lost on me that the same people who used the Title 42 
order to stoke fear about migrants bringing COVID into communities were 
among the first to lift indoor mask mandates and other pandemic 
response measures. Now that we have increased access to COVID-19 
testing, vaccines, and masks and things are returning to normal, the 
Federal Government must also prepare to resume normal immigration 
processing at ports of entry.
    That means terminating Title 42, a policy that has harmed hundreds 
of thousands of migrants. Latin Americans, Haitians, and other migrants 
have the legal right to request protection under U.S. law. The Biden 
administration must restore access and adjudicate asylum claims in a 
fair and timely manner.
    But we must also recognize that terminating Title 42 is complex 
undertaking that requires significant planning. I expect to hear more 
about the Department's plans and am willing to help ensure it has the 
personnel and resources it needs to process migrants in an orderly and 
humane manner.
    This must be a robust whole-of-Government operation. I look forward 
to hearing from our witnesses today on the impacts of Title 42 and 
welcome any suggestions they have on how the administration can best 
prepare for the wind-down of this policy.
                                 ______
                                 
                 Statement of Ranking Member John Katko
                             April 6, 2022
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I am looking forward to this hearing and 
the testimony from our witnesses today.
    This week, I joined Leader McCarthy and several of my colleagues at 
a meeting with the Border Patrol Council to discuss the crisis at the 
Southern Border.
    Just as we predicted, the number of daily border encounters has 
been trending upwards since President Biden took office in January 
2021.
    The Biden administration has created an untenable situation--from 
which it may take several years to recover.
    The irresponsible decision to roll back Title 42 public health 
authority, the halting of border wall construction, the lack of support 
for front-line law enforcement personnel, the undermining of the 
Migrant Protection Protocols, and the total absence of a long-term 
border security plan have all only made matters worse.
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection is now seeing over 7,000 
encounters daily and the Department of Homeland Security is said to be 
bracing for a significant mass influx of nearly 18,000 migrants daily 
when Title 42 ends.
    As the United States finally gets a handle on managing the spread 
of new variants and moves steadily toward a post-pandemic recovery, now 
is not the time to end the use of Title 42 and jeopardize all that 
progress--especially as numerous countries continue to struggle with 
the rapid spread of COVID-19 and strengthening variants.
    The very purpose of Title 42 is to prevent the introduction of any 
dangerous communicable diseases into American communities. We should be 
doubling down on protecting our economy and communities from health 
threats, not weakening them.
    Our border security and immigration system cannot handle any more 
pull factors as the Biden administration has proven unwilling to secure 
our Southern Border.
    As we are witnessing, the administration continues to strip every 
tool for managing the border crisis away from front-line law 
enforcement. Transnational criminal organizations and drug cartels are 
taking full advantage by highlighting the weak border security posture 
of the administration, while profiting from this crisis.
    The administration continues to roll back common-sense border 
security measures, thereby feeding into a false narrative for would-be 
migrants and encouraging them to come to the United States to seek 
asylum.
    Many migrants who make the dangerous journey to the United States 
will not be eligible under the law for asylum, forcing them to seek 
other ways to enter into the United States.
    We know for a fact that cartels control who crosses the United 
States-Mexico border. They charge migrants exorbitant fees knowing that 
some will never be able to repay--leading many of the migrants with 
only one option--to work off their fees. This work often leads them 
into a trafficking situation here in the United States.
    Drugs, such as fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other fentanyl-laced 
drugs are pouring across the Southern Border and are destroying our 
communities and ending the lives of thousands of Americans every year.
    This has got to stop.
    I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today, 
especially from Sheriff Dannels, who is on the front lines in southern 
Arizona and knows first-hand how the border crisis is impacting our 
communities.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairwoman Barragan. The Chair would now take the 
opportunity to recognize the full committee Chair, but I do not 
see him present. Therefore, we will move on. Next, I would 
recognize the Chair of--the Ranking Member of the full 
committee, Mr. Katko, but not seeing him either virtually. Mr. 
Higgins, I will also move on and take an opportunity now to 
welcome our panel of witnesses.
    We have some of the witnesses here in person today and we 
have a witness also appearing virtually, as well.
    First, in person, Mr. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick is a senior 
policy counsel at the American Immigration Council. Mr. Kennji 
Kizuka is an associate director of research and analysis for 
refugee protection at Human Rights First. Dr. Adam Richards is 
associate professor at George Washington University School of 
Medicine and a board member of Physicians for Human rights. Our 
last witness is virtually, Sheriff Mark Dannels is a sheriff in 
Cochise County, Arizona. Thank you for joining us virtually, 
sir.
    Now, without objection, the witnesses' full statements will 
be inserted into the record. I now will ask each witness to 
summarize his or her statement for 5 minutes, beginning with 
Mr. Reichlin-Melnick.

  STATEMENT OF AARON REICHLIN-MELNICK, SENIOR 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 
senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Council, a 
nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring that the United 
States provides a fair process for all immigrants. I am here 
today and grateful for the opportunity to provide some 
perspective on the effect of Title 42 on border operations and 
management.
    I am here today with one message. Title 42 has failed. Two 
years and 1.7 million expulsions later, border encounters are 
on track to hit record levels once again. As you will hear 
today, the evidence is clear. Title 42 is neither a meaningful 
public health measure, nor a successful deterrent. One 
statistic in particular demonstrates this failure. A staggering 
94 percent of Mexican, Guatemalan, Salvadoran, and Honduran 
single adult migrants apprehended in the last 2 years have been 
expelled under Title 42.
    If Title 42 were a successful deterrent, we would expect 
such a near-total border shutdown to reduce apprehensions at 
the border of that demographic, but that hasn't happened. Since 
the start of fiscal year 2021, single adults from those 4 
countries accounted for 1.5 out of 2.5 million total 
apprehensions. So, how can this be? Because Title 42, itself, 
caused a four-fold increase in repeat border crossings. In 
fiscal year 2019, just 7 percent of people encountered by CBP 
had previously crossed the border within the last 12 months. It 
is now 27 percent and has been for the last 2 years. This 
occurred for two reasons.
    First, Title 42 almost entirely closed the ports of entry 
to asylum seekers. Facing desperation and insecurity in 
northern Mexico, even the most staunchly rule-bound asylum 
seekers may feel forced to cross the border repeatedly in the 
hopes of finding safety. Second, Title 42 expulsions to Mexico 
carry no collateral consequences. Meaning that the most likely 
outcome of a failed border crossing attempt is a quick 
expulsion back to Mexico where people face violence, 
insecurity, and the incentive to cross again.
    Over the last 17 months, at least 820,000 border encounters 
were repeat encounters of the same person on their second, 
third, fourth, or even higher attempt. One person even told a 
reporter that he had been expelled 30 times under Title 42. Not 
only has this placed additional strain on the Border Patrol, it 
has also painted a distorted picture of the true number of 
people crossing the border.
    Title 42 has also failed as a border management tool 
because for logistical and diplomatic reasons, it cannot be 
applied uniformly to all nationalities. Once a person is on 
U.S. soil, they can only be expelled to a country which will 
take them. Title 42 relies almost exclusively on Mexico as that 
destination. But when it agreed to Title 42, the government of 
Mexico placed significant limitations on the groups which could 
be expelled there. If someone cannot be expelled to Mexico, it 
is unlikely that they can be expelled at all. ICE does not have 
the capacity to carry out mass expulsions via air. Some 
countries place their own limitations on repatriation, like 
Cuba. These reasons, among others, are why Title 42 has failed 
as a border management policy.
    As DHS prepares to lift Title 42 on May 23, its short-term 
goals should be to simultaneously recreate an actual asylum 
process at the ports of entry, ensure that those who cross 
irregularly are not held in Constitutionally-inadequate 
conditions, and free up Border Patrol agents from paperwork 
that keeps them out of the field. To do this, DHS should surge 
resources to CBP's Office of Field Operations for processing at 
the ports of entry and increase resources within the Border 
Patrol, including by detailing employees to act as Border 
Patrol processing coordinators and standing up additional soft-
sided facilities.
    Finally, we cannot discuss Title 42 in migration without 
looking to countries like Ukraine and acknowledging that 
migrants on the move around the world. Migration cannot be 
turned off with the push of a button. So, border management 
should not adopt the impossible goal of zero migration. 
Operational control of the border can and should include 
opportunities for desperate people to seek protection. Going 
forward, we should be honest not only about the challenges and 
costs of responding to migration, but also about the benefits 
that we as a Nation receive from people who still view this 
country as a beacon of freedom. In times of global 
displacement, the United States has long stepped up and done 
the right thing. By acknowledging that Title 42 was a failure, 
we can use this as an opportunity to do better.
    Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Reichlin-Melnick follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
                             April 6, 2022
    Chairwoman Barragan, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Higgins, and 
distinguished Members of the subcommittee: My name is Aaron Reichlin-
Melnick, and I serve as the senior policy counsel for the American 
Immigration Council, a non-profit 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 through research, advocacy, 
and litigation to ways in which the Department of Homeland Security 
(``DHS'') has responded to migrants at the border. In 2015, we helped 
bring a successful lawsuit against the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector 
challenging un-Constitutional conditions of confinement for adults and 
children,\1\ and we are currently suing U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') for its unlawful policy of turning away asylum 
seekers 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 perspective on the effect of Title 42 on border operations and 
management. Since Title 42 went into place over 2 years ago, the 
American Immigration Council has tracked the policy carefully and 
prepared research and analysis regarding its use, including through a 
dedicated publication on Title 42 \3\ and extensive analysis of rising 
border encounters in 2021 and the effect of Title 42 on the border 
during that time.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ American Immigration Council, ``A Guide to Title 42 Expulsions 
at the Border,'' October 15, 2021, https://
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/guide-title-42-expulsions-
border.
    \4\ American Immigration Council, ``Rising Border Encounters in 
2021: An Overview and Analysis,'' March 4, 2022, https://
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/rising-border-encounters-in-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am here today with one clear message: Title 42 has failed. As you 
will hear from other witnesses today, public health experts have 
repeatedly confirmed that Title 42 does not protect the American public 
from COVID-19 and has led to severe consequences for thousands of 
people seeking humanitarian protections in the United States. But on 
top of those flaws, Title 42 has also failed as a border management 
policy, leading to the highest levels of recidivism in decades. Two 
years after Title 42 went into place and over 1.7 million expulsions 
later, border encounters are on track to hit record levels once again. 
The evidence is clear; Title 42 is neither a meaningful public health 
measure nor a successful deterrent.
    Title 42 itself has been a major contributor to increased border 
crossings because it caused a significant increase in repeat border 
crossings. In fiscal year 2019, just 7 percent of people encountered by 
CBP had previously crossed the border that year. In the 2 years since 
Title 42 went into place, the rate of repeat crossings rose to 27 
percent. This is due in large part to the fact that under Title 42, 
individuals expelled back to Mexico are not subject to any collateral 
consequence. This lack of collateral consequences (other than the 
inherent risk of death in the journey), combined with the desperation 
and insecurity faced by people waiting at the border for the asylum 
process to restart, strongly incentivizes many migrants expelled under 
Title 42 to try again.
    One statistic most obviously demonstrates Title 42's failure. Since 
Title 42 went into effect, the Border Patrol expelled a staggering 94 
percent of single adult migrants it encountered who were from Mexico, 
Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador. If Title 42 were a successful 
deterrent, we would expect such a near-total shutdown of the border to 
lead to declining apprehension numbers. Nothing of the sort has 
happened. Over the last 17 months, single adults from those 4 countries 
accounted for 1.5 out of 2.5 million total apprehensions. In total, 
there have been more than 750,000 repeat encounters under Title 42. Not 
only has this placed additional strain on the Border Patrol, it has 
also painted a distorted picture of the true number of individuals 
coming to the border.
    Emboldened by this expulsion practice, within less than a year of 
Title 42 going into effect, smugglers began offering package deals that 
allow multiple attempts at crossing the border for one fee.\5\ Last 
year one person even admitted to reporters that he had made 30 failed 
attempts to cross the border, each time being apprehended and expelled 
back to Mexico.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Laura Gottesdiener, Sarah Kinosian, ``Migrant smugglers see 
boost from U.S. pandemic border policy,'' Reuters, November 12, 2020, 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-smuggling-insight/
migrant-smugglers-see-boost-from-u-s-pandemic-border-policy-
idUSKBN27S24A.
    \6\ Kate Morrissey, ``Mexican adults are crossing the border again 
and again in attempts to reach the United States,'' San Diego Union-
Tribune, July 11, 2021, https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/
immigration/story/2021-07-11/mexican-adult-migrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, DHS has been unable to expel most nationals of 
countries other than Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. 
Since Title 42 went into effect, Border Patrol agents expelled 72 
percent of nationals of those 4 countries encountered at the border. By 
contrast, just 15 percent of nationals of other countries were 
expelled.
    This nationality disparity is due to one of Title 42's biggest 
flaws as a border management tool; it relies almost exclusively on 
Mexico as the final destination for most expulsions, and Mexico has 
significantly limited the groups of people who can be expelled there. 
Once a person is physically on United States soil, they can only be 
expelled to a country which will take them. And if a person cannot be 
expelled to Mexico, they generally must be expelled by airplane to 
their home country. At the scale of current migration, this is simply 
impossible. ICE does not have, and has never had, the capacity to carry 
out mass deportation flights. And even if ICE had that capacity, many 
asylum seekers come from countries like Venezuela or Cuba which do not 
permit the United States to carry out mass deportation flights.
    Thus, under the agreement with Mexico that allowed Title 42, 
Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans subject to expulsion 
are sent right back to northern Mexico and incentivized to cross the 
border over and over again until they make it through. Individuals from 
other countries can cross the border between ports of entry and be safe 
in the knowledge that they are unlikely to be expelled.
    Meanwhile, ports of entry have been almost entirely closed to 
asylum seekers for more than 2 years thanks to Title 42, which has 
created perverse incentives for even the most staunchly rule-bound 
asylum seekers. If they cannot return home and face the persecution 
they fled, and if they find themselves unable to reside indefinitely in 
Mexico, the only way for them to access the United States asylum 
process is to cross the border and hope they are not expelled. These 
reasons are why Title 42 has failed.
    As DHS prepares to lift Title 42 on May 23, it must take common-
sense steps to restore orderly processing at the border. DHS should 
immediately surge processing resources to the ports of entry and work 
to make it possible to seek asylum once again at the ports of entry. At 
the same time, DHS should work to increase processing resources within 
the Border Patrol, including detailing other DHS employees to act as 
Border Patrol Processing Coordinators and standing up additional soft-
sided facilities, all with the goal of ensuring that no individuals are 
held in overcrowded and Constitutionally-inadequate conditions at the 
border and that Border Patrol agents are not kept out of the field due 
to do paperwork.
    Finally, we cannot discuss Title 42 without noting that migrants 
are on the move around the world, and not just on their way to the 
United States. Last year, a record number of people applied for asylum 
in Mexico. Hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans have fled political 
persecution, some going north to the United States and others going 
south to Costa Rica. In recent years, millions of Venezuelans have fled 
their homes and sought refuge in surrounding nations. Most recently, 
nearly 3 million Ukrainians have fled the invasion of Russia and sought 
refuge in Poland and surrounding nations.
    Migration, especially that of refugees, is not something that can 
be turned off with the push of a button. Title 42 is ostensibly about 
public health, but today many people speak of it purely in terms of 
deterrence.\7\ Over the last decade, we have seen repeated cycles of 
failed deterrence policies, none of which have stopped people from 
coming to the border. Title 42 is the latest in that series of 
failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See, e.g., Letter from 22 Members of Congress to DHS Secretary 
Mayorkas, March 29, 2022, https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/sites/default/
files/Texas%20Delegation%20Letter%20to%- 
20DHS%20and%20HHS%20on%20Title%2042%20Cancellation.pdf (urging the 
Biden administration to keep Title 42 in place as a deterrent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In times of global displacement, the United States has long stepped 
up and done the right thing. Rather than search around for yet another 
deterrent, we should be honest not only about the challenges and costs 
of border management, but also about the benefits that we as a Nation 
receive from people who still view this country as a beacon of freedom. 
By acknowledging that Title 42 was a failure, we can use this as an 
opportunity to do better.
       the origins of title 42 and the creation of ``expulsions''
    To understand how we reached this point, it's necessary to explain 
the origin of Title 42 and the way in which it has been used 
operationally at the border.
    On March 20, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC) issued an order suspending ``covered aliens'' from entering the 
United States. The ``covered'' group included only those individuals 
who would be placed into ``congregate settings'' upon their entry to 
the United States, exempting American citizens, lawful permanent 
residents, individuals possessing valid visas, and anyone who was 
entitled to enter the United States. As Professor Lucas Guttentag 
wrote, the order was ``like a bullseye drawn on the side of the barn 
around the arrow that has already been shot'' at asylum seekers and 
those ``crossing the border without documentation.''\8\ However, the 
CDC's Title 42 order did not provide any guidance or instruction as to 
what would happen to individuals who had already entered the United 
States and were taken into the custody of Customs and Border 
Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Lucas Guttentag, ``Coronavirus Border Expulsions: CDC's Assault 
on Asylum Seekers and Unaccompanied Minors,'' Just Security, April 13, 
2020, https://www.justsecurity.org/69640/coronavirus-border-expulsions-
cdcs-assault-on-asylum-seekers-and-unaccompanied-minors/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was DHS, not the CDC, which created a concept that had never 
before existed in U.S. history; ``expulsions.'' An expulsion is an 
exercise in raw power in which the U.S. Government takes a person 
present on U.S. soil and forcibly sends them to another country. Unlike 
a deportation, an ``expulsion'' carries no further legal consequences--
there is no ``order of expulsion'' entered by an immigration official 
that carries collateral consequences, no opportunity to appeal, and no 
process by which a migrant may challenge the decision to expel.
    Thousands of people subject to Title 42 expulsions were not even 
issued the standard ``A number,'' but were simply fingerprinted and 
then pushed back across the border. Border Patrol agents did not even 
interview migrants to learn about how they had been smuggled into the 
country, a fact which Border Patrol agents told the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) ``negatively affected enforcement by 
reducing opportunities to gather intelligence.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-21-431: CBP's 
Response to COVID-19 June 2021, at 42, https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/
714997.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title 42 was put into place at a time when the United States had 
only limited, but not halted, international entry. Reporting suggests 
that the Trump administration used Title 42 as a transparent attempt to 
halt migration through the guise of public health, as Stephen Miller 
had apparently sought to do for years. Throughout the pandemic, even 
with border restrictions in place, millions of people drove or walked 
across the U.S.-Mexico border through the ports of entry each 
month.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Aaron Reichlin-Melnick and Jorge Loweree, ``Tracking the Biden 
Agenda on Legal Immigration in the First 100 Days,'' American 
Immigration Council, April 29, 2021, https://
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/tracking-biden-agenda-
legal-immigration-first-100-days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the Trump administration planned Title 42 in mid-March 2020, it 
began negotiations with the Mexican government. On March 17, 2020, the 
Mexican government issued a statement in response to news reports that 
the Trump administration would soon begin expelling migrants, stating 
that the government of Mexico had not received a formal request from 
the United States Government to expel migrants. The government then 
went on to note that if such a proposal were to be formally advanced, 
the government of Mexico would consider it according to its own 
sovereign interests.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Government of Mexico, ``Nota informativa RELACIONES 
EXTERIORES,'' March 17, 2020, https://www.gob.mx/sre/documentos/nota-
informativa-relaciones-exteriores?State=published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Negotiations continued over the following days. On March 21, 2020, 
the government of Mexico made the announcement that allowed Title 42 to 
go into effect at the Southern Border. It declared that ``to minimize 
the build-up in United States Border Patrol stations,'' it was 
considering ``the regular internment of some citizens of El Salvador, 
Honduras, and Guatemala that are presented to Mexican immigration 
authorities.'' The statement went on to declare that ``The Mexican 
authorities will decide on a case-by-case basis whether these migrant 
persons will be admitted to [Mexico's] national territory. For the sake 
of protecting vulnerable people, we will not accept minors or the 
elderly, among others. Likewise, citizens of other nationalities not 
mentioned previously will not be admitted. . . .''\12\ The statement 
concluded with a note that the government of Mexico ``has estimated 
that the number of migrant persons who will be subject to this legal 
entry into Mexican territory will be less than 100 persons per day.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Government of Mexico, ``Nota informativa RELACIONES EXTERIORES 
No. 11,'' March 21, 2020, https://www.gob.mx/sre/documentos/nota-
informativa-relaciones-exteriores-no-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With that announcement, Title 42 began in earnest. The Mexican 
government's estimates were proven wrong within days. Even though Title 
42 was in effect for just 10 days in March 2020, the Border Patrol 
carried out 6,984 expulsions of Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, and 
Salvadorans. Over the next 2 years, DHS would carry out an average of 
over 2,250 daily expulsions to Mexico.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ DHS has not provided exact figures on the number of migrants 
expelled to Mexico. As a result, this figure is an estimate, based on 
the assumption that nearly 100 percent of the 1.6 million Title 42 
expulsions of nationals of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador 
since March 21, 2020, have been to Mexico. This assumption is supported 
by the GAO's June 2021 report on CBP's response to COVID-19, which 
indicated that through the end of December 2020, 92 percent of Title 42 
expulsions occurred via land border to Mexico. U.S. Government 
Accountability Office, GAO-21-431: CBP's Response to COVID-19, June 
2021, at 41, https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/714997.pdf. Over that same 
time period, 93.7 percent of all Title 42 expulsions were of nationals 
of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, suggesting a near 100 
percent rate of expulsions to Mexico for that demographic. See U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection, ``Nation-wide Encounters,'' March 15, 
2022, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  title 42's negative effect on border management becomes apparent in 
                                  2020
    Within a week of Title 42 going into effect, much of the world shut 
down due to the coronavirus. On March 30, Mexico's Ministry of Health 
declared a National emergency and called for wide-spread lockdowns to 
slow the spread of the pandemic. As Mexico closed down in April 2020, 
the number of migrants taken into custody by the Border Patrol 
plummeted to the lowest level for an April in 10 years. But despite 
international lockdowns and the use of Title 42, migrants still came to 
the United States seeking protection or a better life. In total, the 
Border Patrol carried out 15,003 expulsions in April 2020, the 
overwhelming majority to Mexico.
    Once lockdowns lifted in Mexico, the number of migrants crossing 
the border began picking up. Driven by deteriorating security 
situations and increased political repression across Central America, 
economic shocks caused by the pandemic, and two Category 4 hurricanes 
in November 2020 that left hundreds of thousands homeless, migration to 
the United States border rose every single month from May 2020 through 
July 2021. By October 2020, border apprehensions were at the highest 
level for a fall in 15 years, despite the fact that 91 percent of 
people encountered by the Border Patrol that month were expelled. This 
increase in encounters primarily consisted of single adult migrants, a 
demographic which has made up nearly two-thirds of all border 
encounters since Title 42 went into place (see Figure 1).


