[Senate Hearing 117-821]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-821
HONORING VETERANS AND MILITARY FAMILIES:
AN EXAMINATION OF IMMIGRATION AND
CITIZENSHIP POLICIES FOR US MILITARY
SERVICE MEMBERS, VETERANS,
AND THEIR FAMILIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
CITIZENSHIP AND BORDER SAFETY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 23, 2021
__________
Serial No. J-117-26
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-644 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California Member
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii BEN SASSE, Nebraska
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kolan L. Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP
AND BORDER SAFETY
ALEX PADILLA, California, Chair
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Ranking Member
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TED CRUZ, Texas
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TOM COTTON, Arkansas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Alyson Sincavage, Democratic Chief Counsel
Ryan Raybould, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Padilla, Hon. Alex............................................... 1
Cornyn, Hon. John................................................ 3
WITNESSES
Bailey, Howard................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Crocker, Ryan.................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Responses to written questions............................... 68
Duckworth, Hon. Tammy............................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Stock, Margaret D................................................ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 30
APPENDIX
Items submitted for the record................................... 29
HONORING VETERANS AND MILITARY FAMILIES:
AN EXAMINATION OF IMMIGRATION AND
CITIZENSHIP POLICIES FOR US MILITARY
SERVICE MEMBERS, VETERANS,
AND THEIR FAMILIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2021
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
and Border Safety,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Alex Padilla,
Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Padilla [presiding], Klobuchar,
Blumenthal, Cornyn, and Blackburn.
Also present: Senator Duckworth.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Chair Padilla. Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order
this meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, and Border Safety.
I'm Alex Padilla, Chair of the Committee, joined by Ranking
Member Senator Cornyn from Texas. Good afternoon, everybody,
and thank you for joining us for this second hearing of this
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and Border Safety.
I'm honored to convene this hearing today to examine the
impact of immigration policy on our military service members,
veterans, and their families. I want to begin by thanking
Committee Members and our witnesses for joining us today.
A special thank you to Senator Duckworth for her leadership
on this issue and for participating in today's hearing. I want
to particularly thank Mr. Howard Bailey and Lieutenant Colonel
Margaret Stock for your service to our country and for
participating today as well. We owe you a debt of gratitude.
To help set the stage, let me just give some background.
Less than 1 percent of people in the United States choose to
serve in the Armed Forces, less than 1 percent. As soldiers,
sailors, and National Guard members, these brave individuals
risk their lives to keep America safe and to secure our
position in the world.
The choice to serve in uniform is an act of patriotism. It
should come as no surprise that military attracts a
disproportionate number of immigrants and members of immigrant
families.
As the proud son of immigrants myself, I know how brightly
the American dream shines in our families. I know my parents
left everything behind to come to the United States to build a
better life. My parents always impressed on my brother, my
sister, and I the importance of service to others.
Today, indeed, all three of us are public servants in
difference capacities. While we didn't serve in the Armed
Forces specifically, certainly do have cousins and now nephews
who have and are serving currently.
The American dreams of immigrant families are reflected in
our military statistics as well. Approximately 5,000 permanent
residents enlist in the military each year, bringing us to a
total of 45,000 noncitizen members serving in active duty and
more than 700,000 foreign-born veterans. Of those foreign-born
veterans, 17 percent have not been naturalized as of 2018.
Noncitizen recruits bring critically needed skills to our
Armed Forces. According to the Department of Defense, on
average, noncitizen immigrants enlist with higher education
credentials and aptitude scores. Many of these recruits speak
strategically necessary languages and have health care training
critical to supporting military missions.
The Center for American Progress finds that noncitizen
enlistees are more likely to make it through basic training and
more likely to stay in the military beyond 4 years of service.
In total, around 13 percent of veterans are immigrants and
children of immigrants. The critical role of immigrants serving
in the military is not reflected in our immigration policy.
Changes to the Department of Defense and the Department of
Homeland Security policies under the Trump administration has
led to a 72 percent decrease in military naturalizations. You
can see that sharp decline in this chart behind me. These
restrictive policies undermine Congress's clear intent to
provide an expedited naturalization process for military
service members and for veterans.
Under the Trump administration, the USCIS terminated its
Naturalization at Basic Training Initiative, which provided
onsite immigration resources so enlistees could begin the
naturalization process. That initiative helped to prevent the
deportation of veterans by ensuring that noncitizen enlistees
would be naturalized before leaving service.
Under the Trump administration, the USCIS also shuttered
the vast majority of its field offices abroad cutting the
number of naturalization sites from 23 down to 4, which are
open for just 1 week each quarter.
The Trump administration's cruel cutbacks have made it
such--have made it much harder for honorable service members to
become citizens. As a result, active duty military members have
instead found themselves in deportation proceedings. Thousands
of noncitizen veterans now live at risk of losing their lawful
status.
We must act to repair the damage caused by these policies.
In addition, an estimated 11,800 current service members have a
family member facing deportation. It's hard to imagine the
stress of serving in uniform while worrying day in and day out
that your parents or spouse might be deported.
That's just what happened to Caesar Flores, a senior airman
in the Air Force and the son of Juana Marie Flores. Juana
supported Caesar's decision to enlist at the age of 19 and
cheered him on when he graduated from basic training in
September 2016.
In April 2019, she faced a choice, to either get into a van
with ICE, or to be deported, or to leave on her own. The cause
was a fateful decision Juana made over 20 years ago to leave
California to visit her ailing mother in Mexico. She was
arrested when she tried to cross back into the United States
without documentation.
Juana's undocumented status and then her deportation
weighed on Caesar's mind every day as he served our country.
Earlier this month, Juana was thankfully granted humanitarian
parole for 1 year and was reunited with her 10 children and 18
grandchildren. This is a temporary victory for Juana and her
family.
We must do so much more as a country for military family
members. We must examine the cases of honorably discharged,
deported veterans and their families and allow them to apply to
return home. Members of our Armed Services and their families
deserve a pathway to citizenship that accounts for their
service. There's no question that building that path is a
matter of military necessity. Our Armed Forces rely on the
bravery, dedication, and skills of immigrant recruits.
Finally, I want to express my support for the critical
Special Immigrant Visa program for Afghans who supported the
United States troops. I'm deeply concerned about the fate of
these individuals after the withdrawal of U.S. forces from
Afghanistan.