    Despite the fact that Title 42 technically permits the Border 
Patrol to ``seal the border'' in a way that had never been possible 
before, there is almost no evidence that it has a deterrent effect. 
This was true even in 2020, when Title 42 was used to the greatest 
extent. This is because: (1) Rapid returns to Mexico incentivize people 
to cross the border again, and (2) Mexico's limitations on the use of 
Title 42 prevents it from being applied to nearly half of all people 
who crossed the border in the last 2 years.
    Since Title 42 went into place, 79 percent of single adults have 
been rapidly processed at the border and sent right back to Mexico 
without a deportation order. This arrangement incentivized repeated 
attempted crossings for multiple reasons, including that:
   Many individuals become more desperate following an 
        expulsion, as they lose stability, resources, and often their 
        personal belongings following expulsions. Because the border 
        region remains highly dangerous for asylum seekers expelled 
        back to Mexico, and because the Biden administration has not 
        resumed normal processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry 
        along the border, many people feel as if they have no choice 
        but to make a renewed attempt to seek safety in the United 
        States.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Kathryn Hampton, Michele Heisler, Alana Slavin, ``Neither 
Safety nor Health: How Title 42 Expulsions Harm Health and Violate 
Rights,'' Physicians for Human Rights, July 28, 2021, https://phr.org/
our-work/resources/neither-safety-nor-health/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Due to post-COVID changes made at the Department of Justice 
        in spring 2020, individuals who cross the border for the first 
        time under Title 42 are largely exempt from Federal prosecution 
        for misdemeanor ``improper entry.''\15\ They are also not 
        issued a deportation order.\16\ For individuals crossing the 
        border who are not planning on turning themselves in and asking 
        for asylum, this policy eliminates two possible negative 
        consequences of being apprehended by the Border Patrol. As a 
        result, following a failed attempt to cross the border, some 
        individuals are more willing to try again.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ ``Major Swings in Immigration Criminal Prosecutions during 
Trump Administration,'' Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, 
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/633/.
    \16\ American Immigration Council, ``A Guide to Title 42 Expulsions 
at the Border,'' October 15, 2021, https://
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/guide-title-42-expulsions-
border.
    \17\ Andrew Rodriguez Calderon and Isabel Diaz, ``Strict Border 
Enforcement Policies Put Migrants in Harm's Way. Title 42 Is No 
Exception,'' The Marshall Project, May 26, 2021, https://
www.themarshallproject.org/2021/05/26/strict-border-enforcement-
policies-put-migrants-in-harm-s-way-title-42-is-no-exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fiscal year 2019, just 7 percent of people who crossed the 
border had done so more than once. In fiscal year 2020, under Title 42, 
this rose to 27 percent, the level it has remained in fiscal year 2021 
and fiscal year 2022. According to CBP, the average number of times a 
repeat crosser had been apprehended rose from 2.31 in fiscal year to 
3.14 in fiscal year 2021, a 36 percent increase.\18\ In total, more 
than half a million encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border over the last 
2 years have been repeat encounters of individuals who had already 
tried and failed at least once before. Despite nearly twice as many 
border apprehensions in fiscal year 2021 as in fiscal year 2019, the 
actual number of people encountered at the border was only 45 percent 
higher (see Figure 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Department of Homeland Security, ``U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional 
Justification,'' (2022), at CBP-4, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/
files/2022-03/
U.S.%20Customs%20and%20Border%20Protection_Remediated.pdf.


   expulsions of unaccompanied children in 2020 revealed significant 
 difficulties in using title 42 on people who could not be expelled to 
                                 mexico
    Once a person from any country other than Mexico, Guatemala, 
Honduras, or El Salvador arrives on U.S. soil, DHS can only expel that 
person under Title 42 if: (1) Their home country (or a third country 
such as Mexico) agrees to accept them, or (2) if ICE has sufficient 
resources to both detain the person and expel them by air within a 
short period of time after they entered the country.
    Throughout 2020, it became increasingly apparent that DHS struggled 
to expel any individuals who could not be expelled to Mexico. To carry 
out an expulsion by air, CBP or ICE is required to detain the 
individual for potentially days while waiting for a plane to become 
available. Certain countries also impose their own restrictions on 
Title 42 flights due to COVID-19 restrictions. As of June 2021, DHS HQ 
staff told the GAO that even though the United States had signed Title 
42 repatriation agreements with 9 countries other than Mexico, due to 
COVID-19 ``testing stipulations'' on expulsions imposed by multiple 
countries, the agency was only carrying out Title 42 expulsion flights 
to Colombia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Ecuador.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-21-431: CBP's 
Response to COVID-19, June 2021, at 41, https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/
714997.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the practice of expelling unaccompanied children in 2020 showed, 
expelling large numbers of people by air quickly became impractical. 
For nationals of some countries, the Border Patrol was required to hold 
people in custody for 72 hours or longer until a repatriation flight 
was available.\20\ When Title 42 went into place, the Trump 
administration applied it to unaccompanied children, notwithstanding 
Federal laws which provided unaccompanied children the right to have 
their cases heard in immigration court. But there are no ICE detention 
centers for unaccompanied children, and the Border Patrol didn't want 
to hold children in their custody for days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To carry out Title 42 expulsions of unaccompanied children, DHS was 
forced to secretly rent hotel rooms and hire private contractors to 
stand guard over hundreds of children while they waited for a 
deportation flight.\21\ At one point, in order to meet the testing 
requirements put in place by Guatemala, DHS was first testing 
unaccompanied children to ensure that they weren't positive for COVID-
19, and then expelling them under Title 42--despite the lack of any 
public health need to expel children who'd tested negative.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Nicole Narea, ``DHS is holding migrant children in secret 
hotel locations and rapidly expelling them,'' Vox, August 21, 2020, 
https://www.vox.com/2020/8/21/21377957/migrant-children-unaccompanied-
hotels-dhs-expulsion.
    \22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even with these extreme measures, DHS was unable to expel most non-
Mexican unaccompanied children as the number of children arriving at 
the border began rising back to pre-pandemic levels in 2020. In October 
2020, the last full month in which unaccompanied children were 
expelled, only 35 percent of non-Mexican unaccompanied children were 
subject to Title 42 (see Figure 3).


    DHS's inability to expel more than 1,000 non-Mexican unaccompanied 
children by air in a month foreshadowed the problems the agency would 
have in carrying out Title 42 in 2021, when hundreds of thousands of 
people arrived at the border who couldn't be expelled to Mexico.
                  title 42 breaks down further in 2021
    On January 24, 3 days after President Biden took office, the 
government of the Mexican State of Tamaulipas announced that it would 
no longer permit DHS to expel families back to Tamaulipas if a child in 
the family was under the age of 7.\23\ As a result of Tamaulipas' 
refusal to accept the expulsion of families with young children, when 
the numbers of families arriving at the border in south Texas began 
rising in early February, the Biden administration was unable to expel 
the majority under Title 42 and was forced to release thousands of 
families.\24\ Likely as a result of this shift, the number of families 
crossing the border in south Texas rose significantly in spring 2021, 
and the Biden administration was unable to expel the majority of them 
despite its desire to apply Title 42 to them.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Elliot Spagat and Valerie Gonzalez, ``Inside Biden's border 
plans: How optimism turned to chaos,'' Associated Press, November 3, 
2021, https://apnews.com/article/immigration-coronavirus-pandemic-
donald-trump-joe-biden-health-af698c3434cc31dfbce43a66fbf43b49.
    \24\ Adolfo Flores and Hamed Aleaziz, ``Border Agents In Texas Have 
Started Releasing Some Immigrant Families After Mexico Refused To Take 
Them Back,'' Buzzfeed News, February 6, 2021, https://
www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/border-agents-in-texas-have-
started-releasing-some.
    \25\ U.S. Customs and Border Protection, ``Nationwide Encounters,'' 
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the number of families coming to the border peaked in 
summer 2021 and then fell throughout the fall and winter, other 
demographic groups that could not be easily expelled under Title 42 
began arriving in larger numbers in the second half of 2021. Nationals 
of countries other than Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico 
could not be expelled to Mexico. Asylum seekers from primarily Western 
Hemisphere countries such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Brazil, Ecuador, and 
Cuba who came to the border and crossed could largely not be expelled 
under Title 42.
    The exception that proved this rule came in September 2021, when 
nearly 15,000 Haitians arrived in Del Rio, Texas and sought asylum. In 
response, the Biden administration decided to send a message and 
massively ramp up expulsions by air to Haiti, a move that led to the 
resignation of multiple administration officials and accusations of 
racism. In order to carry out roughly 8,000 expulsions to Haiti in a 
matter of 2 weeks, ICE had to sign an emergency contract with GEO 
Group, a private prison company, to carry out dozens of charter 
flights. The cost to the U.S taxpayer was $15,758,960, or nearly $2,000 
per expulsion.\26\ Continued mass expulsions at that rate would quickly 
bankrupt the agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ``JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER 
THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,'' Sept. 27, 2021, https://sam.gov/opp/
91706b03fec145589a- 73c92959cbbf4d/view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            the border is not open--but neither is it closed
    However, just because individuals were not expelled did not mean 
that they were released at the border. Our independent analysis of data 
produced by DHS reveals that in the 13-month period from February 2021 
through February 2022, 73.1 percent of Border Patrol encounters 
resulted in a migrant being expelled, repatriated, or sent to an ICE 
detention center (see Figure 4). In total, from February 2021 through 
February 2022:
   60.2 percent of Border Patrol encounters led to an immediate 
        expulsion under Title 42, either by bus or plane to northern 
        Mexico, or by plane to the migrant's home country;
   19.9 percent of Border Patrol encounters led to a person 
        being released at the border under humanitarian parole, with a 
        notice to report to an ICE office, or with a notice to appear 
        in immigration court;
   9.8 percent of Border Patrol encounters led to a person 
        being sent to an ICE detention center or to a State, local, or 
        Federal jail for criminal prosecution.
   7.0 percent of Border Patrol encounters were of an 
        unaccompanied child who was sent to a shelter run by the Office 
        of Refugee Resettlement.
   3.1 percent of Border Patrol encounters led to an immediate 
        deportation or other form of repatriation.
        
        
    As Figure 5 shows, direct releases at the border over the last year 
(primarily families who cannot be expelled to Mexico) occurred in just 
1 in 5 encounters. Roughly 2 out of every 3 encounters resulted in a 
failure to remain in the United States. For those individuals, the 
border was decidedly closed. Despite significantly increased crossings, 
CBP reports that its overall effectiveness at detecting and 
interdicting migrants in fiscal year 2021 was 82.6 percent, higher than 
both the agency's target of 81.0 percent and the previous result of 
79.4 percent in fiscal year 2020.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Department of Homeland Security, ``U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional 
Justification,'' (2022), at CBP-4, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/
files/2022-03/
U.S.%20Customs%20and%20Border%20Protection_Remediated.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Importantly, when reviewing these numbers, it is important to 
consider the original stated purpose of Title 42--limiting the spread 
of COVID-19 from people crossing the border. But for the past 2 years, 
millions of people have crossed the border legally at the ports of 
entry each month. As Figure 5 shows, even at the height of the 
pandemic, closures in April 2020, more than 6 million people crossed 
the border. Until late 2021, there was no vaccine requirement to cross 
the border legally, nor were people crossing the border at ports of 
entry required to show a negative COVID-19 test.\28\ At no point during 
the pandemic have U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents been the 
target of any restriction on their entry from Mexico into the United 
States, because DHS declared in March 2020 that the reentry of U.S. 
citizens and lawful permanent residents was per se ``essential 
travel.''\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Emily Cochrane, ``The U.S. will reopen 
its land borders for fully vaccinated travelers,'' New York Times, 
October 12, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/12/us/politics/us-
canada-mexico-borders-open.html.
    \29\ U.S. Customs and Border Protection, ``Notification of 
Temporary Travel Restrictions Applicable to Land Ports of Entry and 
Ferries Service Between the United States and Mexico,'' 85 Fed. Reg. 
16547, 16548 (March 24, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since Title 42 went into place, people crossed the U.S.-Mexico 
border at ports of entry more than 225 million times--over 100 times 
greater than the number of people who crossed between ports of entry. 
In short, people crossing the border between ports of entry has 
constituted less than 1 percent of traffic across the U.S.-Mexico 
border since Title 42 went into effect. Yet until very recently, only 
the far smaller group was turned away on the basis of public health.


    Despite claims that ``the border is open'' to migrants, since Title 
42 went into place, over 1.7 million border encounters have resulted in 
an expulsion and over 60,000 people have been deported or otherwise 
sent back to Mexico under Title 8. By contrast, less than 1 million 
people have been processed under normal immigration law and either 
permitted to apply for asylum or sent to ICE detention centers. And 
throughout that time, cross-border traffic has continued in the 
millions, with people able to cross back and forth every day for 
school, work, or simply a shopping trip--most without being tested for 
COVID-19.
 title 42 and increased migration has no impact on the flow of opiates 
                         into the united states
    The overwhelming majority of hard drugs such as fentanyl, heroin, 
and methamphetamine enter the United States through ports of entry, 
usually concealed in commercial traffic or passenger vehicles.\30\ At a 
recent hearing in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee, Diane Sabatino, the deputy executive assistant commissioner 
of Customs and Border Protection, testified that just 15 percent of 
commercial vehicles and only 2 percent of private vehicles are screened 
for narcotics.\31\ As the Drug Enforcement Agency has long recognized, 
commercial ports of entry are the primary means by which fentanyl and 
other drugs enter the United States.\32\ Since the beginning of fiscal 
year 2019, just 5 percent of opiates seized at the border (heroin and 
fentanyl) have been seized by Border Patrol agents between ports of 
entry, rather than at the ports of entry or internal vehicle 
checkpoints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Customs and Border Protection, Drug Seizure Statistics, 
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics.
    \31\ Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 
Subcommittee on Government Operations and Border Management, ``Federal 
Government Perspective: Improving Security, Trade, and Travel Flows at 
the Southwest Border Ports of Entry,'' November 17, 2021, https://
www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/Federal-government-perspective-improving-
security-trade-and-travel-flows-at-the-southwest-border-ports-of-entry.
    \32\ Salvador Rivera, ``DEA: Local drug sales now fueling most of 
the bloodshed south of the border,'' Border Report, March 7, 2022, 
https://www.borderreport.com/hot-topics/border-crime/dea-local-drug-
sales-now-fueling-most-of-the-bloodshed-south-of-the-border/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite these facts, defenders of Title 42 have at times attempted 
to link the policy to the flow of opiates and other hard drugs across 
the border from Mexico, arguing that an increase in migrants distracts 
Border Patrol agents from their normal duties and provides 
opportunities for drugs to be smuggled into the United States. This 
argument is not supported by the data, which shows little change in the 
pattern of drug seizures during times in which migration is high. As 
demonstrated by Figure 6, the overwhelming majority of opiates continue 
to be seized at ports of entry and vehicle checkpoints regardless of 
whether migration is high or low.


    Migration increased significantly in 2019, fell through early 2020, 
increased throughout the second half of 2020, then doubled again in 
2021. Despite these massive swings in migration across the Southern 
Border, there is no evidence that Border Patrol seizures of opiates 
between ports of entry were affected. Instead, the most likely driver 
in recent shifts in fentanyl seizures is the port of entry restrictions 
that were in place from March 2020 through November 2021 and which 
correspond to a period of higher seizures at the ports of entry (see 
Figure 6). This is because the restrictions caused reduced traffic 
through the ports of entry and a shift in the demographics of the 
smugglers, which made it possible for CBP to detect and intercept a 
higher percent of narcotics.\33\ Not surprisingly, after the 
restrictions ended in November and traffic across the border increased, 
CBP's ability to detect and intercept illicit narcotics at ports of 
entry has fallen, leading to reduced opiate seizures from December 
through February.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Deborah Bonello and Luis Chaparro, ``Mexican Cartels Are Using 
More U.S. Citizens to Smuggle Drugs Because of COVID,'' VICE News, 
November 5, 2020, https://www.vice.com/en/article/88aazb/mexican-
cartels-are-using-more-us-citizens-to-smuggle-drugs-because-of-covid, 
https://www.vice.com/en/article/88aazb/mexican-cartels-are-using-more-
us-citizens-to-smuggle-drugs-because-of-covid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    how the biden administration should implement an end to title 42
    Over the last 8 years, in 2014, 2018-2019, and 2021, the United 
States has gone through successive times of high humanitarian 
migration. Each time, the response from the United States has been 
similar; aggressive, enforcement-centric, and focused on deterrence. 
Title 42 was intended to be the ultimate deterrent, blocking nearly all 
who came across and implementing a near-total denial of access to 
asylum. But Title 42 failed miserably in that goal, as this statement 
has already articulated. Our experiences over the last decade have 
shown that deterrence-based programs are limited in their effectiveness 
at best and actively harmful at their worst. The overarching lesson 
we've learned from a decade of attempts to slow or stop humanitarian 
migration is that U.S. border policy alone cannot solve the 
humanitarian crises that are driving migrants to the United States.
    To prepare for the lifting of Title 42, DHS should immediately 
surge resources and manpower to the Office of Field Operations that 
would permit all ports of entry along the Southern Border to rapidly 
restart humanitarian processing of asylum seekers at levels at least 
twice or three times as high as in 2016. If necessary, Congress should 
provide additional funding targeted solely to facilitate DHS processing 
of individuals seeking asylum at ports of entry. DHS should cross-
detail employees from across the agency and seek volunteers from other 
Federal agencies to assist with this mass operation to resume asylum 
processing at ports of entry. The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) 
should also prepare additional shelter capacity and detail ORR 
caseworkers to the border to assist with the increased number of 
unaccompanied children crossing in recent months.
    In addition, DHS should coordinate with humanitarian and legal 
NGO's that operate on both sides of the border to spread accurate 
information about restoration of asylum at ports of entry and to create 
an orderly, dignified, and humane process to access asylum. The State 
Department should simultaneously coordinate with Mexico to further 
increase shelter capacity on the Mexican side of the border, to 
encourage people to avoid the smugglers and instead come to the ports 
of entry. In addition, the State Department should work with Mexico to 
increase security surrounding the ports of entry, with a focus on 
limiting cartel access to vulnerable asylum seekers who are waiting to 
access asylum.
    DHS should focus its strategy first on the ports of entry where 
flow would likely be highest; San Diego, El Paso, and Brownsville, and 
then smaller ports secondarily. The agencies should simultaneously 
begin a messaging campaign encouraging people seeking asylum to come to 
the ports of entry rather than crossing between POEs. The agencies 
should extensively coordinate with Mexican and U.S. border NGO's and 
build trust with allies, ensuring that those who are admitted are 
paroled in or placed in Alternatives to Detention (ATDs) rather than 
being sent to detention.
    In addition to resourcing the ports of entry to resume asylum 
processing, DHS should immediately cross-detail as many people as 
possible to be Border Patrol processing coordinators and/or issue 
contracts to third parties to act as temporary processing coordinators. 
Congress should provide additional funding to the Department to help 
facilitate this expansion of processing, ensure increased transparency 
of Border Patrol spending and resource allocation, and provide for 
additional supervision of Border Patrol processing.
    The increase in humanitarian processing will serve two primary 
goals; reduce the deprivation of rights that asylum seekers face in 
Border Patrol custody, while simultaneously permitting the Border 
Patrol to continue to carry out their primary law enforcement duties.
    More efficient humanitarian processing of asylum seekers that frees 
up Border Patrol agents to carry out their enforcement functions will 
also mean that a higher percentage of migrants who are not seeking 
asylum will be subject to the Biden administration's plan to restore 
many of the deterrent-focused policies that existed prior to Title 
42.\34\ While we do not condone the use of ``consequence-based'' 
policies, which generally lack sufficient procedural safeguards to 
avoid refoulment of asylum seekers, there is little doubt that the mass 
use of expedited removal and increases in immigration prosecutions will 
have at least some temporary deterrent effect on migrants, especially 
on those who were crossing the border repeatedly under Title 42. Thus, 
after an initial influx of asylum seekers who have been waiting in 
Mexico, the end of Title 42 is likely to lead to an eventual reduction 
in border crossings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ``FACT SHEET: DHS 
Preparations for a Potential Increase in Migration,'' March 30, 2022, 
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/03/30/fact-sheet-dhs-preparations-
potential-increase-migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, in discussing the deterrent effect of certain border 
policies, we must acknowledge that long-term border management should 
not adopt a goal of zero migration. ``Operational control'' of the 
border can and should include opportunities for desperate people to 
seek protection in the United States. And we must acknowledge that the 
flow of individuals seeking a better life has been a constant at the 
U.S. border for over a century. Even the harshest border policies, like 
the deliberate separation of families, did not stop people coming to 
the United States. We cannot change human nature, and there is nothing 
more human than seeking to protect yourself and/or your family, 
including by striking out for a new land to seek a better life.
                               conclusion
    Two years of evidence have shown that Title 42 was a failure. 
Rather than continuing to try to deter our way out of migration, we 
need to make a sustained investment in the creation of an orderly 
humanitarian protection system that reduces the incentives to cross the 
border between ports of entry and helps address the root causes of 
migration. Medium- and long-term solutions to asylum processing require 
time and political will, not simply yet another attempt to crack down.
    The American Immigration Council looks forward to working with the 
subcommittee on these solutions.

    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you for your testimony. I now 
recognize Mr. Kizuka to summarize your statement for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF KENNJI KIZUKA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AND 
      ANALYSIS FOR REFUGEE PROTECTION, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST

    Mr. Kizuka. Thank you, Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member 
Higgins, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank 
you for holding his timely hearing on the Title 42 policy and 
for the opportunity to testify.
    For over 40 years, Human Rights First has pressed the 
United States to take a leading role in upholding human rights. 
Today, my colleagues are supporting Ukrainian human rights 
defenders, documenting atrocities, working with partners around 
the globe to advocate for targeted sanctions against human 
rights abusers, and providing pro bono legal representation in 
the United States to refugees seeking asylum.
    We applaud the Biden administration's decision to terminate 
the Title 42 policy. It is not, and never was, a justifiable 
public health response to the pandemic, as epidemiologists and 
medical experts have repeatedly confirmed. Instead, the Title 
42 policy has been used to evade U.S. asylum laws and treaty 
obligations. Asylum seekers have been blocked from requesting 
protection at ports of entry. People seeking refuge who are 
overwhelmingly Black, Brown, and Indigenous have been expelled 
to danger without an opportunity to apply for asylum.
    Through field investigations and interviews with asylum 
seekers, attorneys, and human rights monitors, our refugee 
protection team has documented the grave human rights 
violations that have been caused by this illegal policy. We 
have tracked at least 9,886 reports of kidnapping, torture, 
rape, and other brutal assaults on people blocked in or 
expelled to Mexico under Title 42 during the Biden 
administration. Many have been abducted and attacked by cartels 
that target asylum seekers expelled to Mexico.
    A Salvadoran family with 8- and 12-year-old children, 
kidnapped almost immediately after being expelled to Mexico in 
the middle of the night, were held captive for 20 days locked 
in a storage room by men who repeatedly threatened to rape the 
mother. A 29-year-old Venezuelan asylum seeker turned away at 
the Hidalgo port of entry was abducted, threatened at 
knifepoint, and raped.
    Black asylum seekers stranded in Mexico due to Title 42 
face brutal violence. Mexican police beat an Afro-Honduran man 
in the head with a tree branch leaving him blind in one eye. In 
Tijuana, a man with a baton severely beat a Haitian asylum 
seeker in front of Mexican police, who did nothing.
    Title 42 has also inflicted horrific harm on children 
blocked from protection and expelled to further danger. A 14-
year-old Cuban boy chewed off his fingernails from the stress 
and anxiety of being expelled with his grandmother to Mexico, 
where they had been kidnapped and forced to watch as their 
abductors killed another kidnapping victim. A 13-year-old 
Honduran girl, who had been raped in Mexico, was expelled with 
her asylum-seeking mother back to Mexico despite threats 
against them by the attacker.
    Blocking requests for asylum at ports of entry endangers 
lives. A young LGBT man fleeing political persecution in 
Venezuela was turned away at the Laredo port of entry and 
returned to highly dangerous Nuevo Laredo, where he and an 
American friend, who was trying to help him, had been kidnapped 
the day before. Following the instructions of Border Patrol 
agents to present herself legally, a Guatemalan woman was raped 
after attempting to seek protection at the San Ysidro port of 
entry, which she found closed to asylum seekers. Unable to 
request asylum at ports of entry because of Title 42 and facing 
grave dangers in Mexico, refugees have been pushed across the 
border between ports.
    Recently, DHS has rightly exempted Ukrainian refugees from 
Title 42, receiving them at ports of entry. We urge DHS to also 
process asylum seekers from Africa, the Americas, and the 
Caribbean who remain stranded in danger, unable to seek asylum 
due to Title 42. This discriminatory double standard must end.
    Restarting and ramping up asylum at ports of entry is also 
crucial to ending the disorder caused by Title 42. In addition, 
expulsions that return people to persecution or torture in 
violation of U.S. laws and treaty obligations must end, 
including expulsions to the deteriorating security and 
political situation in Haiti. The administration should ensure 
safe reception of people seeking asylum with support and legal 
information provided through border shelter networks and should 
work to establish a fair, timely, and accurate asylum process 
in communities where asylum seekers will stay.
    Coordination with and support to NGO's providing assistance 
should also be strengthened. People fleeing for their lives 
will continue to arrive at the border to seek asylum as they 
have for more than 2 years with Title 42 in place. Extending 
Title 42 will only exacerbate disorder and result in yet more 
grievous attacks against refugees illegally blocked from 
protection.
    The United States has capacity to welcome asylum seekers 
and treat them with dignity. Other countries with far fewer 
resources host the vast majority of the world's refugees. 
Individuals, communities, and NGO's around this country stand 
ready to receive and welcome refugees. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kizuka follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Kennji Kizuka
                             April 6, 2022
    Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member Higgins, and distinguished 
Members of the subcommittee: On behalf of Human Rights First, I thank 
you for the opportunity to testify on the Title 42 policy and the need 
to restore asylum at the southern U.S. border.
    Human Rights First is an independent, non-profit advocacy 
organization that for more than 4 decades has pressed the United States 
to take a leading role in promoting and defending human rights. The 
organization was founded in 1978, at a time when the United States was 
jailing and seeking to deport refugees fleeing repression in El 
Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and the Soviet Union, among other 
countries. Human Rights First worked with Members of Congress to pass 
the landmark 1980 Refugee Act, which established a legal framework for 
refugee protection. In our research and advocacy, we work with asylum 
seekers, attorneys, and other human rights organizations to ensure U.S. 
compliance with domestic refugee law and international treaty 
obligations, and our refugee representation team recruits and trains 
lawyers to provide pro bono legal representation to asylum seekers. 
Over the years, Human Rights First has helped thousands of refugees to 
receive asylum.
                               background
    I am the associate director of research and analysis for refugee 
protection at Human Rights First. Over the past decade, I have worked 
in the United States, Mexico, and other countries to monitor and defend 
the human rights of refugees. I graduated from the U.C. Berkeley School 
of Law, order of the coif, and hold a Masters' degree in public policy 
from Princeton's School of Public and International Affairs. I was a 
judicial clerk for the Honorable Rosemary S. Pooler on the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Second Circuit. I currently serve as a member of the 
Human Rights Watch advisory committee on children's rights.
    I first joined Human Rights First as an Immigrant Justice Corps 
legal fellow to represent asylum seekers before the asylum office and 
immigration court. Subsequently, I have led Human Rights First's 
efforts to document the impact of Trump and Biden administration 
policies at the southern U.S. border that violate U.S. refugee law and 
treaty obligations and return people to danger.
    Since the Trump administration issued the first Title 42 order in 
March 2020 to block and expel people seeking safety in the United 
States without access to the U.S. asylum system, my colleagues at Human 
Rights First \1\ and I have tracked the devastating human toll of this 
illegal policy. We have spoken with hundreds of asylum seekers, 
attorneys, and human rights monitors and published more than a dozen 
reports and research updates, including with partner organizations, 
that document the grave human rights violations caused by the Title 42 
policy during both the Trump and Biden administrations: March 2022, 
February 2022, January 2022, December 2021, November 2021 (with 
Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project), October 2021, August 
2021, July 2021 (with Hope Border Institute), June 2021, May 2021 (with 
RAICES and Interfaith Welcome Coalition), April 2021 (with Al Otro Lado 
and Haitian Bridge Alliance), December 2020, and May 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Allison Perlin, Ana Ortega Villegas, Julia Neusner, Lamisse 
Abdel Rahman, Martha Arreola, Miguel Pineda, and Rebecca Gendelman have 
also conducted interviews on behalf of Human Rights First with people 
turned away to danger due to Title 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This research has identified nearly 10,000 reports of kidnapping, 
torture, rape and other brutal attacks on asylum seekers and migrants 
blocked in or expelled to Mexico by the U.S. Government under the Title 
42 policy during the Biden administration alone.
    On behalf of Human Rights First, I have also documented and tracked 
the human rights catastrophe caused by the so-called ``Migrant 
Protection Protocols'' under which tens of thousands of asylum seekers 
and migrants have been forced to remain in Mexico facing similar 
targeted attacks as they wait for U.S. immigration court hearings.
 the title 42 policy's demise is a welcome and necessary step toward a 
         fairer, timelier, and less-traumatizing asylum process
    Human Rights First welcomes the Biden administration's announcement 
that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will terminate its 
use of the Title 42 policy to illegally block people from seeking 
asylum at U.S. ports of entry and halt expulsions of asylum seekers to 
grave danger. The Title 42 policy reportedly came straight from the 
xenophobic playbook of Stephen Miller--painting migrants as spreaders 
of disease as a pretext to block refugees and immigrants from the 
United States. But the Title 42 policy never had any reasonable basis 
as a public health response to the pandemic, as epidemiologists, 
medical experts, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 
own senior scientists repeatedly affirmed.
    For more than 2 years, under both the Trump and Biden 
administrations, the policy has been used to evade U.S. immigration and 
refugee law. Citing Title 42, DHS has blocked refugees from Belarus, 
Cameroon, Colombia, Cuba, Ghana, Guatemala, El Salvador, Ethiopia, 
Honduras, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Russia, Ukraine, 
Venezuela, and other countries from seeking protection at U.S. ports of 
entry. With asylum largely unavailable at ports of entry, many asylum 
seekers facing grave dangers in Mexico are pushed to undertake border 
crossings between ports--fueling disorder and exposing them to added 
harms. At the same time, DHS has used Title 42 to expel refugees, who 
are overwhelmingly Black, Brown, and Indigenous, returning them to 
systematic human rights violations in Mexico and to the countries of 
persecution they fled.
    Ending the Title 42 policy is a necessary first step toward 
upholding the Biden administration's commitment to establish a more 
fair, orderly, and humane immigration system. We remain, however, 
concerned that the policy's continued implementation through May 23 
violates U.S. refugee law and will continue to turn away yet more 
refugees to grave harm.
    During the implementation of the Title 42 policy's termination, DHS 
must begin accepting requests for asylum at U.S. ports of entry along 
the Southern Border, as required by U.S. law, and swiftly ramp up 
capacity. Many asylum seekers stranded in Mexico due to Title 42 have 
been waiting months or even years for an opportunity to seek protection 
in the United States at a port of entry. Every day that they are forced 
to wait in danger in Mexico is another day that they could be 
kidnapped, raped, or murdered.
    DHS can provide exemptions under Title 42 to asylum seekers, as the 
welcome reception of many Ukrainians currently arriving at the Southern 
Border confirms. Yet, the administration has chosen to continue to 
block refugees primarily from Africa, the Americas, and the Caribbean 
from applying for asylum at ports of entry. Racially discriminatory 
access to asylum violates the fundamental principle of equal protection 
under law, as well as U.S. treaty obligations. Asylum seekers should be 
welcomed in the United States whether they are from Ukraine or Congo, 
Cuba, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela, or elsewhere.
    We also urge the administration to immediately halt expulsions and 
to instead process asylum seekers under U.S. asylum law, which bars the 
return of asylum seekers to countries of persecution without an 
opportunity to apply for refugee protection in the United States and 
prohibits transfer to a third country where a person would face 
persecution or torture. Last month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 
found the Title 42 policy likely illegal and ruled that the U.S. 
Government ``cannot expel [asylum seekers] to places where they will be 
persecuted or tortured.'' We are deeply concerned that the 
administration will continue to use Title 42 to expel asylum seekers to 
danger, including by returning Haitians to escalating insecurity in 
Haiti. Expulsions that would return individuals to persecution or 
torture violate U.S. refugee law and binding international treaty 
obligations.
    As the administration restarts asylum at the border, it should halt 
the use of the flawed expedited removal process, avoid sending asylum 
seekers to immigration detention, and instead strengthen coordination 
with and support to NGO partners providing crucial humanitarian 
assistance at the border and case support services in destination 
communities.
    Human Rights First has previously published its recommendations to 
the Biden administration to restore U.S. compliance with refugee law 
and create a fair, timely, and less-traumatizing asylum process, which 
are also summarized at the end of this testimony.
   to safeguard lives and restore order, dhs should begin accepting 
   requests for asylum at ports of entry on the southern u.s. border
    For years, DHS has illegally turned back refugees attempting to 
approach U.S. ports of entry on the Southern Border to request asylum. 
Since March 2020, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers have 
cited the Title 42 policy to stop nearly all asylum seekers at the 
international border line before they can reach a port of entry to 
request protection, telling them asylum is not available in the United 
States due to the pandemic. Many people who would have sought asylum at 
a port of entry, including Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and 
Venezuelans who historically arrived through ports of entry, have been 
pushed to make dangerous crossings elsewhere, driving up the number of 
encounters between ports of entry.
    Blocking asylum at ports of entry further exposes asylum seekers 
stranded in Mexico to abduction, torture, and extortion by the cartels 
that target them. Indeed, our research has found that some organized 
criminal organizations are working to actively prevent asylum seekers 
from approaching ports of entry, as the restoration of port of entry 
processing of asylum threatens the cartels' control and extortion 
efforts. The Kino Border Initiative, a nonprofit organization assisting 
migrants at the Arizona border, for example, reported that in Nogales, 
Sonora ``organized crime has become so protective of the business they 
have made from the border closure that they have begun watching the 
ports of entry . . . and harassing migrants who attempt to be processed 
there.''
    U.S. ports of entry have unused capacity to process asylum seekers 
currently arriving at the border. Since August 2021, processing at 
Southern Border ports of inadmissible individuals, including asylum 
seekers, has dropped by 49 percent (from 13,326 to 6,841 in February 
2022). These numbers remain well below monthly processing during the 
Obama administration when CBP processed 20,524 people at Southern 
Border ports of entry in October 2016, for example. Since then, ports 
of entry have received significant Congressional funding, including 
most recently through the fiscal year 2021 and 2022 appropriations, to 
upgrade and expand capacity (both in infrastructure and staffing) but 
have processed far fewer individuals than in 2016. The administration 
should leverage this capacity at U.S. ports of entry to immediately 
begin processing asylum claims during the implementation of the Title 
42 termination.
Blocking Asylum at Ports of Entry Endangers Lives
    In our research we have identified many cases in which asylum 
seekers blocked from asylum at ports of entry due to Title 42 have been 
subjected to harm amounting to persecution and torture on return to 
Mexico. DHS officers are also turning away asylum seekers trying to 
request protection at ports of entry who have previously been kidnapped 
and attacked in Mexico.
    In one shocking incident, CBP officers turned away a Guatemalan man 
who was covered in blood from having been tortured by the cartel that 
abducted him as he tried to request protection at the international 
bridge leading to the Laredo port of entry. The man had been held for 
days and repeatedly brutally beaten by cartel members because he could 
not provide the phone number of a family member in the United States to 
extort. The man told me, ``If I return to my country, I'll be killed. 
If I stay here, I'll be killed. I want an opportunity, for someone to 
consider my case.''
    When asylum seekers have arrived at a port of entry to request 
protection, CBP officers have turned them back to Mexico without 
allowing them to apply for asylum or referring them for a fear 
screening required under U.S. law for expedited removals. For instance, 
a young LGBT man fleeing political persecution in Venezuela managed to 
approach the Laredo port of entry to request asylum in the company of 
an American friend. He told me that CBP officers at the port refused to 
process his request for asylum and forced him back across the 
international bridge into Nuevo Laredo even though the day before the 
young man and his friend had been kidnapped and extorted as they 
searched for a place to stay for the night.
    Even though DHS has refused to accept requests for asylum at ports 
of entry under the Title 42 policy and U.S. law guarantees the right to 
seek asylum at or after crossing the border, some Border Patrol agents 
falsely instruct refugees to seek protection at ports of entry. A 
Guatemalan woman was raped in Tijuana after she followed the 
instructions of Border Patrol agents to present herself ``legally'' at 
a port of entry. The woman, who was fleeing severe domestic violence 
with her 6-year-old daughter, had initially crossed the border near 
Mexicali and was expelled to Mexico under Title 42. The woman was 
attacked after the family relocated to Tijuana to attempt to seek 
asylum at the San Ysidro port of entry, where she found that DHS had 
closed the port to asylum seekers due to Title 42.
Asylum Seekers Pushed to Undertake Dangerous Crossings Between Ports of 
        Entry
    DHS's failure to comply with asylum law at ports of entry under the 
Title 42 policy has pushed asylum seekers to undertake increasingly 
dangerous border crossings away from ports. Analysis of Government data 
by Human Rights First and the CATO Institute confirm that policies that 
block or reduce asylum processing at ports of entry drive crossings of 
the border away from ports of entry by asylum seekers who are unable to 
access protection at official border posts. Reports by the Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) for DHS have repeatedly confirmed that 
restrictions on asylum at ports of entry push asylum seekers to cross 
the border away from these ports. For instance, a Border Patrol 
supervisor told OIG that ``the Border Patrol sees an increase in 
illegal entries when [noncitizens] are metered at ports of entry.''
    In fiscal year 2017, for instance, 99 percent of the total number 
of Cubans and Haitians encountered at the Southern Border arrived 
through a port of entry. However, after the launch of illegal turnback 
policies that prevent asylum seekers from requesting protection at 
ports of entry, including Title 42, the overwhelming majority have 
crossed into the United States between ports. In fiscal year 2022 
(through February 2022), with DHS effectively shuttering access to 
asylum at U.S. ports of entry, just 0.2 percent of Cubans and 2.2 
percent of Haitians arriving at the Southern Border entered through a 
port of entry. More limited government data also shows that the 
percentage of Nicaraguans and Venezuelans presenting themselves at 
Southern Border ports has followed a similar downward trend, declining 
from 32 and 56 percent, respectively, in fiscal year 2020, to just 0.2 
percent in fiscal year 2022.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ DHS has not made data on Nicaraguans and Venezuelans arriving 
at ports of entry prior to fiscal year 2020 publicly available, but 
reports on asylum wait lists suggest that high percentages of people 
from these countries sought protection at ports prior to the 
implementation of Title 42 and other restrictions on asylum at ports of 
entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The rise in crossings of the Southern Border away from ports of 
entry due to Title 42 has in turn led to increasing fatalities. At 
least 650 people are known to have died while crossing the U.S.-Mexico 
border in 2021, the highest figure recorded since the International 
Organization for Migration began tracking in 2014. For instance, in 
January 2022, a 7-year-old Venezuelan girl drowned in the Rio Grande 
attempting to enter the United States with her mother near Ciudad 
Acuna. In March 2022, Maria Angelica, a 4-year-old Nicaraguan girl, 
drowned attempting to cross the Rio Grande. The child was swept away by 
a strong current, according to her mother.
    To safeguard the lives of asylum seekers stranded in Mexico and to 
restore order at the border, DHS should begin to process asylum seekers 
at ports of entry as it prepares for the full termination of the Title 
42 policy.
  the biden administration must halt title 42 expulsions that return 
           asylum seekers to persecution and fuel insecurity
    The Title 42 policy has fueled thousands of heinous targeted 
attacks against people seeking refuge in the United States who were 
turned away by DHS without an opportunity to apply for U.S. asylum or 
provided a fear screening required by Congress for expedited removals. 
Every day that DHS uses the Title 42 policy to block and expel people 
seeking refuge in the United States to places where they would face 
persecution and torture--in violation of the D.C. Circuit's ruling--the 
immense suffering this illegal policy has caused will continue to 
escalate.
    Between January 21, 2021 and March 15, 2022, Human Rights First 
tracked at least 9,886 reports of murder, torture, rape, kidnapping, 
and other violent attacks on people blocked in or expelled to Mexico 
under the Biden administration's use of the Title 42 policy. This tally 
includes incidents published in media, interviews of asylum seekers 
carried out by Human Rights First, information supplied by attorneys 
and humanitarian services providers at the border, as well as reports 
catalogued through an on-going electronic survey conducted by the 
organization Al Otro Lado. However, these nearly 10,000 reported 
attacks are likely just a small fraction of the true scale of violence, 
as the vast majority of people expelled or blocked from protection due 
to Title 42 have not spoken with a human rights investigator, attorney, 
or journalist.
    Our research over the past 2 years confirms that the Mexican 
cartels that exercise considerable territorial authority across an 
expanding area of Mexico have adapted their criminal enterprises to 
target and profit from kidnapping, torturing, and extorting asylum 
seekers and migrants stranded in Mexico due to Title 42. They are 
viewed by the cartels as obvious and easy prey due to their 
nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, and perceived ties to 
U.S. family members, among other characteristics.
Murder
    At least one person subjected to Title 42--a cognitively impaired 
15-year-old boy with the functional development of a 5-year-old child--
was murdered after being expelled by DHS to Mexico. His mutilated body 
was discovered after the boy fled alone across the border from Reynosa. 
According to a declaration filed by a lawyer assisting the boy's family 
after his killing, he was likely murdered for failing to pay a ``fee'' 
to one of the criminal groups that extort, kidnap, and attack people 
who attempt to cross the border without their permission.
    Two asylum seekers placed in the similarly dangerous ``Migrant 
Protection Protocols'' are also known to have been murdered after DHS 
returned them to Mexico, including a 19-year-old Cuban asylum seeker 
and an asylum-seeking father from El Salvador.
Targeted Kidnappings and Attacks
    People expelled under Title 42 to dangerous areas of the border 
region in Mexico are targeted for kidnapping, rape, torture, and other 
brutal attacks by the cartels and other organized criminal groups that 
prey on asylum seekers stranded in Mexico due to U.S. border policies. 
Our research on Title 42 has identified many reports of asylum seekers 
kidnapped or attacked in the moments after DHS officers returned them 
to Mexico through a U.S. port of entry. DHS has also expelled asylum 
seekers who were previously kidnapped or attacked in Mexico, thereby 
returning them to grave risk of further harm.
    A 4-year-old Honduran boy and his pregnant asylum-seeking mother 
were abducted immediately after DHS expelled them to highly dangerous 
Nuevo Laredo. The terrified little boy was sick and not eating from the 
ordeal. His aunt, herself a refugee granted asylum who lives in 
Tennessee, told me the cartel that had abducted her family was 
threatening to harm them if she failed to pay a $20,000 ransom. After 
the FBI failed to answer her requests for help, she managed to cobble 
together enough money from her savings and donations from other members 
of her church to secure the release of her nephew and sister.
    After DHS turned away a 29-year-old Venezuelan asylum seeker at the 
Hidalgo port of entry, she was abducted and raped. A man impersonating 
a Mexican immigration official near the port told the woman he would 
help her register on an asylum wait list but instead took her to a 
rundown hotel where he held her against her will, threatened her at 
knifepoint, and sexually assaulted her.
    DHS used Title 42 to expel to Mexico an 18-year-old Nicaraguan 
political dissident who had twice been kidnapped there, leaving him 
stranded in danger. After the second kidnapping in the border city of 
Nogales, the young man managed to escape his abductors and fled across 
the border to request asylum in the United States. But DHS officers 
expelled him back to danger in Mexico using Title 42.
    A Salvadoran asylum seeker was kidnapped along with her husband and 
their 8- and 12-year-old children almost immediately following their 
expulsion by DHS in the middle of the night to Mexico. They had crossed 
the border near Reynosa to seek protection in the United States after 
fleeing death threats by the gang that had brutally attacked the woman 
and her husband in El Salvador. Finally free from captivity, but still 
stranded in danger in Mexico, after 20 terrifying days locked in a 
storage room by men who repeatedly threatened to rape her, the woman 
told my colleague, ``[w]e cannot go back to El Salvador, and we cannot 
stay here. Why won't the United States let us ask for asylum?''
Widespread Anti-Black Brutality
    Black asylum seekers blocked in or expelled to Mexico under Title 
42 have faced severe dangers with many reports of targeted anti-Black 
violence and discrimination, including by Mexican authorities.
    An Afro-Honduran asylum seeker who had been expelled to Ciudad 
Acuna by DHS told me that Mexican state police had beaten him so 
severely that he is now blind in one eye--a fact which was evident from 
his completely clouded pupil. The officers, he said, had hit him in the 
head with a tree branch. Unable to return home and with no way to seek 
asylum in the United States due to Title 42, he did not attempt to 
report the incident to authorities for fear of further retaliation.
    In another incident we documented, a man with a baton severely beat 
a Haitian asylum seeker in Tijuana in front of Mexican police, who did 
not intervene. Another Haitian asylum seeker who witnessed the incident 
told a Human Rights First researcher, ``[w]e felt like we couldn't say 
anything because we don't have any power here and we were afraid for 
our own lives. Haitians are targeted here . . . the police don't care. 
We have to protect ourselves and look out for one another.''
    Our analysis of survey data collected by Al Otro Lado found that 61 
percent of Haitian asylum seekers blocked from U.S. asylum protections 
were victims of crime while stranded in Mexico and that 1 in 5 Haitian 
asylum seekers in the northern Mexican border region were victims of 
abuse by the police, including beatings, extortion, and threats.
Violence Against LGBTQ Asylum Seekers
    LGBTQ asylum seekers stranded in Mexico who are unable to seek U.S. 
protection due to Title 42 have frequently faced attacks and 
discrimination in Mexico due to their sexual orientation and/or gender 
identity--as well as their race, nationality, and other 
characteristics. Our analysis of the asylum seeker survey conducted by 
Al Otro Lado shows that 89 percent of LGBTQ asylum seekers were the 
victim of an attack or attempted attack in the prior month.
    Among the incidents of anti-LGBTQ violence identified in our 
research is a lesbian asylum seeker from Central America who was raped 
and repeatedly subjected to homophobic attacks in Mexico. When I met 
her in Ciudad Acuna, across the border from Del Rio, Texas, her arm was 
broken and bruises were visible on her face. Unable to seek asylum in 
the United States due to Title 42, she and her partner were sleeping on 
the streets. A group of men had recently attacked and beaten her as she 
sold sweets to passersby to try to survive.
    A transgender Honduran asylum seeker was kidnapped and raped in 
Piedras Negras after DHS used Title 42 to repeatedly expel her to 
Mexico when she attempted to request protection in the United States. 
The woman was forced to escape the kidnappers by jumping out of a 
window, falling into a cactus that left painful needles stuck all over 
her body. The woman told my colleague at Human Rights First that she 
had fled Honduras after the gang that murdered and beheaded her brother 
also attacked her because of her gender identity.
Horrific Harm to Children, Family Separations
    The Title 42 policy has inflicted horrific harms on children 
blocked from safety in the United States. Children expelled to Mexico 
under Title 42 have been kidnapped, raped, and assaulted. Many children 
blocked from protection due to Title 42 have been forced to live with 
their families in dangerous informal tent encampments, including in 
Tijuana and Reynosa, at the mercy of cartels and gangs that target 
asylum seekers stranded there. On visits to these squalid camps, we 
have repeatedly received reports of kidnappings and rapes of children.
    A 13-year-old Honduran girl, who had been raped in Mexico and 
threatened by the attacker after reporting him to the police, was 
expelled by DHS back to Mexico with her asylum-seeking mother. Stranded 
in danger and unable to seek protection due to Title 42, the girl's 
mother told my colleague, ``My daughter is afraid to go out. She can't 
go to school. She feels like [the man who raped her] is always watching 
her.''
    Armed men kidnapped a 7-year-old girl and her asylum-seeking mother 
just blocks from the port of entry in Ciudad Juarez after DHS expelled 
them there under Title 42. With no space available in local shelters, 
the family had been searching for a place to sleep for the night when 
they were abducted. Held captive for 2 months in a house with dozens of 
other kidnapped women and children, the family survived on meagre 
rations of potatoes and eggs. When we met them at a Juarez migrant 
shelter after they managed to escape, the girl's mother told a Human 
Rights First researcher they were hardly sleeping with nightmares from 
the trauma they had suffered.
    Expelling children to a place where they were previously harmed is 
also deeply traumatizing. A 14-year-old Cuban boy chewed off his 
fingernails from stress and anxiety after DHS expelled him and his 
grandmother to Mexico under Title 42. There they had been kidnapped and 
forced to watched helplessly as their abductors murdered another 
kidnapping victim.
    Title 42 has also driven family separations. In just the first few 
months of 2021, more than 2,000 children crossed into the United States 
alone after DHS expelled them to Mexico with their families. Some 
separated children crossed alone because their parents had been 
kidnapped. At a migrant shelter in Mexico, I met a mother desperate to 
reunite with her 8-year-old daughter. After DHS used Title 42 to expel 
the family, the woman was kidnapped in Reynosa as she searched for 
something to feed her daughter. By the time the woman was finally 
released, the girl had crossed by herself into the United States in 
search of safety. Other families blocked from protection due to Title 
42 have made the impossible decision to send their children across the 
border to try to protect them from this horrific violence. A Honduran 
woman in the Tijuana encampment told me that she felt she had no choice 
but to send her daughters alone to the United States for fear they 
would be raped by men who had been threatening to assault them.
Complicity by Mexican Authorities
    In our research, we have found that Mexican migration officials, 
police, military, and other authorities are frequently complicit in, if 
not directly responsible for, kidnappings and other violence against 
people turned back to or stranded in Mexico.
    A Honduran asylum-seeking woman and other migrant women were 
extorted, raped, and threatened by Mexican migration officers 
immediately after DHS expelled them to Mexico. The officers demanded 
money from the woman and other people with whom she had been expelled 
and threatened to deport them. The officers locked the women in the 
group in a separate room, forced them to remove their clothes, and 
raped them. The woman told my colleague: ``We did what they asked of us 
out of fear because they threatened to turn us over to a human 
trafficking network.''
    Mexican police kidnapped 23 Nicaraguans who had been attempting to 
seek asylum in the United States at a checkpoint near Reynosa and 
handed the group over to a Mexican cartel that extorted their relatives 
for ransom. I learned of this mass kidnapping at a shelter in Reynosa 
from two Nicaraguan women who told me that they had witnessed the 
kidnapping and that some of the group, including their partners, 
remained in the hands of the cartel. They were deeply concerned for the 
safety of their loved ones and friends as at least one of the kidnapped 
asylum seekers had gone missing even though his family had paid ransom 
to try to secure his release.
    After DHS expelled a Central American asylum seeker to Tijuana, 
Mexican immigration agents turned him over to a cartel that held him 
hostage in horrendous conditions for days. The man, who was fleeing 
threats from the gang that had murdered his father, reported to a 
colleague that the kidnappers beat other migrants in front of him, 
killing one man. He was only released after his family paid ransom.
Fueling Criminal Cartels, Undermining Security
    The Title 42 policy has not only been a boon to the brutal criminal 
cartels in Mexico that target asylum seekers turned back by DHS for 
kidnapping, torture, and extortion, but has reduced DHS's ability to 
collect information on these cartels that are increasingly fighting to 
exercise even greater control over border regions. The power of these 
cartels in the Mexican border region was reaffirmed last month, when a 
cartel that exercises significant control in Nuevo Laredo exchanged 
gunfire with Mexican authorities across the city, detonated grenades, 
and set 18-wheeler trucks ablaze on major highways, causing the U.S. 
Government to shut down international bridges, temporarily close the 
U.S. consulate, and advise U.S. citizens to shelter in place.
    According to DHS officials, Title 42 undermines the agency's 
ability to investigate cartel activity. A June 2021 Government 
Accountability Office report confirms that Border Patrol officials have 
concluded that rapid ``expulsions under Title 42 have negatively 
affected enforcement by reducing opportunities to gather 
intelligence.'' Because DHS has used Title 42 to quickly expel 
individuals without any legal process in most cases, Border Patrol 
agents reported that they ``are unable to thoroughly interview 
individuals in custody,'' which ``limit[s] the opportunity to gather 
information,'' including about cartels operating along the border.
Expulsions to Danger in Haiti, Disparate Impact on Black Asylum Seekers
    DHS has used Title 42 to block Haitian families and adults at the 
Southern Border from U.S. refugee protection, subjected them to 
abhorrent abuse in CBP custody and immigration detention, and expelled 
thousands to the country they fled without access to the U.S. asylum 
system. Since March 2020, more than 17,000 Haitians have been turned 
away by DHS under Title 42, many of them expelled directly to 
escalating insecurity and political instability in Haiti. A March 2022 
Human Rights Watch report on Haiti found that ``[t]he security 
situation in Haiti has dramatically deteriorated in recent years'' with 
powerful gangs exercising control over so-called ``lawless zones'' in 
which over 1 million people live at the mercy of the gangs, which 
``reportedly use sexual violence to terrorize and control 
neighborhoods.'' U.S. Department of State legal advisor and former Yale 
Law School Dean, Harold Koh, resigned from the Department after 
concluding that the use of Title 42 to expel people seeking protection 
to Haiti is ``illegal and inhumane.'' Daniel Foote, the former U.S. 
Special Envoy for Haiti, also resigned his post, denouncing Title 42 
expulsions to Haiti as ``inhumane [and] counterproductive.''
    DHS's treatment of Haitians has exposed the disparate impact of 
Title 42 on Black asylum seekers. Haitians encountered by DHS at the 
Southern Border are 34 times more likely than Canadians, Romanians, 
Russians, and Ukrainians (collectively) to be subjected to the Title 42 
policy (26.7 percent versus 0.78 percent) than to be processed under 
Title 8 U.S. immigration authority, based on my analysis of the 
Government's data on Southern Border encounters between March 2020 and 
February 2022. Civil and human rights leaders have noted that the Title 
42 policy is ``infused with anti-Black racism'' and has been used ``to 
attempt to deter people, particularly Black migrants, from seeking 
refuge at the border.''
continuing the title 42 policy would further undermine u.s. leadership 
                         in welcoming refugees
    The Title 42 policy has undermined U.S. credibility, global 
standing, and respect for international law. At a time when the U.N. 
Refugee Agency has reported that the number of refugees displaced 
around the world is ``the highest ever seen,'' the U.S. Government 
cannot credibly encourage other countries to welcome and host the vast 
majority of the world's refugees while simultaneously turning away 
asylum seekers at our borders.
    Many countries are providing refuge to people fleeing persecution, 
conflict, and disaster. In a single month, more than 2.3 million 
Ukrainians have arrived in Poland, which is more than double the number 
of unique individuals encountered by DHS at the U.S. Southern Border in 
all of fiscal year 2021. UNHCR estimates that Colombia, whose total 
population is less than one-sixth that of the United States, is hosting 
2.4 million displaced Venezuelans. More than 1.5 million refugees 
reside in Uganda, making it one of the top 5 refugee-hosting countries. 
Turkey hosts the largest refugee population in the world. The 
proportion of refugees to the total population in Turkey is 10 times 
higher than the United States. By contrast, in the United States 
refugees and asylum seekers make up less than one-half of 1 percent of 
the population.
    The United States has had capacity to manage arrivals of people 
seeking refuge here with the Title 42 policy in place, and we have the 
capacity to welcome people seeking asylum who arrive after the policy 
ends. But for months, there has been predictable fear-mongering with 
dangerous rhetoric equating people seeking refuge in the United States 
as an ``invasion.'' Already politicians and pundits are claiming that 
the ``flood gates'' are open and that there will be a ``surge,'' an 
``unstoppable wave,'' or a ``tsunami'' of arrivals. This dehumanizing 
language falsely paints families and individuals seeking asylum in the 
United States as a mob poised to wreck the United States.
    But political dissidents and LGBTQ people escaping repression are 
not an ``invasion.'' Families fleeing for their lives from deadly gangs 
and cartels that dominate their countries are not a ``surge'' or a 
``wave.'' Journalists and activists trying to carry on their work in 
safety are not a ``flood'' or a ``tsunami.''
    If Title 42 is intended to deter migration, as the calls for its 
retention suggest, then it is a failure by this metric. For more than 2 
years, the Title 42 policy has not stopped refugees forced to leave 
their homes in search of safety for themselves and their families. 
Refugees continue to arrive at the Southern Border, including people 
who were previously expelled under Title 42.
    Last week, at a border shelter, a Human Rights First researcher 
interviewed a Haitian political activist forced to flee Haiti with his 
wife after receiving death threats for his work. In December 2021, they 
tried to seek asylum in the United States but were instead expelled in 
shackles on a flight to Haiti after enduring days of horrendous 
conditions in CBP custody. Because of continued death threats, the 
couple were forced to flee Haiti a second time. Now they are stranded 
in Tijuana, sleeping in a tent, hoping to attempt to request protection 
in the United States. The man said, ``I'm really, really scared 
because, if I get sent to Haiti again, I'll be dead.''
    Extending the Title 42 policy for another 2 months or another 2 
years will not, and cannot, stop refugee displacement, and it will not 
stop the arrival of asylum seekers at the border. Its continued use 
will only return yet more people who are running for their lives and 
hoping to find refuge in the United States to death, torture, rape, 
abduction, and other egregious human rights violations, generate 
further disorder, and exacerbate insecurity at the border.
    To safeguard lives, re-establish an orderly asylum process, 
including at ports of entry, and comply with U.S. refugee law and 
treaty obligations, the United States must completely and permanently 
end the terror of the Title 42 policy.
                            recommendations
    Congress should exercise its oversight authority, while also 
providing appropriate appropriations, to ensure compliance with U.S. 
refugee law and treaty obligations in the processing of asylum claims 
and treatment of people seeking refuge in the United States. 
Specifically, Congress should confirm that:
   the Title 42 policy is brought to a swift and final end;
   the asylum processes adopted by Congress through the Refugee 
        Act and subsequent legislation restart along the entire border, 
        including at ports of entry; and
   people seeking refuge in the United States are not expelled 
        to persecution or torture in violation of U.S. law and treaty 
        obligations.
    In addition, Congress should:
   reject any attempt to write the dangerous and discriminatory 
        Title 42 policy into U.S. law;
   adopt a Refugee Protection Act to modernize U.S. asylum 
        processes and bolster adherence to international refugee laws 
        and norms;
   ensure that asylum seekers arriving at or after crossing the 
        border are processed safely within the United States--not sent 
        to unsafe third countries--and permitted to stay with families 
        and in communities as their cases are decided--not jailed in 
        immigration detention centers; and
   direct and fund a humanitarian response to refugee arrivals 
        at the border, including support for and coordination with non-
        profit service providers at the border and in destination 
        communities.