Time is not on our side here, and our Government must act
quickly. Last week, Senator Cornyn and I introduced the
Honoring Our Promises through Expedition for Afghan SIVs Act of
2021, which would help pave a more expeditious path to safety
for these Afghans and their families.
We must continue to stand with all of those who honorably
risk their lives to protect our country. I look forward to
hearing from today's witnesses about how we can better serve
the immigrants who have courageously stepped up to serve in
uniform.
With that, I'll now turn to Ranking Member Cornyn for your
opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Chairman Padilla, for holding
this hearing. It's fitting that in this final before the
Independence Day recess we take some time to recognize those
who've made sacrifices for our country through their service to
the United States through the United States military.
I'm proud of our country's long history of including
immigrants in our Armed Forces, which dates back to the
Revolutionary War. In 2019, the Migration Policy Institute
estimated that veterans were--who were born outside the United
States represented about 3 percent of our 18.6 million
veterans.
Our immigration laws provide an expedited path to citizen--
to lawful permanent resident--excuse me. For those--let me read
that again. Our immigration laws provide an expedited path to
citizenship for lawful permanent residents who serve in our
military. This is the right thing to do.
Someone who's followed our immigration laws and is willing
to make the ultimate sacrifice for our country and our American
values is an excellent candidate for citizenship. In general, a
lawful permanent resident must reside continuously in the
United States for 5 years before applying for citizenship. I'm
proud to have played a small part in making it easier for those
enlisted in the United States Armed Forces to apply for
naturalization.
When I first got to the Senate, lawful permanent residents
had to serve a total of 3 years in the Armed Forces before they
became eligible for a waiver of the 5-year continuous presence
requirement.
I introduced the Military Citizenship Act of 2003 to
eliminate naturalization application fees for service members
and to reduce the 3-year service requirement to 2 years. I
later successfully joined forces with Senator Ted Kennedy in
getting this language included in the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense
Authorization Act.
We ultimately agreed through our Conference Committee,
which I was a part of, to lower the 3-year service requirement
further to just 1 year. I'm proud of the work we've done to
lower barriers for naturalization for our brave immigrant
servicemen and women.
Chairman Padilla, you and I can agree that we should make
it easier for lawful permanent residents who are serving in the
Armed Forces to receive the naturalization benefits that
they've earned. I hope we can--through this hearing, we can
identify some of the other things we might to do together on a
bipartisan basis to further streamline the naturalization
process for our service members.
I'm not comfortable, however, with some of the proposals
that have been introduced in Congress regarding veterans who've
been removed from the United States as a result of serving--or
excuse me. Committing a serious crime. The Visa's Veteran--
Veterans Visa and Protection Act of 2019, for example, would
have terminazed--terminated removal proceedings and rescinded
removal orders for veterans who were imprisoned for less than 5
years on account of their crimes.
It would also have given the Secretary of Homeland Security
broad authority to waive the bar on veterans who were
imprisoned for 5 years or more for a crime of violence. There
are very serious crimes that are punished with sentences of
under 5 years.
For example, under the California Penal Code, sexual abuse
of a minor can be punished with as little as 3 years in State
prison. Also, in California, second-degree robbery is punished
by imprisonment for 2, 3, or 5 years and some first-degree
robberies are punishable by only 3 years.
These are, I hope we would agree, very serious offenses,
including drug trafficking offenses that are not necessarily
crimes of violence and would not bar rescission of a removal
order under this proposed legislation.
I see no reason to impose a blanket bar on removing
noncitizens who commit very serious offenses like this. DHS and
our immigration court system are much better equipped to make
decisions about whether to remove such offenders.
That said, I'd like to also turn to a more urgent issue
that falls squarely within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction and
within the topic of this hearing: our obligation to the
translators and interpreters who assisted our troops in
Afghanistan.
The U.S. has fought for 20 years to beat back the Taliban's
violent and oppressive hold on that country. The United States
and its allies open the way for democracy, rule of law, civil
society, and equal rights for men and women and girls in
Afghanistan.
Much of what we accomplished during our time in Afghanistan
would not be possible without the help of brave Afghans who
answered our call for help. These men and women were with our
troops every step of the way, helping us speak with their
communities in building the foundation for a democratic
society.
In their most desperate hour of need, President Biden has
chosen to abandon our allies and leave them to the wolves. With
the U.S. military withdrawal, the Taliban is already taking
control of Afghanistan, imposing its oppressive military regime
and dismantling civil society and the democratic processes.
In the 6 weeks since the Biden administration announced the
withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Taliban has taken control of
32 districts, now controlling a total of 106 of Afghanistan's
387 districts. According to an article in the Wall Street
Journal yesterday, thousands of Afghanistan--Afghans who
supported our troops are at risk of retaliation by the Taliban
as we pull out of the country.
In 2006, we established the Special Immigrant Visa program
for Afghan and Iraqi translators, creating a pathway for them
to become lawful permanent residents and eventually citizens.
Then in 2009, we passed the Afghan Allies Protection Act,
which set aside an initial block of 1,500 special immigrant
visas for Afghan nationals who were employed by the U.S.
Government in Afghanistan for at least 1 year and experienced
an ongoing serious threat on account of their service.
Unfortunately, according to the Wall Street Journal
article, Congress's efforts to help these men and women have
become mired in bureaucracy. The State Department has a backlog
of about 18,000 pending applications, and the U.S. Embassy in
Kabul recently stated that it would pause interviews for visa
applicants due to concerns surrounding COVID-19.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter
this article into the record.
Chair Padilla. Without objection.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Cornyn. Thank you. A recent report by the State
Department Office of Inspector General found numerous problems
with the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program, including
inadequate staffing and a lack of centralized data bases to
track the cases.
Unfortunately, it's going to be difficult at best to
correct these programmatic deficiencies in the little time they
have remaining. We need to attack this problem on all fronts
through legislation and better congressional oversight.
Fortunately, a few proposals have been introduced in
Congress to aid our allies. As you said, Mr. Chairman, we
worked together to introduce the Honoring Our Promises through
Expedition or HOPE for Afghan Special Immigrant Visas Act of
2021.
This bill is companion to legislation introduced by
Representatives Jim Crow and Brad Wenstrup in the House. It
would temporarily waive the medical exam requirement for
applicants to this program removing one hurdle for their
admission to the United States.
I want to recognize Chairman Padilla's willingness to work
together with me on this issue on a bipartisan basis. I'm
hopeful we can act quickly and provide some relief to our
Afghan allies. We need to get this legislation passed as soon
as possible.
I understand our colleague, Senator Kennedy from Louisiana,
also has a bill, the Save Our Afghan Allies Act, which would
require the Defense Department to coordinate with the State
Department to develop a plan to relocate and admit the Afghan
Nationals who supported our troops in the United--to the United
States.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we
grant Senator Kennedy 5 minutes at some point during this
hearing to give him an opportunity to speak about his important
work. I appreciate that.
Of course, Senator Shaheen and Senator Ernst and Senator
Wicker have long worked on this same issue, having introduced a
package of reforms that would increase the number of visas and
lower certain requirements in order to facilitate our allies'
swift departure from danger.
We need to do more to engage with the administration to
make improvements within its existing authorities, and this
hearing provides us an opportunity to identify and discuss
those issues.
I think one of our witnesses who--Ambassador Ryan Crocker,
who's had a lot of experience in this region, can be very
helpful to us. I look--and I look forward particularly to his
testimony on that--in that regard.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more about this
situation our Afghan allies face as a result of the decision to
pull out of Afghanistan and how we can use our immigration laws
to protect these brave men and women. Thank you.
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Today, we do have
two panels scheduled, two panels of witnesses that we'll hear
from before questions from the Committee.
First, we will welcome Members of Congress to testify on
the topic of Immigration and Citizenship Policies for U.S.
Military Service Members, Veterans, and their Families. We will
first hear from Senator Tammy Duckworth, who I believe is
joining us virtually. After Senator Duckworth, we'll hear from
Senator Kennedy. I understand he is on approach.
Senator Duckworth is participating virtually. As we prep
the tech, let me briefly introduce Senator Duckworth from
Illinois. She is an Iraq War veteran, Purple Heart recipient,
and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs who was among the first handful of Army women
to fly combat missions during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Senator Duckworth also served in the reserved forces--in
the reserve forces for 23 years before retiring at the rank of
Lieutenant Colonel in 2014. Senator Duckworth, the floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank the Chairman and Ranking Member Cornyn for the
opportunity to speak on this very important issue.
The time has come for Congress to demonstrate our loyalty
and service to the immigrant service members and veterans who
have demonstrated their loyalty to the Constitution in serving
our Nation. These our proud Americans who simply wish to become
citizens of the Nation whose uniform they've proudly worn in
service.
There's no doubt that immigrant service members are a
critical part of our military. Since the Revolutionary War,
immigrants have enlisted in the United States Armed Forces and
fought to the--to defend our Nation and its ideals. The United
States rely on immigrant service members in all sectors of the
Armed Forces, and they are powerful assets in strengthening our
national security and protecting our homeland.
Making sure that immigrant service members, veterans, and
their families can access naturalization services is not just
the right thing to do. It's a wise strategic policy decision
that empowers our military to selectively recruit from broad
and diverse talent pools, which ultimately enhances our
military readiness.
That is why, for over 200 years, Congress has provided
service members an expedited path to citizenship. Both
Democratic and Republican administrations have worked to
streamline the naturalization process for service members,
especially in times of conflict. Congress specifically intended
for service members to naturalize as soon as they entered
service and prior to their deployment.
Theoretically, naturalization through military service
should be a seamless process, especially as it serves our
national security interests. In reality, far too many service
members never gained the citizenship they've earned through
their service. Some of our service members are fighting
overseas only to fear that they or a loved one could be
detained and deported by the same country that they are
defending, or worse, some don't even realize that they're not
yet citizens and, like many Americans, mistakenly believe that
citizenship automatically accompany honorably serving in
uniform.
Coming home presents a new set of challenges with many
veterans turning to self-medication rather than seeking proper
treatment for or care leaving them vulnerable to the
unforgiving nature of our criminal justice system and
immigration laws when we fail to properly diagnose them with
post-traumatic stress.
Take for example one case of combat veteran Miguel Perez.
After serving two tours of duty in Afghanistan as part of
Operation Enduring Freedom, Miguel returned to the United
States suffering from undiagnosed post-traumatic stress
disorder and without legal status.
The United States Army failed to help Miguel naturalize on
two separate occasions, prior to his deployment and upon his
return to the United States. He, in fact, had started to fill
out paperwork and thought that everything was proceeding
smoothly.
The system also failed to make sure Miguel was provided
proper support and care after suffering a traumatic brain
injury from a blast in Afghanistan, and he fell into a spiral
of self-medicating with drugs that ultimately resulted in his
becoming entangled with the criminal justice system.
Let me be clear. Miguel never dodged responsibility and
accountability for his mistake. He accepted it and served his
time in prison. His cruel removal from this country originated
with the civil, not criminal, violation of being present in the
United States without proper status. It did not begin until
after Miguel served his time and paid his debt to society.
In effect, Miguel was punished twice by the country that
deployed him twice to Afghanistan where he risked his own life
engaging in intense combat. Once deported, Miguel was separated
from his family and his support network, was unable to access
his full VA health care benefits that he had earned and was
entitled to and faced even greater challenges seeking the
naturalization he should have earned during his time in service
and his sacrifice.
I wish that I could say Miguel's case was an anomaly. The
truth is we don't even know how many veterans have been
deported because the U.S. Government fails to even maintain a
detailed record of the veterans and military family members
they've callously removed from our country.
Just a few years ago, I spent Veterans Day in Tijuana,
Mexico, meeting and talking to some of these veterans in a
community created and run by this incredible organization, the
Deported Veterans Support House. These veterans are asking for
our help, asking us to live up to obligation to support and
protect our Nation's veterans regardless of their immigration
status.
We in Congress have the ability to take substantive
concrete action that could bring these veterans home and make
sure that no other individual who served our country honorably
is deported again.
That is why I've introduced several bills to protect and
support immigrant service members, veterans, and their families
like the Veterans Visa and Protection Act, the HOPE Act, and
the iVETS Act. My legislation would prohibit the deportation of
veterans who are nonviolent offenders, give legal permanent
residents a path to citizenship through military service, and
strengthen VA health care services for veterans.
Our country has a duty to support our military members,
veterans, and their families, and I look forward to working
with you all to make sure that we fulfill that duty.