    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you for your testimony. I now 
will recognize Dr. Richards to summarize your statement for 5 
minutes.

   STATEMENT OF ADAM RICHARDS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF GLOBAL 
HEALTH AND MEDICINE, MILKEN INSTITUTE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 
                THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Richards. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here 
today to bring the public health and medical perspective 
regarding the impact of Title 42 expulsions. My name is Adam 
Richards, and I am an associate professor of Global Health and 
Medicine at the George Washington University and a member of 
Physicians for Human Rights Board of Directors.
    So, as a physician, a public health professor, researcher, 
and practitioner, I know with intimate knowledge the 
devastating effects of COVID-19. Last year, I worked in a COVID 
isolation and quarantine unit at the center of epidemic in Los 
Angeles and saw the death and destruction from the novel 
coronavirus. I personally lost both patients and colleagues to 
COVID. Even for those who survive, COVID takes a toll on our 
bodies and on our communities.
    Here in the District of Columbia, I work in a COVID 
recovery clinic and I take care of people with long-COVID. They 
are exhausted but they can't sleep. They have chronic 
headaches, shortness of breath, and difficulty concentrating. 
They struggle to work and to take care of their families. I 
take COVID-19 seriously and I want us as a country to do what 
we can to reduce our risk of infection, death, and disability.
    However, expelling asylum seekers under Title 42 has not 
done anything to protect us from COVID. While PHR welcomes the 
CDC's recently announced plan to rescind Title 42 order 
effective May 23, the fact remains that public health should 
never have been invoked to further a political decision to 
block people from seeking asylum.
    There is wide-spread scientific consensus that there is no 
public health justification for Title 42. As Dr. Fauci stated, 
COVID-19 transmission, ``is not driven by immigrants.'' 
Expelling migrants is not the solution to an outbreak. A 
perspective article, last week's New England Journal of 
Medicine, also applies a scientific lens to Title 42 expulsions 
as completely lacking in epidemiological evidence and not 
reflecting public health best practice.
    The U.S. Government can implement border processing safely. 
I am part of a national group of physicians and public health 
experts that has sent a series of letters to both the Trump and 
to the Biden administrations to repeatedly explain that Title 
42 expulsions do not protect public health and to offer, 
instead, common-sense, evidence-based, rights-respecting 
recommendations for the safe processing of people who arrive at 
the U.S.-Mexico border.
    We have strategies to drive the risk of COVID-19 to near 
zero with evidence-based public health tools. You know these--
masks, social distancing, testing, and vaccines--to safely 
process asylum seekers at the border and ensure the risk to 
public health in the United States is close to non-existent.
    However, threats to the health of asylum seekers who are 
prevented by Title 42 from crossing the border are very real. I 
heard these accounts first-hand in Tijuana, Mexico from asylum 
seekers who courageously described how they were extorted for 
money and exposed to physical and sexual violence. They shared 
how conditions on the border took a tremendous toll on their 
physical and mental health. For additional stories on the 
border, I suggest you read the report from July 2021 by a team 
of PHR researchers who visited Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez to 
document the health and human rights consequences of Title 42.
    But if you aren't moved by stories and prefer quantitative 
studies with numbers, then it is worth highlighting again the 
work that Kennji Kizuka and his colleagues at Human Rights 
First have done that tracked more than, let's see, 10, 20, 30, 
9,866 reports of kidnappings and other violent attacks against 
migrants and asylum seekers blocked in Mexico or expelled to 
Mexico since Biden took office. That is nearly 10,000 violent 
attacks that could have been prevented by ending Title 42.
    You may be familiar with the historical legacy of using 
public health as a pretext to justify racist and xenophobic 
U.S. immigration policies. In the past, it was typhus, 
trachoma, and HIV, though the ever-shifting medical labels 
misused to exclude immigrants also went beyond so-called 
contagions to include mental health disorders, chronic 
disability, or even a poor physique. Today, the medical excuse 
misused to exclude is COVID.
    These exclusionary practices are not now, and were not 
ever, based on sound public health principles. We, in medicine 
and public health often pretend that we are immune from the 
pernicious plagues of racism, xenophobia, and hate. Tragically, 
these pathologies continue to propagate within our ranks. Not 
anymore, not in our name. Tools exist to calibrate mitigation 
procedures to safely process migrants in response to local 
COVID conditions. There is no public health justification for 
Title 42. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Richards follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Adam Richards
                             April 6, 2022
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today and to bring a 
public health and medical perspective regarding the impact of Title 42 
expulsions. My name is Adam Richards, and I am an associate professor 
of global health and medicine at The George Washington University and a 
member of Physicians for Human Rights' (PHR) Board of Directors.
    As a physician and public health professor, researcher, and 
practitioner, I have an intimate knowledge of the devastating effects 
of COVID-19. Last year, I worked in a COVID-19 isolation and quarantine 
center in Los Angeles when the city was at the epicenter of 
transmission and death from the novel coronavirus. I personally lost 
both patients and colleagues to COVID-19. Even for those who survive, 
COVID-19 takes a toll on our bodies and on our communities. Here in 
Washington, DC, I work in a COVID-19 recovery clinic, caring for 
patients with long COVID who continue to suffer physical and emotional 
consequences of the virus. They are exhausted but they can't sleep, 
they have chronic headaches, shortness of breath, and difficulty 
concentrating; they struggle to work and to take care of their 
families. I take COVID-19 seriously and I want us as a country to do 
what we can to reduce our risk of infection, death, and disability.
    However, expelling asylum seekers under Title 42 has not done 
anything to protect us from COVID.
    While PHR welcomes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 
(CDC) recently-announced plan to rescind the Title 42 order effective 
May 23, the fact remains that public health should never have been 
invoked to further a political decision to block people from seeking 
asylum.
    There is wide-spread scientific consensus that there is no public 
health justification for Title 42 expulsions. As Dr. Anthony Fauci 
stated, COVID-19 transmission ``is not driven by immigrants,'' and 
``expelling [migrants] is not the solution to an outbreak.'' A 
Perspective article published last week in the leading American medical 
journal the New England Journal of Medicine also applies a scientific 
lens to Title 42 expulsions as completely lacking in epidemiological 
evidence and not reflecting public health best practice.
    The U.S. Government can implement border processing safely. I am 
part of a national group of physicians and public health experts which 
has sent a series of letters to the Trump and Biden administrations to 
repeatedly explain that Title 42 expulsions do not protect public 
health, and to offer instead common-sense, evidence-based, rights-
respecting recommendations for the safe processing of people who arrive 
at the U.S.-Mexico border.
    As with the processing of people admitted from the ``Remain in 
Mexico'' policy, the U.S. Government should coordinate and share 
resources and information with Mexican public health authorities, the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as well as with 
international organizations like the International Organization for 
Migration and the U.N. Refugee Agency and with U.S. and Mexican civil 
society organizations. It is critical to use masks, social distancing, 
and hand hygiene at border posts and during processing, while 
minimizing delays that keep people stuck in congregate settings and 
maximizing ventilation. The Government can repurpose larger locations 
appropriate for non-congregate processing to scale up reception 
capacities, should arrivals increase or shift. Testing capacity can be 
enhanced with mobile testing units. The Government can expand 
quarantine capacity and isolation capacity through the use of motels, 
mobile units, or other individualized accommodations for those who need 
to quarantine, under the jurisdiction of CDC or local health 
authorities. During transportation, masks should be used as well as 
well-ventilated, larger capacity vehicles to allow sufficient 
distancing, and frequently-touched surfaces should be cleaned and 
disinfected. People should be given health screenings and provided with 
health information and education in their primary language. PHR 
advocates for vaccines to be free, fair, and accessible and for 
equitable vaccine allocation and distribution that prioritizes 
marginalized communities, including all migrants, whether refugees, 
asylum seekers, or unauthorized immigrants.
    We have strategies to drive the risk of COVID-19 to near zero, with 
evidence-based public health tools--masks, social distancing, vaccines, 
and testing--to safely process asylum seekers at the border and ensure 
the risk to public health in the United States is close to nonexistent. 
However, threats to the health of asylum seekers who are prevented by 
Title 42 from crossing the border are very real. I heard these accounts 
first-hand in Tijuana, Mexico from asylum seekers who courageously 
described how they were extorted for money and exposed to physical and 
sexual violence; they shared how conditions on the border took a 
tremendous toll on their physical and mental health.
    A team of PHR researchers visited Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez last 
year to document the health and human rights consequences of the Title 
42 order. The July 2021 research report documented family separations, 
abusive actions by U.S. and Mexico government officials, and acute 
medical and psychological impacts on asylum-seeking children and 
adults. Families described being held for days in crowded border 
facilities and denied emergency medical care in U.S. detention, 
including for sick children. During a pandemic, the U.S. Government is 
detaining migrants in crowded, inhumane, and unsafe conditions for days 
before expelling them, and is denying children necessary emergency 
medical care. The psychological effects of expulsions and family 
separation are profound. Of the 26 participants who were administered 
validated screening tools by PHR, 25 (96 percent) screened positive for 
at least one mental health diagnosis; 25 (96 percent) screened positive 
for at least two disorders; and 23 (88 percent) screened positive for 
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression. Of the 
26 who were administered psychological screening tools by the research 
team, 23 people (88 percent) screened positive for PTSD related to 
events leading to the separation of their family, 25 (96 percent) 
screened positive for depression, and 24 (92 percent) screened positive 
for anxiety. The crowding created by Title 42 expulsions has stretched 
the Mexican health system to the breaking point. As a clinic 
coordinator in Tijuana told PHR researchers: ``There are more and more 
people needing help . . . The health care system has collapsed.''
    Although the stated justification of the Title 42-based expulsion 
is to prevent migrants from being held in congregate settings with the 
attendant risk of COVID-19 transmission, the Government is still 
placing migrants in congregate settings during the expulsion process. 
PHR interviews found that every aspect of the expulsion process, 
including holding people in crowded Customs and Border Protection 
holding cells for days without testing and then transporting them in 
crowded buses and planes, increases the risk of spreading and being 
exposed to COVID-19.
    As Kennji Kizuka from Human Rights First (HRF), before me, has 
stated--but which bears repeating--HRF has tracked more than 9,866 
reports of kidnappings and other violent attacks against migrants and 
asylum seekers blocked in Mexico or expelled to Mexico since President 
Biden took office. That is nearly 10 thousand violent attacks that 
could have been prevented by ending Title 42 expulsions. People are 
caught in an impossible situation, as they are unsafe in their own 
country, unsafe in Mexico, and yet cannot seek safety in the United 
States.
    During one of my visits to Tijuana, I volunteered in a wound clinic 
for people living on the streets, where I met people with treatable 
infections who were prevented from accessing inexpensive and life-
saving care. One man's story in particular illustrates the health 
conditions and health risks in overburdened Mexican border states. He 
had a nasty skin infection, for which he'd been unable to receive 
definitive treatment. His infection progressed to the point that he was 
at risk for amputation or even losing his life. We explained that he 
needed to go to the hospital for aggressive wound care and IV 
antibiotics. He reluctantly agreed, but predicted that they would not 
admit him: ``I have no money and I live on the street; they do not care 
about people like me.'' On the next trip we learned that he had gone to 
the emergency room but had not been admitted; he was given some oral 
antibiotic pills and discharged to the street, where he died of his 
treatable wounds.
    Now that I'm in Washington, I conduct medical examinations remotely 
for people who are unable to enter the United States due to the Title 
42 order, including a man in substantial pain, with symptoms indicative 
of severe gastrointestinal conditions, for which any delay in treatment 
can result in life-altering complications or even death, and an elderly 
grandmother who is hard of hearing and almost blind, with severe 
rheumatoid arthritis and high blood pressure. She is terrified even to 
step outside her shelter after being kidnapped by cartel members and 
held for over 2 weeks with limited food and water. Other PHR clinicians 
have conducted remote evaluations for asylum seekers in Mexico with 
metastatic breast cancer, pregnancy at high risk for eclampsia with 
signs of premature labor, peptic and gastric ulcers at risk of 
perforation, repeated transient ischemic attacks and congestive heart 
failure, hypoxic brain injury, late-term pregnancy with severe anemia, 
and seizure disorders.
    You may be familiar with the historical legacy of using the pretext 
of protecting health to justify racist and xenophobic U.S. immigration 
policies. In the past, it was tuberculosis and then HIV, and today it 
is COVID. These exclusionary practices are not now, and were not ever, 
based on public health principles. We in medicine and public health 
often pretend we are immune from the pernicious plagues of racism, 
xenophobia, and hate. Tragically, these pathologies continue to 
propagate within our ranks. Not anymore. There is no public health 
justification for Title 42 expulsions.
    Congress should:
   Direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prepare 
        facilities and personnel to process asylum seekers along the 
        border, while implementing all necessary public health 
        measures, including:
     Testing, hand washing, mask wearing, social distancing, 
            and vaccinations;
     Processing of asylum seekers in well-ventilated, non-
            congregate settings; and
     Non-custodial quarantine procedures under the authority of 
            the CDC or local public health authorities;
   Encourage the DHS to partner with civil society and 
        humanitarian aid organizations to further bolster capacity for 
        humane processing;
   Follow and implement the ``Public Health Recommendations for 
        Processing Families, Children, and Adults Seeking Asylum or 
        Other Protection at the Border,'' published by public health 
        experts, while restoring regular operations and processing 
        along the border;
   Redirect funding away from any policies that may negatively 
        impact the right to seek asylum;
   Propose and pass new legislation to affirm the full range of 
        rights guaranteed to asylum seekers to counteract any executive 
        or departmental policies or directives that effectively 
        restrict individuals' access to asylum protection; and
   Pursue policies that seek to create a safe environment for 
        asylum seekers to fulfill their long-established legal right to 
        pursue their asylum claims within the protection of the United 
        States, policies that meaningfully guard against re-
        traumatizing asylum seekers and exposing them to preventable 
        health risks.

    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you, Dr. Richards, for your 
testimony. I now will recognize our next witness who is 
virtual, Sheriff Dannels, to summarize your statement for 5 
minutes.

  STATEMENT OF MARK DANNELS, SHERIFF, COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA

    Sheriff Dannels. Good afternoon, Madam Chair Nanette 
Barragan, and Ranking Member Clay Higgins, and distinguished 
Members of this subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to 
address this committee regarding the status of our Southern 
Border from the aspect of a community/law enforcement 
perspective. I have served our border communities for 38 years, 
and prior to that as a member of our military serving in the 
U.S. Army stationed here on Fort Huachuca within Cochise 
County.
    I have always been a genuine believer in the oath of office 
to protect our country and now my county as a duly elected 
sheriff for the last 9 years. I am the current president of the 
Arizona Sheriff's Association, chair of the National Sheriff's 
Association, Border Security, on the executive board for 
Western State Sheriffs, and an active member of Southwest 
Border Sheriffs.
    All these associations share four objectives: Public 
safety, National security, humanitarian, and now health, due to 
the pandemic. In my submitted brief, I have shared with you an 
overview of Cochise County and the history of our border. I 
have personally experienced the good, the bad, the ugly of 
being a border country. My office has also addressed border-
related crimes, smuggling of both illicit drugs, humans, 
weapons, and cash by our transnational organizations, i.e., 
criminal cartels.
    I am proud of our relationship with our law enforcement 
partners that serve our communities. To begin, I want to thank 
our Customs and Border Patrol officers and agents who have 
worked tirelessly and diligently to protect this great Nation. 
I want to thank our Governor, Doug Ducey, and our State 
Congressional members for all their support, the men and women 
of the Cochise County sheriff's office for their dedication and 
commitment to keeping our communities safe, and to my fellow 
sheriffs that stand united for the rule of law in the 
protection of their communities. Finally, I want to thank my 
citizens for their patience and support in a time of crisis and 
disarray here at our borders.
    To best understand my presentation is to understand where 
we were approximately 18 months ago. My county was one of the 
safest counties along the Southwest Border based on our 
collective efforts in messaging and, yes, enforcement efforts 
supported by legal consequences. We maintained a 100 percent 
conviction rate on any drug smuggler within Cochise County. Our 
border-related encounters were a manageable 400 per month. 
Yesterday, I got the stats that we are over 7,000. Border-
related crimes were minimal at best, and most important, our 
citizens felt safe with their quality of life being promoted 
within their home and family.
    Currently over the last year, the Southern Border 
experienced 379 percent increase of encounters, 1.7 million, 
representing over 160 countries, 180,000 pounds of meth, 10,000 
pounds of fentanyl, 86,000 pounds of cocaine, 60 homicide 
suspects, 488 sexual assault suspects, and 336 weapon 
violations. Sadly, just in Arizona, over 160 migrant deaths in 
our southern Arizona.
    In February 2022, there was 163,539 encounters with 151,869 
being released in our country. Only a little over 11,000 were 
returned. Additionally, there was 53,464 got-aways and 67 
deaths just in the month of February. In my area, we had 22,289 
encounters with 21,209 being released and only 995 returned 
with 7 deaths and 16,000 migrants--excuse me--got-aways.
    What is the direct impact on my county? We have seen 
infrastructure shutdown down here. Mainly what we deal with is 
the got-aways. We receive between 900 to 1,000 smugglers come 
to my country at $1,000 per person to drive them 3 hours to 
Phoenix, Arizona in Maricopa County. That has created a huge 
impact. Between July 1 of 2021 and February 2022, $1.1 million 
just in border-related crime being booked into my local jail.
    A couple personal stories. A citizen in my county driving 
to her 65th birthday was struck by a 16-year-old smuggler who 
had three undocumented individuals in the vehicle, drove 
through a red light at 100 miles an hour, cut the car in half 
and killed her instantly. Her son drove up in the scene moments 
later. A home invasion where they broke into an elderly 
couple's home. They ransacked the home while the couple 
barricaded themselves in the bedroom.
    I will say this, my fellow sheriffs and I tried to partner 
with this administration to include the President of the United 
States with high hopes to share a collective message, 
collective action plan, support the rule of law, prioritize our 
Southern Border, and provide updates to reference community 
impacts and concerns, with little to no success.
    By allowing our border security mission and immigration 
laws to be discretionary, these criminal cartels continue to be 
the true winners. They exploit mankind--the exploitation of 
mankind is simply modern-day slavery. Allowing thousands of 
pounds of illicit drugs in our country continue to erode the 
core values of our families. Our voice of reason has been 
buried in what I call the intellectual avoidance by this 
administration and, yes, Members of the U.S. Congress. 
Committees have neglected and we are abandoned to rely on our 
own local and State resources to address border security that 
is in a crisis.
    I will close out with my 5 minutes. I will say this. Once 
again, I thank this subcommittee for the invite and opportunity 
and now stand ready to answer any questions by Members. Thank 
you.
    [The prepared statement of Sheriff Dannels follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you, Sheriff Dannels, for your 
testimony. I want to thank all of our witnesses for their 
testimony. I will remind the subcommittee that we will each 
have 5 minutes to question the panel. I will start with myself 
and recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    My first question is for, you, Mr. Kizuka. The Biden 
administration has committed to ensuring orderly processing at 
the U.S. Southern Border. How would reopening ports of entry 
help the administration achieve this goal?
    Mr. Kizuka. Thank you, Representative Barragan. Opening 
ports of entry along the Southern Border is a crucial step that 
the Biden administration should take immediately to ensure that 
asylum seekers can present themselves safely and in an orderly 
manner and that their claims are processed under U.S. law that 
Congress adopted. For 2 years now, those laws have been ignored 
and asylum seekers have been turned away to danger, creating 
additional disorder, creating unnecessary suffering of people 
who return back to danger.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you. We have been hearing about 
alleged, you know, the cartel information. We can all agree the 
cartels should be shut down. I think that one of the things, by 
opening our ports of entry, is you are going to have people 
coming to the ports of entry as opposed to feeling like they 
have to go to a smuggler.
    My next question for you is, Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, in your 
testimony you state that Title 42, an increased migration has 
no impact on the flow of opioids into the United States. Our 
Republican colleagues like to claim otherwise. Can you explain 
the data that supports your statement?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Thank you, Rep Barragan. As former 
CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske said recently, the drugs that 
are actually taking the lives of people here in the United 
States, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl, almost 
universally come through the ports of entry along the Southern 
Border. Indeed, if you look at the CBP's own data, 95 percent 
of all opioids that were seized at the Southern Border in the 
last 2 years--sorry--in the last 2\1/2\ years, were seized at 
the ports of entry or were seized at Border Patrol checkpoints 
in vehicles. That is because as the DEA itself says, ``land 
transportation via the interstate system is the most 
predominant method of transporting illicit opioids.'' Smugglers 
know that they can get drugs in through the ports of entry 
because as CBP's Diane Sabatino testified in the Senate in 
November, just 15 percent of commercial vehicles are screened 
for narcotics at ports of entry and only 2 percent of passenger 
vehicles are screened for narcotics.
    Chairwoman Barragan. So, just to follow up on that. Which 
rules are effective in preventing the flow of opioids into the 
United States?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. As CBP has said for years, 
investments in technology at the ports of entry are the No. 1 
thing that will help reduce the flow of opioids into the United 
States. The cartels are smart and they know that where they can 
get the drugs into the country is in tractor-trailers, in 
parcels, in packages, and through the mail. There is very 
little fentanyl coming across the border on the backs of 
migrants in backpacks. Nearly all of it comes in through the 
ports of entry.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you. Dr. Richards, my last 2 
minutes is for you. As our understanding of COVID-19 has 
evolved and improved, so have the measures society can take to 
beat back the spread of the virus. I have two questions. What 
preventive measures can the administration use to mitigate the 
risk of COVID-19 infections at the border? No. 2, if these 
preventive measures are taken, do you believe migrants would 
pose a public health threat to border communities or the 
Nation?
    Dr. Richards. Thank you, Chairwoman Barragan, for those two 
questions. So, I think everybody by this point probably knows 
the answer to what we can do because it is the same things that 
we have been using in this country. It is masking and social 
distancing. One of the more effective things in this setting 
would be to minimize the time that people spend in congregate 
settings. So, detention is never a good idea. But limiting the 
amount of time that people have to spend in those congregate 
settings like detention centers, CBP facilities, would be 
great. But if you have to, you know, keep people in those 
facilities, we can definitely also keep them safe. Masking is 
highly, highly effective. You know, I have worked for months in 
this isolation center. People were coughing virus all around 
me. I still to this day, I don't think, have, you know, gotten 
COVID.
    It is also worth noting that around the world, vaccination 
rates have been going up. So, people who present to our borders 
are more likely to be vaccinated. It is now over half of adults 
from most of the countries that folks come from now and 
encouraging vaccination is probably the single most important 
tool that we would have. So, it is great to that there is 
progress being made there.
    There would not be a risk, I mean, there are over 50,000, 
you know, there are tens of thousands of cases that are 
transmitted internally in the United States. The number that 
would potentially sneak through would be infinitesimally small 
and not contribute in any meaningful way to transmission here. 
So, there is no risk to communities. Thanks.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Well, thank you for that. We know that 
migrants that are coming now under other programs like Remain 
in Mexico, the United States is actually vaccinating them as 
they come in. So, there is opportunities to vaccinate migrants 
as they come in.
    So, now, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, 
for your 5 minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Melnick, Mr. 
Kizuka, and Dr. Richards, I am going to ask you gentlemen a 
couple of yes or no questions. It is not a trap, just to set up 
my further question, and it is sort-of to all of you.
    Dr. Richards, before I get started, thank you for working 
with the homeless, sir, in the streets of Los Angeles. My 
understanding is you are a part of that effort. So, as a 
compassionate child of God, I thank you for that work that you 
do.
    So, Mr. Melnick, Kizuka, Dr. Richards, you are each an 
American citizen? Sir, yes?
    Mr. Kizuka. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins. Yes? Yes?
    Dr. Richards. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins. Yes? OK. Do each of you believe that your 
position on Title 42 is righteous, that you have eloquently 
stated, each of you? Do you believe you are righteous and solid 
in your position? Mr. Melnick.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. I believe the facts and the data 
support the conclusion.
    Mr. Higgins. Yes, that is a--you may be a Congressman one 
day, sir, up here. If you are solid in your position, may I 
say, you can say, yes, I am solid in my position. Mr. Kizuka.
    Mr. Kizuka. Our opposition to Title 42 comes from our 
believe----
    Mr. Higgins. I am not asking where it came from----
    Mr. Kizuka [continuing]. In compliance with----
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Just do you feel solid?
    Mr. Kizuka [continuing]. U.S. law and treaty obligations.
    Mr. Higgins. So, you feel it is a righteous position that 
you presented?
    Mr. Kizuka. It is the lawful position.
    Mr. Higgins. OK. I am glad you said that. One would hope 
that your lawful position and your determination is also based 
upon what you feel is right. That is what righteous means. Dr. 
Richards.
    Dr. Richards. My statement reflects scientific evidence and 
medical and public health science. Thank you.
    Mr. Higgins. So, you feel solid about it? It is a right 
position, a righteous position. I don't know why----
    Dr. Richards. You seem to have----
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. We are avoiding the word----
    Dr. Richards [continuing]. Different words.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Righteous, but I shall not----
    Dr. Richards. I stand by my statement. Thank you.
    Mr. Higgins. So, let me ask you gentlemen, in your 
nonprofits have any of your nonprofits associated yourself or 
signed onto lawsuits against Title 42 in Federal court? The 
answer is no. You, Mr. Melnick, your organization has not. Mr. 
Kizuka.
    Mr. Kizuka. Yes, we have joined amicus briefs.
    Mr. Higgins. Have you joined ACLU?
    Mr. Kizuka. We have joined amicus briefs in opposition to 
the Title 42. That is correct.
    Mr. Higgins. OK. That is excellent. You were the young man 
that said your position was lawful. Dr. Richards, is your 
nonprofit, what is it called, CPI? Has it joined a lawsuit?
    Dr. Richards. I am here with Physicians for Human Rights. 
Community Partners International is another organization I have 
been affiliated with. I am no longer on the board of directors 
of that organization.
    Mr. Higgins. Well, according to your background, I was just 
reading your background, sir. It is nothing to be ashamed of. 
Are you aware of--are you associated with any lawsuit against 
Title 42?
    Dr. Richards. Personally, I am unaware.
    Mr. Higgins. OK. Well,----
    Dr. Richards. I am with Physicians for Human Rights.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Let me just say, gentlemen, that 
you could be. You could be if you feel passionately about your 
position, you are an American citizen, by all means, pursue 
your rights under the Constitution to seek legal remedy. But 
right now, Title 42 is legal.
    Sheriff, are you there, my brother?
    Sheriff Dannels. Yes, Ranking Member.
    Mr. Higgins. Sheriff, tell us what is going to happen on 
May the 23 in your community if Title 42 is lifted.
    Sheriff Dannels. We have great concern. Let me say that the 
Border Patrol agents, Customs, to include local law enforcement 
communities are very concerned because we have failed to 
recognize border security throughout the last 18 months, which 
has been a huge impact on my community, along with my sheriffs 
I work with on the Southwest Border. Effective May 23, when 
Title 42 goes away, this will compound our issues already in a 
community that addresses public safety, National security, and 
humanitarian with the deaths that we are seeing on our borders. 
So, until we get a manageable, reasonable policy and direction 
on our Southern Border, this will continue to get worse. It is 
a slippery slope as we speak.
    Mr. Higgins. It is pretty bad, isn't it, Sheriff? In the 
interest of time, I only have 45 seconds remaining, my thin 
blue line brother, how long have you been wearing a badge, 
Sheriff?
    Sheriff Dannels. Thirty-eight years.
    Mr. Higgins. In 38 years, have you ever seen anything like 
what we are facing right now?
    Sheriff Dannels. This is the worst I have ever seen it.
    Mr. Higgins. You are sworn to protect and serve the 
citizens of your community, are you not?
    Sheriff Dannels. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Higgins. Your men, your women, as to serve, and wear 
your badge, you're dedicated, compassionate, law enforcement 
professionals, sir?
    Sheriff Dannels. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins. Well, some of us stand with them.
    Sheriff Dannels. Thank you.
    Mr. Higgins. God bless you. Sheriff, I am at your avail. 
Madam Chair, I yield.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. Some of 
us stand with law enforcement too and we did help fund, make 
sure they had dollars under the American Rescue Plan. The Chair 
will now recognize other Members for questions 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 questions. The Chair recognizes for 5 minutes, the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Correa, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the 
witnesses, as well, for being here today. This is an important 
hearing, not just because it is about Title 42, but it touches 
about a very important issue, which is refugees to our Nation. 
Not just at the border, to our Nation, the historical context 
of how America has been open to refugees and what constitutes a 
refugee or not.
    The four witnesses, I believe, have talked more or less of 
some of the facts that we have in front of us. But to me, 
bottom line is, 42 has been used inconsistently to address a 
bigger issue, which is the refugee challenge. I am very proud 
that the Biden administration just waived 42 and gave temporary 
protective status to the Ukrainian refugees.
    A week and a half ago, I was at the Tijuana border, got off 
a plane at the airport. Had Ukrainian refugees welcoming other 
Ukrainian refugees to Tijuana getting ready to bring them over, 
process them, so to speak, help them in the process to the 
United States.
    I just spoke to another Ukrainian activist who told me that 
in Mexico, Tijuana, Mexico, they are right now, Mexican 
government, setting up a soccer stadium to take in all of the 
Ukrainian refugees because they are essentially overwhelmed by 
the numbers. This is before the Russian refugees hit Tijuana, 
Mexico. We are looking at a very interesting and challenging 
situation. The question we have to ask ourselves as Americans 
is are we open to refugees or not? Mr. Ranking Member, your 
witness very correctly stated the ill effects of having cartels 
in the middle of the smuggling business. Eight- to $10,000 per 
person is what these folks pay to get to the Mexican border, 
U.S.-Mexico border. I got to figure, you sell everything you 
own, your soul into human slavery to get to the U.S. border. 
Then you have very ugly outcomes.
    I ask myself we can debate the facts. Let's talk about 
solutions, folks. I am going to ask the witnesses how practical 
would it be to set up a system where you can apply for refugee 
status in your home country? Ten thousand dollars you pay to 
get to the border. I was talking to a Central American 
ambassador that told me 80 percent of the ladies, the women, by 
the time they get to the U.S.-Mexico border, are either raped 
or sexually assaulted. A horrible situation. I would like us to 
reach across the aisle here and not talk about, you know, the 
negativity, but talk about the challenge, the problem in front 
of us. How can we get legitimate refugees to apply for refugee 
status in a safe manner that doesn't cost them $10,000? They 
don't have to expose themselves to a 1,000-mile trip and be in 
harm's way.
    Can we legitimately fund? Can we fund refugee application 
processes in their home countries, and have legitimate outcomes 
in a timely manner? I have like a minute left, but if any of 
the witnesses would care to answer that question. Is that 
something we can do? I got 55 seconds. Come on, folks, come on.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Thank you, Representative Correa. The 
answer is is that we can support refugee processing in other 
countries. The correct time to do that would have been years 
ago. But we also have to recognize that there are some people 
who can't wait. If the cartels or MS-13 shows up at your home 
tomorrow and says if you don't leave, we are going to kill you 
and we are going to take your children, it is nice to know that 
you could have applied for refugee status, but you might have 
to leave the next day. All of us who have been to the border 
have talked to people who never wanted to leave, but they had 
to make a split-second decision because if they didn't, their 
lives were going to be lost. So, we have to put----
    Mr. Correa. I would say to you that those are factors we 
can look at. Because getting to the border and being in the 
situation that I see right now at the border, is also not a 
safe, acceptable situation. So, I hope that I can work with my 
colleagues across the aisle to figure this one out. Because, 
again, right now thinking about over the last 2 weeks, you got 
a stadium full of Ukrainian refugees that just popped up on 
you. You got a couple more coming at you. We got to figure out 
this problem sooner rather than later.
    Finally, let me say, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 
others are stepping up and saying we need the workers. There is 
a win-win here somewhere. Madam Chair, I yield.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Correa. The Chair now 
recognizes for 5 minutes, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. 
Guest.
    Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Before I begin, I 
would ask unanimous consent to submit Ranking Member Katko's 
Statement for the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The document has been previously included in the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairwoman Barragan. No objection. Thank you.
    Mr. Guest. Sheriff, I want to thank you for joining us this 
afternoon. In your opening statement, you mentioned some 
statistics. I also want to cite some troubling statistics that 
have been provided by the Department of Homeland Security. 
Fiscal year 2021, CBP encountered a record number of immigrants 
along the Southwest Border, 1.73 million. Fiscal year 2022, we 
are on track to surpass that number. In the first 5 months, we 
have encountered 838,000 immigrants and current estimates are 
that we encountered over 200,000 in March 2022, bringing during 
the first 6 months of fiscal year 2022, bringing that number to 
over 1 million immigrants encountered across that Southwest 
Border.
    We have seen reports recently that DHS after the expiration 
of Title 42, is preparing for a potential increase of as many 
as 18,000 immigrant encounters every day. Some 2\1/2\ to 3 
times higher than the number of encounters that we are 
currently facing. We know that Title 42 has been successful. We 
saw it implemented under the administration of President Donald 
Trump. Under the original administration, over 90 percent of 
immigrants were returned to their country of origin under Title 
42.
    We have seen under the Biden administration, we have seen 
that number drop, but it is still above 50, 55 percent of 
immigrants that are encountered today by the Department of 
Homeland Security are returned to their country of origin under 
Title 42. Now, we know that in outdoor circumstances, that the 
use of Title 42, that an immigrant can be processed within as 
little as 15 minutes.
    So, now here as we are within just 6 weeks, a little over 6 
weeks of Title 42 coming to an end on May the 23, Sheriff, I 
want to ask you, as a 38-year law enforcement officer, someone 
who has dedicated your entire career to protecting your 
community at the Southwest Border, your continued daily 
interaction with Border Patrol, with the Department of Homeland 
Security, my question to you is are we prepared to deal with 
the surge of immigrants that the Department of Homeland 
Security is predicting? Can we in any shape, form, or fashion 
process anywhere close to 18,000 immigrants coming across our 
border every day? Eighteen thousand immigrants over a 30-day 
period is over 500,000 immigrants in a individual month. So, 
are we prepared to deal with that surge of immigrants coming 
across the border?
    Sheriff Dannels. Member Guest, I will say this, no, we are 
not. What we are not talking about when it comes to our 
Southern Border is the rule of law. We are also not talking 
about border security. We turned this into two separate 
programs. We have immigration. We have border security. Sadly, 
border security has been set aside. The absent words within our 
border. So, talking to my fellow agents, talking to Federal 
leadership with Border Patrol, working with our communities, we 
are outpaced here on the Southern Border right now.
    We run details right now every day costing my county 
$17,000 a week just trying to help Border Patrol and keep our 
communities safe from the juvenile smugglers, the adult 
smugglers, the repetitive crime, home invasions, murder, you 
name it, we are seeing it down here. We are not exempt. This is 
happening all along our Southern Border right now. We need to 
get a handle on the rule of law, support our borders, support 
our men and women wearing the badge, and address immigration. 
We are missing the rule of law here and border security.
    Mr. Guest. Sheriff, during your opening statement, you also 
gave some individual examples about cases where we had seen 
immigration, illegal immigrants come across the border, and the 
impact that it had had on your citizens directly. So, my 
question is with Title 42 setting to expire, with the number of 
immigrants we believe that will dramatically increase, two 
things. One, what impact will this have on your community 
personally? Then what impact will this have on both human 
trafficking and drug smuggling?
    Sheriff Dannels. Well, Member Guest, the first thing I 
would say is this, that we need to understand, smuggling comes 
with criminal cartels. These transnational organizations they 
have no respect for Americans. They have no respect for 
communities that we are talking about today. It is going to be 
a huge impact.
    We are already outpaced like I said a few minutes ago. We 
are already overwhelmed in these rural communities. There are 
31 counties along the Southwest Border, 20 are considered rural 
like mine. We don't have the resources. All I hear is we are 
talking about CDC. Folks, I will just say in the last 18 
months, I don't recall Dr. Fauci or anybody from CDC talking 
about our Southern Border and what law enforcement's been 
addressing when it comes to the health pandemic down here. I 
would argue that all day.
    Nobody has talked to us and that is a big concern of the 
sheriffs. We have tried to reach to this administration to 
include letters to the President of the United States and it 
has gone on deaf ears. It is intellectual avoidance. So, if I 
say I am frustrated, if I say my fellow sheriffs are 
frustrated, that would be an understatement. So, we are 
concerned because there is not a collective action. There is 
not a collective shared plan. There is not a collective 
message, especially starting in communities with this 
administration.
    Chairwoman Barragan. The gentleman's time has expired. I 
also want to point out that there is not a prediction that 
there is going to be 18,000 migrants a day. The committee, 
rather the Department is preparing, preparing for different 
scenarios.
    With that, I will yield to Mr. Green, the gentleman from 
Texas, for your 5 minutes. Mr. Green, I think you are still on 
mute. We still can't hear you, Mr. Green. OK. There we go, sir.
    Mr. Green. I am audible. Thank you, Madam Chair. To the law 
enforcement officer who is there, I would have you know, I have 
great respect for law enforcement.
    Sheriff Dannels. Thank you.
    Mr. Green. My uncle was a deputy sheriff. I believe that I 
am in Congress probably because of him. He told me when I was a 
very young child that I was going to be a lawyer. Because he 
was so well respected, from that moment forward, I wanted to be 
a lawyer. I never had any thought of being anything else. By 
the way, I didn't know what a lawyer was at the time. But my 
uncle said it and it meant something. So, I have great respect.
    Sheriff Dannels. Thank you.
    Mr. Green. This problem at the border is something that we 
have been grappling with for some time. It seems to me that any 
solution is going to require doing something about the 
conditions that would cause a mother, knowing what can happen 
to her child along this route, cause that mother to say I am 
going to risk sending my child north because the conditions 
here are such that I don't believe my child is safe. So, it 
seems to me that we have to focus on doing something about 
those conditions.
    I believe that the law enforcement officers, I don't doubt 
you when you say you are overwhelmed. But what you are doing is 
at the border and we have to do something beyond the border. We 
now have sent billions to Ukraine and I voted to do it and I 
will send more. I want to send planes. I want to do whatever we 
can do to help them. It seems to me that we can do something 
more for our neighbors. I think it is going to take the will of 
Congress to get it done. But that has to be a part of the 
solution.
    Now, I have had a personal experience with this. I had a 
constituent, Mr. Escobar, who was deported. He was married to 
an American woman. He had two children born in the United 
States of America, no criminal history, and he was deported. I 
went to El Salvador three times. I brought him home on the 
third time. Three times he could not walk the streets. When he 
was deported, he became sort-of a target, if you will. So, we 
brought him home. He was within the law. Nothing outside of the 
law. But it is really sad to know the conditions that persons 
are living under such that they would send their children over 
this long distance.
    The staff has provided me some intelligence that I would 
just like to share with everyone. I am sure that everyone has 
perused the documentation that we have. It reads families and 
other asylum seekers expelled back to Mexico are often targeted 
by drug cartels and face violence and extortion. In fact, human 
rights organizations have documented nearly 10,000 instances of 
people being kidnapped, tortured, sexually assaulted, and 
murdered after being expelled under Title 42. Title 42 is the 
law of the land. I am not debating whether that should not 
happen under the law of the land. Just stating the facts.
    Conditions in Mexico have led to hundreds of parents 
fearing for the lives of their children. To choose to self-
separate, send their children across the border alone, knowing 
that unaccompanied children would be accepted and cared for by 
the Department of Health and Human Services. It is a tragedy. 
So, Sheriff, I am appealing to you. I just want to know. Do you 
know enough about it? If you don't, I will understand. To give 
a comment about the conditions that are causing a mother to 
send her baby on this dangerous journey knowing what the 
consequences might be, but she would rather face that than have 
her child stay with her and suffer. You thoughts, Sheriff, 
please.
    Sheriff Dannels. Member Green, I appreciate those comments. 
One of my objectives as a sheriff and with my sheriff's 
association is humanitarian. We have big hearts here as we wear 
the badge, and we respect. I have talked to my sheriffs in Del 
Rio, Sheriff Martinez, Sheriff Wilmont, over in Yuma, Arizona. 
They see what you are talking about. That is what your--those 
examples.
    In my section of the southeast corner of the State of 
Arizona, we don't see that. We see 100 percent aggravated 
individuals that are camouflaged and they are coming into the 
country for all ill intent. They are taking advantage of 
current times. That is what bothers me. That is why I am 
testifying today on the public safety side of this and the 