Again, thank you for inviting me to speak today on this
critical issue, and I hope that today's conversation inspires
more solutions in this area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Duckworth appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. I don't
believe Senator Kennedy has arrived. If it's okay, we'll
proceed to the second panel of witnesses and afford Senator
Kennedy an opportunity when he does arrive in Committee. Thank
you again, Senator Duckworth.
Let me lay out the mechanics for the rest of today's
hearing. After I introduce and swear in the witnesses, they
will each have 5 minutes to make their opening remarks. We will
then begin our round of questions by Committee Members. Each
Senator will have 5 minutes. I ask that we all please try to
remain within our allotted time since we do have other Senate
activities later in the afternoon.
I want to begin by introducing Colonel Margaret Stock.
She's a retired Lieutenant Colonel and an attorney with the
Anchorage office of Cascadia Cross Border Law Group LLC, where
she devotes her practice to immigration and citizenship
matters. She transferred to the Retired Reserve of the U.S.
Army in June 2010, after serving 28 years as a military police
officer in the Army Reserve.
While a professor and reservist assigned to the U.S.
Military Academy, West Point, New York, Colonel Stock was
temporarily asked to work for the U.S. Army Accessions Command
where she developed and implemented the Department of Defense's
recruiting program, Military Accession Vital to the National
Interest program.
She also worked on many other issues related to
immigration, citizenship, and military service including the
Naturalization at Basic Training Initiative. In 2008, she
earned the American Immigration Lawyers Association Pro Bono
award for founding the--of AILA Military Assistance Program.
Finally, she was named a MacArthur Foundation Fellow in
2013 for her work related to immigration and national security
issues.
We'll also hear from Howard Bailey, a deported U.S. veteran
who lives in exile in Jamaica due to his deportation nearly a
decade ago. Mr. Bailey was born in 1971 in Saint Ann, Jamaica.
He moved to the United States when he was around 17 years old
after obtaining lawful permanent resident status through his
U.S.-citizen mother.
He joined the U.S. Navy after high school and served for
nearly 4 years, including two tours in Operation Desert Storm.
He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and honorably
discharged.
After Mr. Bailey's service to the U.S. Navy, he devoted
himself to his wife and his two U.S. citizen children,
purchased a home, and started not one but two small businesses
including a thriving trucking company employing seven people.
Mr. Bailey was deported in 2012 after a conviction that has
since been pardoned.
We will also hear from Ambassador Crocker, a nonresident
Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace.
Other academic appointments have included Diplomat in
Residence at Princeton University, inaugural Kissinger Fellow
at Yale University, and the James Schlesinger Distinguished
Visiting Professor at the University of Virginia and Texas A&M
where he was dean of The Bush School of Government.
He was a career foreign service officer who served six
times as an American Ambassador in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan,
Syria, Kuwait, and Lebanon. He serves on the board of advisors
of No One Left Behind and received the Presidential Medal of
Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian honor, in 2009.
Other recent awards include the West Point Association of
Graduates Thayer Award in 2020 and the inaugural Bancroft Award
presented by the Naval Academy in 2016. Also in 2016, he was
named an Honorary Fellow of Literary and Historical Society at
University College.
I would ask that each of the witnesses please stand receive
the oath. Please raise your right hand.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chair Padilla. Thank you. You may be seated. Thank you to
witnesses participating both in person and virtually. Colonel
Stock, you may proceed with your opening statement.
Sorry to interrupt. Make sure your mic is on. It's a faint
light when it's on.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET D. STOCK, LIEUTENANT
COLONEL (RETIRED), ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, IMMIGRATION
ATTORNEY, CASCADIA CROSS BORDER LAW GROUP, LLC,
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Colonel Stock. I think it's on now.
Chair Padilla. There you go. Thank you, Margaret.
Colonel Stock. Should I start over?
Chair Padilla. Please start over.
Colonel Stock. Chairman Padilla, Ranking Member Cornyn, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I'm honored to be
here to discuss the impact on military members, veterans, and
their families of recent changes--policy changes at the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
My theme here today is that we best honor military service
by keeping the promises that we have made to service members
and by following the law. In the last 5 years, DOD and DHS have
not been following the laws. Instead, together they have
created new policies that undermine the laws. Our broken legal
immigration system has made it harder for immigrants to obtain
the lawful permanent residence status that they must have in
order to serve our country.
When immigrants do volunteer to serve, DOD and DHS prevent
them from joining the military and stall their naturalization
as United States citizens. Family members have not been able to
access benefits to which they're entitled, and the immigration
agencies continue to try to deport military members, family
members, and veterans.
The current policies do not make our country safer. In
fact, they harm military recruiting, hurt readiness, and
prevent the United States Armed Forces from using the talents
of immigrants. The new policies hide behind false national
security rationales to conceal anti-immigrant motives.
In 2006, when I previously testified before a Senate
Committee Chaired by Senator John Warner on issues pertaining
to the military, another witness at the hearing, General Peter
Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, broke down in
tears when discussing his immigrant mother.
He, like many in the military, had immigrant parents.
Before 2016, having immigrant parents wasn't a barrier to
service. Today, persons with immigrant parents who seek to
serve in our military are viewed with great suspicion and can
be discharged from service for having foreign ties.
One bright spot recently is that DHS has issued a
memorandum reversing several years of policies whereby DHS
attorneys were regularly refusing immigration benefits to
military family members. This change has been long overdue, and
I applaud DHS for announcing this new guidance.
To reverse policies that harm our military and get DOD and
DHS back on track to keep the promises that we made, I
recommend that Congress do the following: direct USCIS to
restore the Naturalization at Basic Training Initiative, repeal
the sunset clause on the Military Personnel Citizenship
Processing Act, reintroduce and enact the Military Enlistment
Opportunity Act which allows recipients of deferred action for
childhood arrivals and other legal immigrants to enlist, codify
the military parole in place and deferred action programs, and,
finally, enact legislation to prevent the deportation of
honorably discharged military veterans.
Until recently, a significant advantage of military service
has been that noncitizens serving in the military have been
permitted to obtain expedited U.S. citizenship. Expedited
citizenship benefits not only the noncitizens, but it also
benefits the military.
In return for expedited citizenship, military members can
lose their citizenship if they subsequently fail to serve
honorably for 5 years.
In 2017, DOD made two key policy changes to the
naturalization process that undermined the law. Because of
these changes and contrary to the purposes of the military
naturalization statutes, it's often now faster for green card
holders seeking citizenship to remain civilians.
Further, there are few reliable resources readily available
to assist military members and veterans. The military provides
wrong information to enlistees. Just today while I was
preparing for the hearing, I got a message that Fort Jackson
had told a soldier newly arrived there that she could not apply
for citizenship.
The military has no established system for tracking cases
and the responsibility is left largely up to the military
members themselves. The VA does not assist them. Many who want
to apply for citizenship are slipping through the cracks.
DOD has only made it much more difficult for noncitizens to
join the military in the first place. While the Bush
administration has previously authorized lawful immigrants
through the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest
program, the previous administration ended the MAVNI program.
This change has hurt the military's ability to attract
talented immigrants and reduce the percentage of immigrants
serving. Facebook and Google can recruit talented immigrants on
our college campuses, but military recruiters are no longer
permitted to do so. Military recruiters report to me that
they're meeting recruiting quotas by lowering their standards.
The previous administration internally floated proposals to
end the popular military parole in place and deferred action
programs that began under the Bush administration. Congress has
indicated its support for these programs, but codification of
these programs would ensure that a future executive branch
cannot dismantle them.
Our founders knew that immigrants were a powerful asset to
the United States and particularly to the United States
military. Today, it's no different. America can't find
effectively without immigrants. The recent policies harm our
National security. Congress must ask through legislation and
oversight if we truly want to honor the service of the
noncitizens who have sworn the oath of enlistment and put their
lives on the line for our Nation.
We must keep the promises that we've made to them.
Immigrants are an asset to the United States Armed Forces but
only if we let them live up to their potential as Americans by
choice unfettered by the chains of the broken immigration
system. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Stock appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Colonel Stock. We will now turn
to Mr. Bailey who's participating virtually. Mr. Bailey, please
proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD BAILEY,
DEPORTED U.S. VETERAN, JAMAICA
Mr. Bailey. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Howard
Bailey. I am an honorable discharged veteran of the United
State Navy. I served in both Operation Desert Storm and
Providing Comfort. I joined the military to serve my country
and make my family proud.
Navy recruiters came to my high school, and I quickly
enlisted. I signed up for the pre-entry program while I was
still in high school, and I worked on an aircraft carrier
during the weekends. I graduated in May. By August, I was at
boot camp. It was hard. Some guys washed out, but I stuck with
it. When I finished, I was proud to show off the uniform I had
worked hard to earn.
I have now been living in exile for 8 years--10 years if I
include the 2 I spent in immigration jail fighting my case.
Before I was deported to Jamaica, a country I had not seen
in nearly 25 years, I was a happily married man with two
American kids, a home I purchased with my VA loan. I owned my
own trucking business, had four employees, paid my taxes. I was
a lawful permanent resident. In my mind, I was living the
American dream.
The last time I saw my home was 10 years ago, and since
then, life felt like a total nightmare. Every day I hope that I
will wake up and just be back home in Virginia again.
In 1995, about 6 months after I got out the military, I was
arrested because a package of marijuana was mailed to my home
from a friend I recently met. I didn't know there was marijuana
in the package. The cops told me not to worry.
I was about 22 years old. It was my first time I remember
ever being arrested. I still had to go to court. My lawyer told
me to plead guilty rather than take my chances with a trial. He
told me this was just gonna be a slap on the wrist and
everything's going to be all right. He did not say anything
about immigration. Twenty-five years later, I'm still paying.
In 2010, 15 years after I received the marijuana
conviction, ICE showed up at my front door to take me away. I
had recently applied for citizenship. When the application
asked if I had ever been convicted of a crime, I said yes. I
even went to the courthouse to get the paperwork to show that
the case happened since ICE did not have any record of it.
Then one day, I heard a knock on my door. It was about 5:30
in the morning. When I answered, I saw all these guys in khaki
suits and a State trooper. I got scared. I had no idea what was
happening. It was ICE, and they told me they were taking me
away because of the conviction and my prior visit to INS even
though it was so many years ago.
ICE grabbed me, and they didn't care that my 11-year-old
daughter came out screaming and crying. My wife had to beg them
to allow her to give me pants to wear since I was only just in
my pajama shorts. I haven't seen my daughter in 10 years.
My deportation traumatized her. Her mental health suffered
all through her teenage years and into today. She didn't make
it to college, her dreams and mine too. It ripped my heart out
that my daughter was hungry at times, and I couldn't do
nothing. Nothing at all.
My son has had trouble with the criminal legal system, and
I blame myself. I wasn't there when he needed me the most.
Young men in America need their fathers. He had just turned 14
when ICE dragged me away.
Before my deportation, I fought my case for 2 years from an
immigration detention center. I was moved around from one
detention center to another: New Mexico, Louisiana,
Pennsylvania, just to name a few.
After I was deported, I got a pardon from the Governor of
my--for my marijuana conviction, but I still couldn't come
home. The Governor told me his hands are tied and that he can't
make ICE do nothing. Many people have tried to help me, even
Senator Manchin. ICE still won't budge.
I thank you all for listening to me today. My name is
Howard Bailey, and I do love my country and only wish to come
home to the United States. Navy forever, man. Thank you, guys.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bailey appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Padilla. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Our final
witness, Ambassador Crocker, also participating virtually.
Ambassador Crocker, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR RYAN CROCKER,
NONRESIDENT SENIOR FELLOW AT CARNEGIE
ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, FORMER
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO AFGHANISTAN
Ambassador Crocker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Cornyn, it's an honor to be with you today to
discuss another aspect of the critical issues involving non-
U.S. citizens serving with or for our military forces. That's
the Special Immigrant Visa program and, in particular, the
program as it is being applied in Afghanistan.
President Biden has made it clear that he is withdrawing
all U.S. forces by 9/11, the 20th anniversary of the attacks on
the American homeland. It is likely to be completed even before
that. Over 50 percent of our forces have already been
withdrawn.
The embassy has stopped processing Special Immigrant Visas
for Afghan interpreters because of a COVID outbreak. The
Taliban meanwhile continue to advance, occupying district after
district.
I'm here today, Mr. Chairman, to try to be a voice for
Afghan interpreters. These are people we have a moral
obligation to. It is extensive. We could not have engaged in
Afghanistan with any success at all or in Iraq without them as
has already been noted by Senator Cornyn, there are roughly
18,000 potentially eligible individuals waiting for visas. We
need to get these people to safety in my view before we
complete our military withdrawal. That, sadly, is not like to
happen.