humanitarian side.
    We also see the death. We also see those that die in the 
process of coming across our border because we have lost the 
managing side of it on the public safety side. That is where I 
come from.
    There has got to be a balance. Member Green, I agree with 
you. There has got to be a balance. We need to take the 
politics out of this. We need to take the reelection thoughts 
out it. Let's get to the business and secure our country and 
security our border and make this humanitarian and public 
safety and National security.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Mr. Sheriff, thank you. The 
gentleman's time has expired. I will now yield to the gentleman 
from Georgia, Mr. Clyde, for your 5 minutes.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Chairwoman and Ranking Member, for 
holding this hearing today. For our three witnesses who are 
here in the committee room, and we will start with Dr. Richards 
here, please answer yes or no to this question. Do you think 
border security directly relates to National security? Yes or 
no?
    Dr. Richards. I don't see how that has anything to do with 
public health or medical science.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. You are a doctor, sir, you have got an MD, a 
PhD, you are a smart guy. So, you don't have an opinion? Yes or 
no?
    Dr. Richards. The two are related, yes.
    Mr. Clyde. OK, all right. We will go to the next person. 
What do you think, sir? Does border security directly relate to 
National security?
    Mr. Kizuka. That is certainly an issue that certain Members 
of this House have tried to make a connection.
    Mr. Clyde. So, yes, or no?
    Mr. Kizuka. Receiving asylum seekers is not----
    Mr. Clyde. Yes or no, sir?
    Mr. Kizuka [continuing]. A National security issue.
    Mr. Clyde. Yes or no? You don't have an opinion. You, sir.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. It can, but it depends on the 
context.
    Mr. Clyde. So, it could?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Again, it depends on the context of 
what we are talking about.
    Mr. Clyde. OK, all right. Do you think we have a secure 
border? I mean, you have seen the news. Do you think we have a 
secure border?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. By almost every metric, the border is 
in some ways more secure than it has been, according to Customs 
and Border Protection----
    Mr. Clyde. OK, all right.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick [continuing]. Itself,----
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. All right. We will go back to you.
    Mr. Kizuka. Returning asylum seekers to be kidnapped, 
raped, tortured in Mexico is not a secure border.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. We do not have a secure border. You, Doctor, 
do you think we have a secure border?
    Dr. Richards. From the perspective of human rights, human 
rights law, the treaties that the United States has ratified, 
and the 1980----
    Mr. Clyde. Just yes or no is fine, sir.
    Dr. Richards [continuing]. Refugee Act, then the answer is 
no. It is not secure.
    Mr. Clyde. We do not have a secure border.
    Dr. Richards. Individuals' rights are being violated. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Clyde. You know, we have a rule of law and this country 
is literally the most prosperous and the most free in the world 
because we have a rule of law. Because we believe that everyone 
should follow the law. We have immigration law.
    Sheriff, what do you think? Do you think border security 
directly relates to National security?
    Sheriff Dannels. Absolutely, 100 percent correct on that. 
If I could add, Member, the fact that we have lost law 
enforcement on the Southern Border as a result of an unsecure 
border, both on the health side of it and the public safety 
because of violent acts. My office right now is investigating 
several acts here in the last few weeks that in the last month 
where an agent was--they tried to cut his throat. Had another 
one they tried to kill the agent. So, yes. A secure border is 
National security and community and public safety.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Sheriff. Just a follow-up. As of 
right now, how much of your manpower goes into filling the gaps 
for the Federal Government as it relates to the flow of illegal 
immigration and smuggling? If Title 42 goes away, how do you 
think that will change for you, for your agency?
    Sheriff Dannels. Currently, we are spending $17,000 a week 
out of a rural county sheriff's office to address border 
security. We have had over 1,000 calls in the last 8 to 9 
months just border-related crimes, just to my office. We run 
details every day just to assist Border Patrol that are 
stretched very thin right now. Like I said, this is the worst I 
have ever seen it when it comes to the lack of management on 
our Southern Border.
    Mr. Clyde. So, you are spending almost $1 million or right 
around $1 million a year because the Federal Government is not 
doing its job when it comes to illegal immigration and 
smuggling. If Title 42 goes away, how much do you think that is 
going to change?
    Sheriff Dannels. It is going to compound that to levels I 
have never seen in my 4 decades almost. The State of Arizona 
provided my office $12.8 million just to address the cost. In 
the first 5 months, my overtime budget both in jail and patrol 
was 92 percent expended. We don't have the funds. The State of 
Arizona and to Governor Ducey, that is why I thanked him, have 
been stepping up just to help us secure our borders here in 
southern Arizona.
    Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you. So, it is quite evident that if 
Title 42 goes away, it is going to be a huge impact on local 
law enforcement and local communities.
    Sheriff Dannels. Yes.
    Mr. Clyde. The Biden administration's decision to phase out 
and ultimately terminate Title 42, will only further exacerbate 
the crisis at our Southern Border. As of March 2022, U.S. 
Border Patrol officers and agents have expelled over 1.7 
million illegal immigrants under Title 42 since its inception 
in March 2020.
    During 2021, over 2 million illegal border immigrants were 
apprehended by Border Patrol, of which more than 400,000 were 
released into the United States. Apprehended illegal immigrants 
that were simply released into the United States, that is 
unconscionable. Thank you and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. 
Clarke, for your 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me thank 
our Ranking Member for today's hearing. Let me go directly to 
my questions. My first question is to Mr. Kizuka. Title 42, in 
my humble opinion, is an inhumane policy that has allowed CBP 
to expel about 1.7 million migrants without granting them 
access to the asylum system. Your organization has documented 
nearly 10,000 instances of people being kidnapped, tortured, 
sexually assaulted, and murdered after being expelled under 
Title 42. Can you further describe the dangerous conditions 
that asylum seekers and migrants face upon their expulsion and 
how it disproportionately affects migrants of African descent?
    Mr. Kizuka. Thank you for that question, Representative. It 
is a sad truth that the Title 42 policy has had a devastating 
impact leading to grievous human rights violations of people 
who have been returned or blocked in Mexico, unable to seek 
asylum. We don't even know how many of the 1.7 million times 
Title 42 has been used were on people trying to seek asylum 
because there are no screenings, because the Department is not 
following U.S. law to determine who is an asylum seeker, who is 
in need of protection, who should be permitted to continue the 
asylum process.
    For people who are trapped in Mexico, who are sent back to 
Mexico, they face daily violence. They are at risk of being 
kidnapped, of being tortured, of being extorted by the cartels 
that there has been so much concern about on this committee. 
Those are businesses of the cartels that have expanded because 
of Title 42, not in spite of Title 42. They are not being 
depleted by Title 42. They are a boon to the cartels. They give 
the cartels an opportunity to target people who are trapped in 
Mexico. These policies have had a disproportionate impact on 
people of African descent because they face anti-Black 
discrimination and violence throughout Mexico.
    As I mentioned in my remarks, we have documented may cases 
of people of African descent who have been attacked, including 
by Mexican authorities, police, migration, military, who were 
either directly responsible for those attacks or complicit in 
them. African descendant migrants also face discrimination. 
They have great difficulty finding a way to support themselves, 
to find a place to live while they are waiting to seek asylum 
in the United States. Many even today, are waiting near ports 
of entry hoping that the United States will comply, once again, 
with our U.S. asylum laws and permit them the opportunity to 
seek protection at a port of entry.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well. I thank you for you response. To Mr. 
Reichlin-Melnick and Dr. Richards, the United States response 
to the Ukrainian asylum seekers and refugees has illustrated 
that we are capable of processing migrants when we want to. 
What recommendations would you have so that the Federal 
Government can best use its resources to process migrants 
waiting to claim asylum?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Thank you, Representative Clarke. We 
have recommended a resource surge to the ports of entry so that 
CBP can better process migrants arriving at ports of entry and 
prevent the kind of build-up that we are seeing occurring right 
now. For the last 4 years, access to asylum at the ports of 
entry has been heavily restricted. First, through metering, 
which the Trump administration put in place in 2018, and then 
through the near complete shutdown in 2020, due to Title 42.
    If we had spent the last 4 years pouring money into the 
ports of entry and finding a way to process asylum seekers 
safely and humanely and orderly, far fewer people would feel 
the need to cross between the ports of entry. We can do this. 
Congress just funded the ports and Border Patrol and CBP to 
respond to migration. A lot of that money and resources should 
go to the ports of entry.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you. Dr. Richards.
    Dr. Richards. Sure, thank you. Thank you for the question, 
Congresswoman. Well, the CDC has recognized that we need to be 
flexible in both time and place in how we respond and that that 
should be driven by science. So, as the coronavirus, you know, 
shifts in its intensity, in its severity, how lethal it is, our 
response is going to vary. We have more tools now, that is the 
good news, than we ever have before with treatments, certainly 
vaccines. As I mentioned in my comments, it is the usual public 
health tools of masking, social distancing, making sure you 
limit the number of people in detention, and the time spent in 
congregate settings. Thanks.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield 
back, and I thank you for this hearing. It is very important 
that we put the truth up front. Thank you, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you. The gentlewoman yields 
back. Now, the Chair will recognize Representative Escobar, the 
gentlewoman from Texas, for her 5 minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I really 
appreciate the opportunity to wave on to the committee today 
and thank you for hosting this very important hearing. I want 
to thank all of our panelists for being here.
    I serve in Congress representing the U.S.-Mexico border 
community of El Paso, Texas. I am a lifelong El Pasoan, a 
third-generation proud border resident. I am so proud to uplift 
the voice of my community, which has always engaged with 
migrants in the spirit of goodwill, welcoming the stranger, 
really embracing true American values.
    You know, our Republican colleagues can't have it both 
ways. Just a week ago, weeks ago, they decried President Biden 
as not doing anything on the border. Then when he lifts Title 
42, claiming what he was doing was working, so let's keep doing 
what he was doing. The fact of the matter is migration patterns 
have been changing. We started seeing that change 10 years ago. 
Not during the Biden administration, not during the Trump 
administration, but before that. Congress and administration 
after administration really has failed to act.
    I am proud to be part of House Democrats who brought 
forward comprehensive immigration reform, but we get stymied at 
every turn by Republicans who choose to obstruct instead of 
work toward solutions. The truth is this is complicated. It is 
not easy. There is no one more who wants to see security and 
dignity than those of us who live on the U.S.-Mexico border. 
But addressing migration at the border and only at the border 
really is a signal of failure. I wish we could all recognize 
that failure and the opportunity.
    We have had a test case during the entirety of the Trump 
administration and 1 year into the Biden administration. Do 
walls stop migration? Does Title 42 stop migration? We have 
tried that. For colleagues of mine who want to stop migration, 
I hope that the test case has proven what works and what 
doesn't work.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, I have a series of questions for you. 
I am going to try to get through as many of them, so if we can 
be succinct. First, you know, my colleagues talk about the 
number of encounters at the border and the media, CBP, have 
reported these numbers. Those numbers do they, are they 
representative of individuals arriving at the border or what do 
encounters mean, succinctly, if you could tell us?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Yes. An encounter is an arrest of an 
individual taken by Customs and Border Protection. So, 
importantly, the same person can be arrested multiple times. In 
my opening statement, I talked about 1 person arrested 30 times 
and expelled every time under Title 42. That was 30 encounters. 
We actually know it hasn't been 2.5 million people over the 
last since the start of fiscal year 2021, despite 2.5 million 
encounters, there has been 820,000 repeat encounters. So, it is 
actually about 1.7 million. In addition, border crossings are 
actually lower than they were 20 years ago because----
    Ms. Escobar. I am going to interrupt you. That takes me----
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Yes.
    Ms. Escobar [continuing]. To my next question. So, the 
Sheriff mentioned this is the worst he has ever seen. Again, 
mind you, with walls and with Title 42, it is the ``worst he 
has ever seen.'' How do the numbers of encounters, you were 
about to get into that, what we have seen in the last year, how 
does that compare over time?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Yes. So, 20 years ago people weren't 
coming through Cochise County. They were coming through the 
Tucson sector. I mean, which is also included in it. But they 
were coming a little bit further over west, and primarily in 
California, as well. But also, we had far fewer Border Patrol 
agents and far less surveillance at the border. So, in fiscal 
year 2000, when there were 1.7 million encounters, CBP and DHS 
estimates that there were an additional 2 million undetected 
unlawful entries. That is----
    Ms. Escobar. Very----
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick [continuing]. Not what it is today.
    Ms. Escobar. Perfect, thank you. Very quickly, when Members 
say people need to get in line or do it the right way, yes or 
no, has Congress created a line or a right way?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. For almost every migrant who comes to 
the border, the right way is to cross the border and seek 
asylum, because seeking asylum is legal. There is no other 
pathway.
    Ms. Escobar. When was the last time Congress updated 
immigration law?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Nineteen ninety-six, but that was 
basically the last time. So, it has been almost 25 years.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you. I would like to just talk a little 
bit about, in my remaining few seconds, securing the border and 
the question around whether the border has been secured. For 
over a decade, Republicans have told Democrats, if you will 
just secure the border, we will give you comprehensive 
immigration reform. Hundreds of millions of dollars later into 
border security, there has been no movement on comprehensive 
immigration reform. The more that we shrink legal avenues, 
which is what has happened, the more that we should anticipate 
that we will see more irregular crossings. So, I invite 
Congress to work on real solutions. Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you. I want to thank our 
panelists. I want to thank all the Members for questions. I 
think this is a very important hearing. I think it is timely. 
Title 42, as I mentioned, is a tool of the CDC, the Centers for 
Disease Control, and was used as a public health declaration.
    There has been a lot of talk about the rule of law. 
Frankly, the rule of law is that you can come to a port and you 
can apply for asylum. We are not following that rule of law. 
So, there is one agreement where we have where the rule of law 
is not being followed. Our frustration on our side is that 
because the rule of law is not being followed, immigrants can't 
come to a port of entry and seek asylum, which is legal in the 
United States.
    So, that has been my frustration as I kind-of hear, and 
then we talked about border security. As we all know as Members 
of Homeland Security, we have been to multiple briefings and we 
know the largest terror threat is from not the Southern Border. 
It is the Northern Border. So, this is where I think--and maybe 
we need to have a conversation about that. But this is why I 
think it is helpful for us to have the hearing and I appreciate 
the participation on both sides today. Again, to all our 
witnesses, I want to thank you all for your valuable testimony. 
And you, Sheriff, thanks for joining us virtually, as well.
    Without objection, I submit statements for the record from 
Kids in Need of Defense, First Focus on Children, the Latin 
American Working Group, the Friends Committee on National 
Legislation, and the Young Center for Immigrant Children's 
rights.
    [The information follows:]
              Statement of Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)
                             April 6, 2022
    Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) is the leading national organization 
working to ensure that no child faces immigration court alone. KIND was 
founded by the Microsoft Corporation and the United Nations Refugee 
Agency (UNHCR) Special Envoy Angelina Jolie. We have served more than 
20,000 unaccompanied children in removal proceedings, trained over 
57,000 attendees in pro bono representation of these children, and 
formed pro bono partnerships with over 700 corporations, law firms, law 
schools, and bar associations. KIND's social services program 
facilitates the coordinated provision to unaccompanied children of 
counseling, educational support, medical care, and other services. 
Additionally, the organization's programs in Mexico and Central America 
work to address the root causes of forced migration and help protect 
the safety and well-being of migrant children at every phase of their 
migration journey. KIND's team has been on the ground on the in Mexico 
since 2020 providing legal orientations, case screenings, and 
assistance to vulnerable, unaccompanied children at the U.S.-Mexico 
border.
    Since March 2020,\1\ the U.S. Government has used the ``Title 42'' 
public health authority to carry out more than 1.7 million expulsions 
of individuals arriving to the United States between ports of entry 
\2\--including unaccompanied children--without providing them with a 
meaningful opportunity to request protection or legal safeguards. 
Independent public health experts have made clear that these Title 42 
expulsions lack a valid public health rationale.\3\ The Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) has also maintained entry restrictions that 
prevent unaccompanied children and other protection seekers from 
requesting humanitarian relief at ports of entry. Despite these 
restrictions, DHS has allowed access to ports of entry for other 
reasons that include shopping and tourism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 85 Fed. Reg. 
17060 (March 20, 2020); 42 USC 265.
    \2\ Customs and Border Protection, ``Southwest Land Border 
Encounters'' (updated March 15, 2022); https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/
stats/southwest-land-border-encounters#.
    \3\ See, e.g., Physicians for Human Rights, ``After Two Years of 
Health and Rights Abuses, it's Past Time to End Title 42 Border 
Expulsions: PHR'' (March 17, 2022); https://phr.org/news/after-two-
years-of-health-and-rights-abuses-its-past-time-to-end-title-42-border-
expulsions-phr/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    KIND welcomes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 
announcement that the use of Title 42 will end on May 23, 2022. 
However, even during the time that unaccompanied children were exempt 
from Title 42, they remained unable to access protection at ports of 
entry. These port closures compel children to pursue more hazardous 
routes between official crossings, or outright deny them an opportunity 
to seek humanitarian relief. DHS must fully lift port of entry 
restrictions for protections seekers, including unaccompanied children. 
There are also serious concerns that unaccompanied children traveling 
with non-parental relatives, and Mexican children traveling on their 
own, are not being screened and protected in accordance with U.S. law, 
including the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 
2008 (TVPRA).\4\ Altogether, without required due process safeguards 
intended to recognize unaccompanied children's particular vulnerability 
to exploitation, trafficking, and other threats, children face return 
to the very dangers they fled and/or areas where they confront 
pervasive violence or may be targeted for harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act, Pub. L. No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, the termination of Title 42 and reopening of ports of 
entry are only the first steps toward restoring humane and orderly 
processing at the U.S.-Mexico border. The Biden administration must 
also end the use of the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy that forces 
protection seekers to await U.S. immigration proceedings in dangerous, 
unstable conditions.\5\ The administration should complement those 
measures with adoption of the below recommendations on both an 
immediate and long-term basis, which would help ensure appropriate 
reception and treatment of unaccompanied children and other protection 
seekers now and in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See KIND, ``Forced Apart: How the ``Remain in Mexico'' Policy 
Places Children in Danger and Separates Families (February 24, 2020); 
https://supportkind.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/MPP-KIND-
2.24updated-003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 recommendations for implementing humane and orderly border processing 
 following termination of title 42 and the reopening of ports of entry 
                         to protection seekers
   Hire child welfare professionals to administer screenings 
        and care of children in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
        custody.--Children are held at the U.S.-Mexico border in CBP 
        facilities originally designed for single adults and 
        fundamentally unsuited to children's unique needs. CBP agents 
        and officers trained in law enforcement, together with other 
        personnel who lack child welfare expertise, administer these 
        children's protection screenings and care. While broader 
        reforms are critical to ensure the humanitarian reception of 
        children in child-appropriate spaces, DHS can take immediate 
        steps toward improved treatment of children in CBP custody by 
        hiring State-licensed child welfare professionals to administer 
        screenings and care of children in CBP facilities along the 
        border. By assuming child welfare functions currently being 
        performed by CBP agents and officers, child welfare 
        professionals would not only improve conditions for migrant 
        children but also ensure that CBP agents and officers are able 
        to dedicate their time to the law enforcement functions for 
        which they are specially trained.
    Fiscal year 2022 omnibus legislation provided $14.55 million to DHS 
        to hire licensed child welfare professionals at border 
        facilities. It is critical that DHS promptly on-board these 
        experts.
   Co-locate specialists from the Department of Health and 
        Human Services (HHS)'s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in 
        CBP border facilities.--Some unaccompanied children arrive at 
        the U.S.-Mexico border with family members such as aunts, 
        uncles, grandparents, or adult siblings who are trusted 
        caregivers but 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, 
        under which they are afforded certain procedural 
        protections.\6\ Under current practice, these children are 
        separated from their non-parent family members, placed in U.S. 
        custody, and hopefully later reunited with family after ORR 
        review. CBP and ORR can avoid unnecessary separation from 
        loving caregivers by immediately commencing the family 
        reunification process during the time the family is in CBP 
        custody. Through the placement of ORR Federal field specialists 
        in CBP facilities, ORR could consider caregivers traveling with 
        a child as potential sponsors and help facilitate the 
        simultaneous release of the child and caregiver together. ORR 
        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. This reform would also reduce children's length of 
        stay in CBP or ORR facilities. The Federal Government recently 
        demonstrated its capacity to deploy a coordinated co-location 
        model through its reception of unaccompanied Afghan children at 
        airports and military bases. The agency should identify 
        improvements needed to refine and scale this approach and to 
        adopt a similar model at points along the Southern Border at 
        the earliest date possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Pub. L. 107-296; William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims 
Protection Reauthorization Act, Pub. L. No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044 
(2008) (TVPRA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Undertake broader reforms to create a humanitarian reception 
        model.--Through engagement of a nongovernmental humanitarian 
        actor, DHS and HHS can help ensure the appropriate reception, 
        screening, and care of children who arrive in the United States 
        at or between ports of entry. DHS's engagement of the American 
        Red Cross to assist with reception during a period of 
        significant border arrivals in 2021 was an example of 
        successful collaboration. Efforts to formalize a humanitarian 
        reception model over the long-term should continue beyond 
        crisis response and involve outreach to and engagement with 
        nongovernmental humanitarian organizations.
    Modification of border facilities is also critical to ensure the 
        availability of child-friendly spaces for temporary processing, 
        designated areas in which children can be screened by child 
        welfare professionals in a confidential and child-appropriate 
        manner, basic hygiene accommodations, and meeting spaces for 
        in-person ``Know Your Rights'' presentations and other legal 
        assistance by nongovernmental organizations. In addition, DHS 
        should work to improve accountability and oversight of CBP's 
        compliance with legal requirements in the TVPRA, the Flores 
        Settlement Agreement,\7\ and the Transport, Escort, Detention, 
        and Search (TEDS) standards by allowing access to CBP 
        facilities and monitoring by independent third parties, 
        including nongovernmental organizations. The emphasis must be 
        on ensuring the welfare, best interests, and rights of 
        children, minimizing detention, and ensuring the safe and swift 
        reunification of children with sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Flores v. Reno, No. CV 85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 1997) 
(``Flores Settlement Agreement'' or ``Flores'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Expand legal representation of unaccompanied children.--
        Congress and the Biden administration should prioritize the 
        provision of legal representation to unaccompanied children in 
        immigration proceedings before the Executive Office for 
        Immigration Review (EOIR). Despite their unique vulnerabilities 
        in the immigration system, many if not most unaccompanied 
        children lack an attorney to assist them in navigating 
        immigration proceedings with the highest of stakes for their 
        lives and safety. Government data illustrate that unaccompanied 
        children without an attorney have virtually no meaningful 
        chance of receiving a fair day in court: EOIR statistics on 
        completed immigration court cases from fiscal year 2018 through 
        the first half of fiscal year 2021 show that immigration judges 
        were almost 100 times more likely to grant legal relief to 
        unaccompanied children with counsel than unaccompanied children 
        without legal counsel.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ KIND calculated this figure based on Executive Office for 
Immigration Review (EOIR) data published by the Congressional Research 
Service in its report titled ``Unaccompanied Alien Children: An 
Overview, p. 16 (September 1, 2021); https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/
R43599.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Though ORR currently provides financial support to a network of 
        nonprofit legal services providers to enable legal 
        representation of unaccompanied children, current needs far 
        exceed existing funding and allocation. Amid continuing high 
        numbers of unaccompanied children arriving to the United 
        States, this due process crisis will only expand unless 
        Congress and the administration prioritize measures to ensure 
        that no child faces immigration court alone.
   Enhance bilateral coordination between U.S. and Mexican 
        officials to ensure safe transfer of unaccompanied children to 
        the United States when it is in their best interests.--At 
        times, Mexican child welfare authorities encounter migrant 
        children who are in Mexico but wish to reunite with family 
        members in the United States and apply for protection there. 
        When these authorities determine that it is in the child's best 
        interest to do so, children should be safely transferred to the 
        United States and reunified with U.S-based family, where they 
        can seek legal protection. The U.S. and Mexican governments 
        must develop and implement formal mechanisms for the safe 
        transfer of unaccompanied migrant children in these 
        circumstances.
                               conclusion
    The administration's plan to end Title 42 is a welcome and long-
overdue policy shift that will help return the United States to its 
founding principles as a Nation that protects the most vulnerable. But 
on its own, the termination of Title 42 is insufficient. Congress and 
the administration must reverse port of entry restrictions and take 
proactive steps to ensure the safe and orderly reception of 
unaccompanied children, families, and others arriving at the U.S.-
Mexico border.
                                 ______
                                 