I became involved in the SIV issue during my time as
Ambassador to Iraq in early 2007. Two members who are Iraqi
national staff at the Embassy were killed. I mention this
because these are real issues. These are not pawns in partisan
politics. These are human beings who have served us and have
risked and given their lives in some cases to do so.
The Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program, its good news
and bad news. The good news is that it's now in its 12th year.
It has had bipartisan support, over three administrations,
seven Congresses, five Secretaries of State, and seven
Secretaries of Defense. The bad news? It still does not
function quickly or predictable. Now, we are at a crunch point.
It's not that nothing has been done. I would join in
thanking Senator Shaheen for her major effort to expedite the
process. Mr. Chairman, you and Minority Leader and Ranking
Member Cornyn have also taken important steps. Senator Kennedy,
Senator Duckworth, Senator Ernst. These are all important. As
an advisory board member of No One Left Behind, I would like to
thank you most personally and sincerely.
The process is if not broken it's certainly inadequate to
the challenge we now have. There are 14 steps that an applicant
must go through to get a visa, and it takes years. You'd
actually have a better chance I think of bringing world peace
on the basis of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points than getting an SIV
with the 14 hurdles that applicants have to jump.
Just this weekend, a veteran contacted me pleading for some
action to bring his interpreter to safety. Defense contractors,
in this case, have failed to give the applicant a letter, and
there's no means to compel that letter to be issued. Again, the
clock--the clock is running. The individual emailed the vet to
say, quote, ``If the Taliban get me, you know they have no
mercy.'' I leave it to your imagination to imagine the impact
this has had on the veteran I'm talking about. I can provide
further details if anyone in this Committee is interested in
helping.
I do not see any way in which the current SIV system is
going to function magically, swiftly, comprehensively to take
these interpreters out of mortal danger. There has been talk of
an evacuation, and we now may come to that. It would have
significant hurdles to cross to make a difference.
If the backlog is 18,000 and we are prepared to evacuate
them without completing the SIV processing, now if you figure
four family members for each visa, you're talking over 17,000
people. How do you get them securely to an airfield that we
control? I mean, how do you even get there when you have a mass
movement like that? How do you get them there safely? How do
you process them? Where do they go? What happens at the other
end?
I don't have the answers to these questions, but I think it
is beyond important that we ask them and that we find a way
forward.
There are other issues too. If we do a mass evacuation for
SIV eligible--potentially eligible individuals that will
instill a panic I think in the population of Afghanistan and
its security forces and its government. We will have to weigh
that as well.
I have already submitted a statement for the record. We
just conclude by saying that without White House engagement,
NSC engagement to take control of a faltering process and make
the decisions, make this a top priority, getting these people
to safety is just not going to happen.
Chair Padilla. Thank----
Ambassador Crocker. It takes a toll on our veterans, as I
just mentioned. Those that protected them they are now unable
to protect in turn. CBS has a new----
Chair Padilla. Ambassador.
Ambassador Crocker.--very compelling series.
Chair Padilla. If I can ask you to wrap up, we want to
proceed to questions.
Ambassador Crocker. Yes, sir. CBS has a series, the United
States of Al, which features a Marine resettling his Afghan
interpreter. Here's a quote from one of the episodes: ``When we
decided to join the U.S. Forces, we were not only risking our
own lives. We were putting the lives of our family in danger.
We were the eyes and the ears of American troops. That's what
the Taliban called us, the eyes. Shoot the eyes first.''
I can't say it any better than that. Viewers thought so too
writing in to offer shelter and support for these interpreters.
I would hope even at this very late date the Biden
administration will step forward, follow the lead of the
American people, and ensure our national honor is not left
behind with those who risked their lives for us. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Crocker appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Padilla. Okay. Thank you, Ambassador. Thanks to all
of our witnesses. We'll now turn to questions from Members of
the Committee. I'll begin. My first question is for Colonel
Stock. For hundreds of years, the United States has recognized
the importance and the need for immigrants to be part of our
military. In 1952, this concept was codified in the Immigration
and Nationality Act, the INA.
The INA has specific provisions dedicated to military
naturalizations that waive certain requirements such as
residency and physical presence as well as naturalization and
biometric fees that civilians generally have to pay. In
addition to military recruiters use naturalization as a way to
attract legal permanent residents to join the military.
My question, Colonel Stock, is this. Given the history of
immigrants serving in the U.S. military and specific provisions
in the INA detailing who is eligible for military
naturalizations, can you tell us what supports and resources
are currently provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services and the Department of Defense to help military service
members complete the necessary paperwork for naturalization and
process their applications?
Colonel Stock. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, right now, it's
pretty much a mixed bag. USCIS does a very good job with its
website posting information about the process, and it does
allow military members to file applications electronically.
Unfortunately, these services do very little at the moment
to help out. Most military members, for example, during basic
training, have no access to the internet, to a printer, to a
computer. It's impossible for them to file an application
electronically while they're in training. They can't access the
resources.
Chair Padilla. That's a great example. Just a quick follow-
up. Sorry to interrupt. Was there a time when there were more
supports in place to help with military naturalizations?
Obviously, the question for today would be what can Congress do
to ensure that USCIS and DOD are providing the necessary
supports and resources?
Colonel Stock. There was a time, Mr. Chairman. This was
between 2009 and 2018, when the Basic Training Naturalization
Initiative was in place. We had a meeting. I was working with
the Department of Defense at the time. We met with DHS, and we
decided that it would save the Government millions of dollars,
promote military readiness, allow service members to be
utilized to their best capacity if we naturalize them as
quickly in their service as it was possible to do.
USCIS dedicated teams at the small number of military basic
training sites found inside the United States. These were
expert teams that could process applications, do all the
background checking and the vetting, test people, and so forth.
They were extremely efficient and really good at what they did.
Then the system was broken in 2018.
Applications are now filed all over the place, interviews
all over the world. Often we have adjudicators who don't know
anything about military naturalization making decisions in the
cases, and its complete chaos to put it bluntly.
Chair Padilla. If I connect some dots in your response
there, reinstating these programs would be a big help.
Colonel Stock. Reinstating these programs is easy and it
would go far to solving all the problems. It would also save
the Government millions of dollars.
Chair Padilla. Okay. That means some more follow-up there.