                  Statement of First Focus on Children
                             April 6, 2022
    Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member Higgins, and Members of House 
Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation, and 
Operations, 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. Nearly a year ago, First Focus led 
more than 30 child advocacy organizations to call on the Biden 
administration to end all Title 42 expulsions, particularly 
highlighting the harms for children in families.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Letter to President Biden on Title 42, First Focus on Children 
(April 12, 2021), https://firstfocus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/
First-Focus-on-Children_Title42- 2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are pleased that the Biden administration has announced the 
termination of the Title 42 policy by May 23 and encourage a swift 
start to winding down the policy. While Title 42 was in place, at least 
29,000 children in families, 9,000 under the age of 5 and 600 under the 
age of 1, have been expelled,\2\ including more than 3,200 children to 
Haiti at a time when the Nation faces overlapping political crises and 
natural disasters.\3\ Despite unaccompanied children's exemption from 
this policy in 2021, a Human Rights First report found that 
unaccompanied children have been denied access to protection at ports 
of entry.\4\ In its most recent report, Human Rights First recorded 
almost 10,000 instances of kidnapping, torture, rape and other violence 
against those expelled.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``Illegal and Inhumane'': Biden Administration Continues 
Embrace of Trump Title 42 Policy as Attacks on People Seeking Refuge 
Mount, Human Rights First 3 (October 2021), https://
www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/IllegalandInhumane.pdf.
    \3\ Returns of Migrants and Reception Assistance in Haiti, 
International Organization for Migration Haiti (January 9, 2022), 
https://haiti.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl1091/files/documents/
factsheet-returns-9-january-2022.pdf.
    \4\ Border Restrictions Lift, But Biden Administration Blocks 
Protection for Asylum Seekers and Children, Human Rights First, 
Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project 7 (November 2021), https://
www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/BorderRestrictionsLift%2C- 
BlockingAsylumSeekersContinues.pdf. Two Years of Suffering: Biden 
Administration Continues Use of Discredited Title 42 Order to Flout 
Refugee Law, Human Rights First 5-6 (March 2022), https://
www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/TwoYearsofSuffering.pdf.
    \5\ Two Years of Suffering: Biden Administration Continues Use of 
Discredited Title 42 Order to Flout Refugee Law, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reports have also confirmed that Title 42 led to family 
separation.\6\ Public reports estimate that over 2000 children 
previously expelled returned to the border by themselves between 
January 20 and April 5, 2021.\7\ Additionally, under Title 42 children 
arriving with family members such as older siblings and uncles are 
designated as unaccompanied and referred to the Office of Refugee 
Resettlement (ORR), while their family members are expelled under Title 
42.\8\ 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 lifelong,\9\ and evidence shows that children's 
separation from loving caregivers that they know and trust has the same 
impact as separation from a parent.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Nicole Sganga and Camilo Montoya-Galvez, Over 2,100 Children 
Crossed Border Alone After Being Expelled with Families to Mexico, CBS 
News (May 7, 2021), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migrant-children-left-
families-asylum-border/.
    \8\ Border Restrictions Lift, But Biden Administration Blocks 
Protection for Asylum Seekers and Children, supra note 7-8.
    \9\ 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/.
    \10\ 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 April 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title 42 never had a legitimate public health basis. Experts from 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention opposed the policy when 
it was first contemplated \11\ and public health experts have 
repeatedly stated that there is no public health basis for the 
policy.\12\ The claim that Title 42 had a public health rationale 
became even more specious as vaccines become more available in the 
United States and around the world and as U.S. States and localities 
began to lift COVID-19 restrictions. Rather, the pandemic was an excuse 
used by the previous administration to flout domestic and international 
asylum laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Camilo Montoya-Galvez, How Trump Officials Used COVID-19 to 
Shut U.S. Borders to Migrant Children, CBS News (November 2, 2020), 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-closed-borders-
migrant-children-covid-19/.
    \12\ 1300+ Medical Professionals From 49 State and Territories Call 
on CDC to End ``Junk Science'' Border Expulsion Policy, Physicians for 
Human Rights (October 28, 2021), https://phr.org/our-work/resources/u-
s-medical-professionals-demand-cdc-end-title-42/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The American people support policies that ensure our immigration 
system is fair, humane, and provides due process, including the end of 
Title 42 expulsions.\13\ As Title 42 winds down, we urge Congress and 
the administration to implement the following recommendations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ State of the Union: New Poll Shows Majority of Likely Voters 
Support Bold Action on Immigration, National Immigration Law Center 
Justice Fund (February 28, 2022), https://www.immigrantjusticefund.org/
press/2022/2/28/new-poll-shows-majority-of-likely-voters-support-bold-
action-on-immigration (finding that 63 percent of respondents support 
allowing asylum seekers to have their case heard and 52 percent support 
ending Title 42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. Immediately begin to process asylum seekers at the border.--Any 
        delay in restoring the right to seek asylum at the border 
        prolongs the proven risks of harm to children and families who 
        have been expelled. We urge the administration to immediately 
        allow asylum seekers, particularly children, Black and 
        Indigenous asylum seekers, and other marginalized populations, 
        to seek safety. Importantly, we urge the administration to not 
        put asylum seekers into the Remain in Mexico Program, given the 
        clear record of harm and denial of due process children, 
        families, and individuals have suffered under that policy.\14\ 
        To make this termination a success, we urge Congress and the 
        administration to partner with and provide resources to 
        migrant-serving organizations on the group to support those 
        arriving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Termination of the Migrant Protection Protocols Program, 
Memorandum from Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security (June 1, 2021), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/
files/publications/21_0601_termination_of_mpp_program.pdf. Termination 
of the Migrant Protection Protocols, Memorandum from Secretary 
Alejandro N. Mayorkas, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Oct. 29, 
2021), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
21_1029_mpp-termination-memo.pdf. Explanation of the Decision to 
Terminate the Migrant Protection Protocols, U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security (Oct. 29, 2021), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/
publications/21_1029_mpp-termination-justification-memo-508.pdf. Camilo 
Montoya-Galvez, ``Leave Me in a Cell'': The Desperate Please of Asylum 
Seekers Inside El Paso's Immigration Court, CBS News (Aug. 11, 2019), 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/remain-in-mexico-the-desperate-pleas-of-
asylum-seekers-in-el-paso-who-are-subject-to-trumps-policy/. Brief for 
Amici Curiae Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights, et al. in 
Support of Appellant and Reversal, Texas v. Biden, Case No. 21-10806 
(5th Cir., Sept. 27, 2021), available at https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/597ab5f3bebafb0- a625aaf45/t/
61531cee91a6897acaf74c12/1632836847044/2021_09_27_00516031522- 
+Amicus+Brief.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. Prioritize child well-being in the restoration of asylum 
        processing.--To fully realize the President's promise of a 
        fair, orderly, and humane immigration system, the Biden 
        administration must prioritize children's health, safety, and 
        well-being in the restoration of asylum processing. An asylum 
        process that prioritizes children means:
    a. Children and their families can request protection at ports of 
            entry, as well as elsewhere at the border.--The denial of 
            access to ports of entry has resulted in severe harm and 
            even death as many families seeking protection at more 
            dangerous points at the border. Earlier this year, multiple 
            young children tragically died attempting to cross the Rio 
            Grande river.\15\ We urge the administration to ensure that 
            asylum seekers can access ports of entry to seek 
            protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Two Years of Suffering: Biden Administration Continues Use of 
Discredited Title 42 Order to Flout Refugee Law, supra note 4, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    b. Children and their families are allowed to pursue their 
            immigration case in community.--Research shows that 
            detention is harmful to children's mental and physical 
            development.\16\ The use of technology to further monitor 
            asylum seekers as an ``alternative'' to detention is also 
            harmful. A survey of immigrants subject to electronic 
            monitoring like ankle monitors found that most respondents 
            experienced impacts on their physical and mental health and 
            social isolation as a result of such technology.\17\ These 
            technologies' effects on adults impact children--in the 
            same survey, respondents spoke of being unable to care for 
            their children, play with their children, or engage in 
            their children's education because of the ankle 
            monitor.\18\ Additionally, one parent noted that the stigma 
            and fear of electronic surveillance caused people to 
            distance themselves not only from her, but also from her 
            children.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Julie Linton, et al, Detention of Immigrant Children, America 
Academy of Pediatrics (May 2017) https://
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/139/5/e20170483.full-
text.pdf.
    \17\ Tosca Guistini, et al., Immigration Cyber Prisons: Ending the 
Use of Electronic Ankle Shackles, Cardozo School of Law Immigration 
Justice Clinic, Freedom for Immigrants, Immigration Defense Project 3 
(July 2021), https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=- 
1002&context=faculty-online-pubs.
    \18\ Id. at 20.
    \19\ Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The distance from parents and community that results from 
            electronic monitoring of immigrants has serious impacts on 
            children's well-being and development, and such technology 
            is unnecessary. Past programs providing case management for 
            asylum seekers have ensured that children and families have 
            access to services in the community and better understand 
            their responsibilities for their immigration case.\20\ We 
            urge the administration to allow families to pursue their 
            immigration case in their community with access to 
            community-based resources and free from surveillance. Once 
            again, a successful community-based support program will 
            require partnership with and resources for migrant-serving 
            non-profit organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ The Family Case Management Program: Why Case Management Can 
and Must Be Part of the US Approach to Immigration, Women's Refugee 
Commission 8 (June 2019), https://s33660.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/
2020/04/The-Family-Case-Management-Program.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    c. Children and families have legal representation and support to 
            develop their claim for protection.--Immigration is a 
            complex and confusing area of law, with multiple forms of 
            protection which have different elements and standards of 
            proof. For families who have experienced traumatic 
            circumstances in their country of origin or on their 
            journey to the United States, it can take time to adjust to 
            the United States, find legal representation, and gather 
            evidence and testimony to support their case. Even when a 
            family finds counsel, they may need time to feel safe 
            recounting sensitive facts that would support their case. 
            For children whose claim to protection is tied to that of 
            their caregivers, denying their parent or legal guardian 
            the opportunity to fully develop their case risks denying a 
            child access to protection. While we support steps the 
            administration has taken to allow asylum seekers to present 
            their case in a non-adversarial setting before an asylum 
            officer, we urge that all asylum seekers have meaningful 
            access to legal representation by funding legal services 
            providers to build capacity. We also urge that asylum-
            seeking families and individuals have sufficient time to 
            recover from their trauma and develop their immigration 
            case.
    3. Establish a ``best interests of the child'' standard for all 
        policy decisions, including immigration.--A best interests 
        standard considers a policy's impact on a child's safety, 
        health, development, family unity, and identity.\21\ If such a 
        standard had been meaningfully applied to Title 42, it would 
        have been clear that the policy could not stand because of the 
        danger children and their families would experience. Such a 
        standard would also provide clear solutions for the fair, 
        orderly, and humane processing of asylum seekers. In a 2020 
        election eve poll by Lake Research Partners, an overwhelming 
        81-13 percent of voters--more than 6-1 margin across all 
        political persuasions--supported the establishment of such a 
        standard, with 64 percent in strong agreement.\22\ We urge both 
        Congress and the administration to adopt and apply such a 
        standard to all policies that impact children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ 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.
    \22\ Bruce Lesley, Voters Have Spoken and They Support Children, 
First Focus on Children (Nov. 23, 2020), https://firstfocus.org/blog/
voters-have-spoken-and-they-support-children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We thank you again for this opportunity to submit written 
testimony. We look forward to working with you to implement common-
sense policies that help immigrant children and families find safety 
and thrive. Should you have any further questions please contact Miriam 
Abaya, vice president for immigration and children's rights at 
[email protected].
                                 ______
                                 