I want to make sure I ask a question of Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey,
you're still with us. Veterans that are deported from the
United States are often removed, as in Mr. Bailey's case, years
and some cases even decades after a criminal conviction. Many
of them have been rehabilitated after they've paid their debt
to society and are productive members of their communities.
Pulling them out of their homes for previous infractions
seems cruel and unnecessary. According to the report by the
ACLU, nearly all deported veterans have left behind families
who have struggled in their absence. In addition, veterans are
often forced to return to a country they do not know and have
few ties to.
Mr. Bailey, I want to thank you for your testimony. It's
clearly difficult for you to talk about your deportation and
separation from your family. Can you just spend another minute
on what your life has been like since returning to Jamaica and
how your family was affected back in the United States when you
were forced to leave them?
You know, if you can, just spend a brief amount of time
telling us what it would mean for you to have your case
reopened and reconsidered.
Mr. Bailey. Yes, sir. I left Jamaica when I was pretty
young, 16. I really didn't have a life in Jamaica. Being
deported here, life have been really--I mean, it's hard to
imagine. I came here with nothing, nothing except pair of
jeans, that one that I put on when ICE took me.
I had to sleep on the floor. I had nowhere to live. I was
just dropped off in a country. As time goes by, Jamaica is a
hard place to survive. The crime rate is high here. Poverty is
high. Deportees are stigmatized. I live my life in fear because
we are often the target of some vicious attacks because I don't
know what it is. They stigmatize people who are being deported
from the United States.
It's not just me. Other than me, it's on my family, my
mother who is in the United States where her health has
declined from all the grief and the sorrow and all the
emotions, stress she's going through to know that her son life
is in danger and I'm not home.
My daughter has suffered tremendous mental health. When I
was just--when I left, she tried to commit suicide twice. She
had to get a lot of counseling. She didn't make it to college,
you know? My kids was real close.
My son, as we speak here today, is in the penal system. I
just can't forget the four words he always tell me when we used
to talk until I can't hear from him again. I'm--and I'm scared
of when--if something happen. He always used to say, ``Dad,
you're not here, Dad. You're not here, Dad.''
My brothers--my smaller brother, he served in the military
because he had followed my footstep. They say big men don't cry
or men are not supposed to cry. I cry with my brothers, man.
It's hard. You know, my sister, everyone is in the United
States except me.
If I should get a chance, just a chance, this is something
that me and my family hoped and pray for, just a chance so I
could come back and be in my kids' life and bridge that gap and
be a father figure. I can't do nothing about the past, but I
can steer the future. I'm just asking for a chance to come home
to the country I love, the country I serve, United States of
America.
Chair Padilla. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Thank you.
At this time, I'm going to turn the hearing over to Ranking
Member Cornyn so I can go vote on the Senate and return
quickly.
Senator Cornyn [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Let me start with a couple quick questions for you,
Colonel Stock. I admire your work in helping to create the
Military Accessions Vital to National Security or MAVNI
program. I agree that TPS holders and legal permanent residents
and others who are not yet citizens can make valuable
contributions to our country.
I wonder, is there any crime that could be committed by a
legal permanent resident like Mr. Bailey that would justify
deportation?
Colonel Stock. Absolutely, Senator. As you said earlier and
I agree with you when you made this comment, the immigration
judges and the folks who are experts at the Department of
Homeland Security are best positioned to make the call about
whether somebody should be deported.
Unfortunately, in 1996, Congress eliminated their ability
to do that and took away all their discretion to make a
judgment call about whether a crime was serious enough to
deserve deportation or not.
In 1996, Congress basically eliminated all the discretion
that the judges would have in ordering a deportation and
completely tied their hands. Today, if somebody's in front of
an immigration judge, the judge looks at the statute and the
laundry list of crimes that Congress stuck in the statute and
says, ``You did that. You're gone. You did that. You're not.''
It's literally a laundry list. It includes some misdemeanors as
well as some serious crimes.
I'm for restoring the discretion that immigration judges
need because they're the ones that best positioned, as you said
earlier, to make the decision on whether somebody should be
deported or not.
Senator Cornyn. Do you think Congress should set some
parameters for the judge's discretion?
Colonel Stock. Absolutely. A good example is the definition
of aggravated felony in the immigration code. That definition
doesn't include things that are aggravated and doesn't include
things that are felonies.
If it were up to me, I would repeal the current definition,
which is just a laundry list and I'd replace it with a very
simple one that says the crime has to be a felony, and you had
to serve a significant criminal sentence for it, and it has to
be aggravated as well. Then we'd be honest about who we're
actually deporting.
Right now, there are people who are tagged with the
aggravated felony definition who served no jail time and
committed a misdemeanor. That's just wrong, and it's not just.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Bailey, are you--you're still with us,
I trust. As I understand it, you were deported in 2012 during
the Obama administration. Is that correct?
Mr. Bailey. Yes, sir.
Senator Cornyn. Is that correct, sir?
Mr. Bailey. Yes, sir. Can you hear me?
Senator Cornyn. Okay. At the time, National Public Radio
described you as, quote, ``exactly the type of people that the
Obama administration said they're focusing on deporting.'' Why
do you think they would say that?
Mr. Bailey. I don't know, sir. I've never heard that
report.
Senator Cornyn. You told us that you have been pardoned. Is
that correct? If so, when did that happen?
Mr. Bailey. This happened in 2017. I was pardoned by the
Governor of my State, Virginia.
Senator Cornyn. I'm sorry. You were pardoned by the
Governor of your----
Mr. Bailey. Of Virginia.
Senator Cornyn. Okay. You weren't pardoned by President
Trump?
Mr. Bailey. No, sir.
Senator Cornyn. Okay. Okay. I was just trying to understand
how that would work. You were not pardoned by an official of
the United States Government?
Mr. Bailey. I was pardoned by the Governor of my State from
which the crime occurred.
Senator Cornyn. Okay. Let me turn to Ambassador Crocker.
Ambassador, thank you for being with us. I can't think of
anybody who we could have before the Committee that would be a
better witness for both the service that these interpreters--
these Iraqis provided to the United States during our time in
Afghanistan.
As you know, there are a number of different legislative
proposals. As I look at what's happening on the ground and the
aggressive moves that the Taliban has made, is there a, what
you would call, your preferred solution to this problem? Can
you tell us what the terms of that would be if in fact we could
wave a magic wand or pass a bill by unanimous vote of the
Congress?