   Statement of Daniella Burgi-Palomino, Co-director, Latin America 
                          Working Group (LAWG)
                             April 6, 2022
    The Latin America Working Group (LAWG) submits this statement for 
the record for the Border, Security, Facilitation & Operations 
Subcommittee (House Homeland Security Committee) hearing, ``Examining 
Title 42 and the Need to Restore Asylum at the Border'' on April 6, 
2022. As an organization that advocates for more just U.S. policies 
toward Latin America & the Caribbean and that defends the rights of 
migrants and refugees, LAWG has advocated for the end of the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Title 42 border order since 
its implementation in March 2020 under the Trump administration. The 
calls to end the policy have also come from other NGO's, public health 
experts, and Members of Congress, including Democratic leadership. To 
date, the policy has resulted in over 1.7 million expulsions of 
individuals without screening for protection, including via flights to 
Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, and Mexico. 
Human rights organizations have documented nearly 10,000 instances of 
people being kidnapped, tortured, sexually assaulted, and murdered as 
they were denied access to seek asylum at the border as a result of 
Title 42, including families with small children and vulnerable people 
fleeing violence and persecution. This policy also has a 
disproportionate impact on Black people seeking asylum, especially 
Haitians.
    LAWG documented the impact of Title 42 expulsions from the U.S.-
Mexico border to Mexico's border with Guatemala from August-October 
2021. Starting on Aug. 5, 2021, people were flown from the U.S.-Mexico 
border to cities, such as Villahermosa and Tapachula, in southern 
Mexico and bussed to locations along the Mexico-Guatemala border. At no 
point throughout this process, from their expulsion at the U.S.-Mexico 
border to their expulsion into Guatemala, did people have any chance to 
request asylum with U.S. or Mexican authorities or to have any contact 
with civil society or international organizations. There was no formal 
registration of people expelled upon their arrival to the airports in 
southern Mexico. They were taken directly off the planes, placed onto 
Mexican National Migration Institute (INM) buses, and driven to points 
along the border with Guatemala while being escorted by the Mexican 
National Guard. Civil society organizations were unable to document the 
full impact of these expulsions to southern Mexico due to the presence 
of organized crime and because these are extremely isolated and remote 
locations. However, the testimonies captured by organizations of 
adults, families, and children, including very young children, 
evidenced how people were left to fend for themselves upon arriving in 
Guatemalan territory, including having to figure out how to travel to 
their next destination without any means.
    One such testimony of a Honduran man that was expelled under Title 
42 in October 2021 from the U.S.-Mexico border to the city of 
Villahermosa in southern Mexico, and from there bussed to Honduras, 
reflects the suffering and human rights violations individuals were 
exposed to, ``They put us on a bus from the border and took us to the 
airport, but we didn't know what was going to happen with us. Soon 
after boarding the plane, we saw a sign that said, `Welcome to 
Villahermosa, Mexico.' That's when we said why are we being deported to 
Mexico if we are not Mexican? They left us there in the middle of 
nowhere until Mexican migration agents picked us up and brought us to 
the Mexico-Guatemala border, where they put us on another bus all the 
way to Honduras'' (from an interview conducted by the organization 
Radio Progreso, Honduras and translated by LAWG). While it appears that 
Title 42 flights to southern Mexico have stopped for the time being, 
there were other instances of individuals being returned to countries 
they were not from under this policy, including Venezuelans expelled to 
Colombia in February 2022.
    As LAWG, we are pleased to see the announcement of the termination 
of this policy for May 23, 2022 as a first step toward restoring access 
to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. However, we urge the Biden 
administration to begin the wind-down process in collaboration with 
civil society organizations well ahead of May 23 to begin to establish 
a fair, orderly, and humane asylum process. As Title 42 expulsions 
continue through May 23, it is also crucial for the Biden 
administration to utilize its discretion to exempt particularly 
vulnerable populations from the Title 42 policy. While we welcome 
reports of Ukrainians being exempted from Title 42 at the U.S.-Mexico 
border, we believe that exemptions should apply to vulnerable 
populations of all nationalities. Fully restoring access to asylum at 
the U.S.-Mexico border entails a safe reception of people seeking 
asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border that does not deny individuals the 
right to make their claims heard, guarantees family unity, and does not 
hold individuals in custody or detention for extended periods of time; 
coordinating with non-governmental organizations and shelters for swift 
transportation of asylum seekers to destination communities within the 
United States, and establishing access to services, legal counsel, and 
community-based case management as individuals undergo their 
immigration proceedings in the United States. LAWG reiterates the 
urgency of the full termination of this policy in a transparent and 
swift manner. The decision to turn the page on this cruel policy is 
well overdue. It is time, once again, for the United States to be a 
beacon to those seeking refuge from around the world.
                                 ______
                                 
     Statement of Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL)
                        Wednesday, April 6, 2022
    The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) is a national, 
non-partisan Religious Society of Friends (Quaker) organization that 
lobbies to advance peace, justice, and environmental stewardship. FCNL 
follows the faith-led principles of our policy document, The World We 
Seek, which calls us to advocate for humane migration practices that 
welcome the stranger and honor the Light of God in each individual. 
FCNL has decried the operation of Title 42, a public health measure 
weaponized against asylum seekers and misused to disincentivize 
migration, and we applaud the Biden administration's decision to 
rescind the policy on May 23, 2022. Thank you to this subcommittee for 
highlighting the harms of Title 42. We urge you to continue to reject 
Trump's anti-immigrant policy and instead uplift the right to seek 
asylum.
    As further discussed in this statement, Title 42 has proven 
inefficient as a public health measure as well as a border management 
policy. The policy has rejected rights-respecting border management, 
perpetuated discriminatory treatment in our immigration enforcement 
practices, and undermined the right to claim asylum in the United 
States.
    The public health facade of Title 42 should not be reinstated 
through legislative action, nor should the administration's termination 
be halted. The emergence of the novel COVID-19 virus petrified the 
world, but also led to a spirit of solidarity, perseverance, and 
humanity. However, during a season when society aimed to protect the 
most vulnerable, the Trump administration's exclusionary instincts led 
to the misuse of Title 42 of the Public Health and Welfare code in 
order to expel noncitizens under the guise of deescalating a public 
health emergency.
    The efficacy of Title 42 was dubious from the onset as experts from 
the Center for Disease Control and Prevention rejected a public health 
rationale for the operation of Title 42. Throughout the pandemic, Dr. 
Anthony Fauci, an infectious disease expert and Presidential advisor, 
also made it clear that immigrants were not spreading COVID-19 in the 
United States.
    Over the last 2 years, public health experts have repeatedly called 
for the termination of Title 42, citing its inefficiency and 
exacerbation of public health risks. During times of tragedy and peril, 
we must account for the well-being of all of humanity, and Congress 
must rely on practical protocols that uplift both public health and the 
lives of migrating communities.
    Title 42 has functioned as an immigration enforcement wall that 
risked the well-being and lives of children, families, and individuals. 
Under Title 42, thousands suffered cruelties such as exploitation, 
kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder. The travesty of Title 42 has 
been notable as it operates alongside another harmful border policy 
from the Trump administration, the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). 
MPP requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico until the adjudication of 
their U.S. asylum claims and has resulted in human tragedy and death as 
people seek protection from humanitarian crises. It would be 
unconscionable to strengthen or repackage harmful border policies such 
as Title 42 or MPP.
    When we look at the face of our migrating neighbors, we must see 
the image of God as we are all made in His likeness. The United States 
is well-equipped to simultaneously honor that of God in every human 
being, while investing in policies that streamline migration and 
prevent cruel practices. The challenge of this Nation and the 
responsibility of the 117th session of Congress is to create a 
migration scheme that recognizes that migration management prioritizes 
generosity, mercy, and safety--safety for communities within the 
interior and those seeking inclusion.
    Migration initiatives should also address forced movement resulting 
from generations of policies that have threatened human security. 
Central to Quaker principles are the values of atonement, grace, and 
restoration, values that the United States should account for in its 
migration practices.
    A history of U.S. militarism and interventionism has contributed to 
the fragility of many nations grappling with humanitarian crises and 
consequential migration flows. The United States should see its 
response to migration as necessary to acknowledge its global legacy. 
However, under Title 42, the world has observed the disparate treatment 
of Black and Brown immigrants seeking safety at U.S. borders, most 
notably with the forceful expulsion of Haitian natives. We implore 
Congress to embrace policies that appreciate the conditions inducing 
migration and uniformly uplift the dignity of all immigrants--
regardless of nation of origin or race.
    It is essential that individuals, families, and children seeking 
safety at our borders are given a full and fair opportunity to seek 
asylum. If our Nation does not afford due process to those who are most 
in need, we are failing in our basic duty to fellow children of God and 
degrading our domestic and international legal obligations as well as 
our global leadership on human rights protection.
    Top advisors from the Biden administration, human rights advocates, 
and legal scholars have stressed that Title 42 violates the fundamental 
right to seek asylum. The winddown of Title 42 should not continue the 
expulsion of vulnerable communities, and the United States should 
immediately coordinate fair, orderly, and humane asylum processes. The 
United States must restore and preserve the right to access to asylum, 
as outlined in both international and U.S. law.
    The United States is strengthened when we stand together and value 
those most vulnerable who need protection. The repeal of Title 42 
should not lead to alternative assaults on the right to seek asylum or 
to migrate. The U.S. Government should invest in existing community-
based infrastructures across the United States, including borderlands, 
to ensure custodial and abusive practices do not surge following the 
termination of Title 42. Communities of faith have always been and will 
continue to be at the forefront of providing care to the most 
marginalized in our society. FCNL remains a partner in strengthening 
the efficacy of the U.S. asylum system and welcoming, safe border 
policies.
                                 ______
                                 
     Statement of the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights
                             April 6, 2022
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recent announcement 
to terminate the policy of expelling migrants under Title 42 of the 
U.S. Code, effective May 23, 2022 is an important step forward in 
ensuring children and families seeking protection at our borders can do 
so safely while remaining together. Congress must wholeheartedly 
support the termination of this illegal and inhumane policy. It must 
reject fear-based talking points, reclaim its commitment to welcoming 
asylum seekers, and acknowledge that as a Nation we have the resources 
and capacity to manage the border while respecting human dignity.
    The impact of Title 42 on children has been devastating.
    Title 42 puts children directly in harm's way by allowing Federal 
officials to send any child who arrives with a parent right back to the 
very danger they just fled. Families nearing the border have been 
forced to ``choose'' between remaining in dangerous conditions with 
their children or separating from them in hopes that they will be taken 
in as unaccompanied children and be safe. Migrant children who have 
remained with their families in border towns are often targeted for 
exploitation and some have been kidnapped or faced other forms of 
violence. Black asylum seekers are at heightened risk of harm due to 
racism.
    The Young Center has been appointed to numerous children in Federal 
custody separated from family because of Title 42.
    Since 2004, the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights has 
been appointed independent Child Advocate for unaccompanied and 
separated children in Federal custody. As Child Advocate, the Young 
Center submits best interests recommendations grounded in Federal law 
and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child on behalf of 
unaccompanied children to Federal agencies. In the last 2 years, the 
Young Center has been appointed to numerous children who have separated 
from their parents to avoid being expelled back to danger under Title 
42. Separation is often a last resort after trying to seek protection 
as a family. One child we were appointed to came to the border alone 
after being kidnapped with his mother for 2 months. Others have fled 
squalid conditions in makeshift camps. Once children make it across the 
border, they not only face the trauma of the separation, but also on-
going fear for the safety of their parents and relatives left behind in 
the camps. These children often have little information about when they 
might reunify with family or the status of their legal case, which 
causes additional stress.
    As a result of Title 42, family separation continues, but largely 
outside of public view.
    Parents who send their children across the border alone hope that 
relatives in the United States will be able to sponsor these children 
out of Federal custody. But sometimes family members cannot care for 
another child or do not qualify as sponsors. Others are scared to make 
themselves known to U.S. immigration officials as they themselves do 
not have legal status and may put themselves--and children they may 
already be caring for--at risk if they were deported. If parents are 
admitted later without their children, they could face expedited 
removal and risk permanent separation from their children.
    Congress must support the Biden administration's efforts to restore 
asylum and prioritize the best interests of children seeking safety.
    U.S. refugee and immigration law requires our Government to 
guarantee people the right to seek asylum in the United States. Ending 
Title 42 is the first step toward fulfilling our minimum obligations 
under the law. It also provides an opportunity to build an immigration 
system which prioritizes children's safety and well-being. Congress 
must support these efforts and push for a Federally-mandated ``best 
interests of the child standard,'' in which every immigration official 
who makes decisions about a child considers the child's right to 
safety, to express their own wishes for their future, to family unity, 
to liberty, to identity, and to the ability to grow and develop. As a 
part of this commitment, Congress must challenge the Government's 
reliance on any policy or practice which results in family separation.

    Chairwoman Barragan. The subcommittee may have additional 
questions for the witnesses and we ask that you respond 
expeditiously in writing. The Chair reminds Members that the 
committee record remains open for 10 business days. Without 
objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:54 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]