Ambassador Crocker. It's an excellent question, sir. For
the--and it's in my written testimony, the steps, some of which
you've been involved in, I think are important ones to bring
more high-level focus on this, in particular, to ensure that
the interagency process functions as it should. That will
require White House leadership through the NSC.
DOD has the greatest number of people in this program. They
have neither authority or responsibility for managing it. That
is done by State. State does not have the people or the
resources. It simply needs to be a top tier priority.
Unfortunately, in the 12 years of this program, it has not been
that, not under Republicans and not under Democrats.
We are now faced with a much more immediate and grave
situation. The steps that are being taken, including those you
have initiated, are important. They will take time, and time is
something we do not have. It may be that things won't be all
that bad. Who knows? We don't know because it's the Taliban who
has agency here, not us.
Based on what they have done in the past and the advances
they are making now, I would be more than concerned that if we
don't find a way to move a lot of people in a short amount of
time that we are going to have a lot of blood on our hands from
our Afghan interpreters. Again, this is not restricted to
Afghanistan.
Memories are short. The internet doesn't forget. The next
time we need support somewhere, and we will, people are going
to look how we handle this situation. It is not going to be
good. I think there needs to be a conversation and like right
now about the issues surrounding an evacuation of thousands of
individuals.
As I noted earlier, that will not be easy to say the very
least. To at least have the discussion right now I think is
something that we owe the people involved and we owe to
ourselves and our sense of who we are as Americans, our
commitments, our very honor.
It is not an option that anyone would favor, a last-minute
evacuation. The procedural changes that would invigorate the
visa processing situation, those will not come in time. I mean,
right now, we are not issuing any visas at all because of the
COVID epidemic. That would be another factor in an evacuation
incidentally.
It's, you know, the--President Biden owns this policy. It's
his. I think at a minimum the White House is going to have to
take action to say, ``This is now a top tier issue. What can we
do for these people?''
Senator Cornyn. Ambassador Crocker, I just have one more
question, and then I'll recognize Senator Klobuchar. I ask
Senator Blackburn if she wouldn't mind to take the gavel while
I go vote, and I'll come back, of course.
That is based on President Biden's decision to withdraw all
U.S. military forces from Afghanistan by September the 1st, my
understanding is that they're already about 50 percent of the
way through that drawdown. What do you think the status of the
Afghan government will be relative to the Taliban at the end of
this calendar year?
Ambassador Crocker. I can tell you right now that it has
been severely undercut. In fairness, this did not start with
President Biden. I believe and I have said from the very
beginning that the decision under President Trump to sit--to
pursue a negotiation with the Taliban and without the Afghan
government was tantamount to a surrender, that that was a
Taliban demand from the beginning.
We eventually caved to it. I think what we are now seeing
is the unspooling of our support for the government of
Afghanistan at an increasingly rapid rate. President Biden, in
my view, inherited a bad hand but also has played it very badly
without, I think, considering the consequences of this
withdrawal, this total withdrawal, at every level what it does
to the Afghan government, what it does to the Afghan National
Security Forces, what it does to the interpreters who served
us.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you very much. I'll recognize Senator
Klobuchar, who's joining us virtually.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Cornyn, and
thank you as well, Chair Padilla, for holding this hearing on
this important topic. I would also like to thank Senator
Duckworth of--who I know is there, who testified earlier for
her testimony and, most importantly, of service to our country.
In recognition of the honorable service of our immigrant
soldiers, we promised to provide expedited pathways to
citizenship. In recent years, as you all know, the U.S. has
imposed barriers to naturalization that leave noncitizen
veterans and service members vulnerable to deportation. In
fact, from 2016 to 2019, there was a 72 percent increase in
military naturalizations. Of course, we've seen this somewhat
across the board.
Colonel Stock, you worked on the Naturalization at Basic
Training Initiative. Through cost--though it was cost-
effective, it was efficient, but it was terminated in 2018
making it difficult for new recruits to complete the
naturalization process. Can you speak about the impact of the
program's termination and how it has exacerbated service
members' susceptibility to deportation?
Colonel Stock. Yes, Senator. It has had a extraordinarily
negative effect on the service members, their military
readiness. Just to give one example, I got a call from an
officer in Hawaii a couple days ago who said that they have 60
soldiers in the Pacific Rim area who are not deployable. In
other words, they can't send them to do their military duty
because they're not citizens of the United States, and they
can't figure out how to get their naturalizations processed.
It's taking an extraordinary length of time right now to
naturalize people. I recently handle a case for an active duty
soldier in South Korea where she filed the application in 2016.
It wasn't approved until about 5 years later. She had to fly
back to the United States twice, COVID quarantine for 14 days
each time in order to complete the process. This is not
expedited. The agency----
Senator Klobuchar. No.
Colonel Stock [continuing]. Tells me that they are no
longer required to expedite because the Military Citizenship
Processing Act had a sunset clause in it. Since Congress no
longer mandates a 6-month processing time, they don't believe
they have any deadline for processing military cases.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes. A very good example of, by the way,
what's going on here. Ambassador Crocker, you previously
served, of course. I thank you for that service as U.S.
Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan work closely with Congress
to establish Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visas, which
grant lawful permanent resident status to Iraqi and Afghan
interpreters, contractors, security personnel.
These nationals risk and are continuing to risk their
lives. I want to thank Senators Cornyn and Padilla for their
work on this issue. I personally had a former commander of our
National Guard who has since retired break down in my office
one day talking about an interpreter that he wasn't able to get
status for and how scared he was for him. What impact would a
broken promise have on our credibility in foreign policy or
does it have on average, sort of similar to my last question
that applications take 996 days to process? With U.S. troops
withdrawing from Afghanistan by this September, what are some
of the measures we can take now?
Ambassador Crocker. It's a--the critical question, Senator.
As I noted, the procedural shifts that you and your colleagues
have been involved in are very important, but that is not going
to work for the short term. I increasingly see no alternative
than some effort at an evacuation. As I've noted, there are
incredible problems associated with that.
I mean, effectively, I would think it would pretty much
halt the withdrawal of the forces we have left. We would need
all of them and probably more again to deal with root security,
with marshaling, perimeter control. We would also be in a
situation where we're really not able to check on the
credentials of the people that might show up at an area.
The time for this conversation, sadly, was before the
decision was made to withdraw all of our forces. I simply do
not think--I have not talked to anyone in the administration. I
do not think this was even a consideration at the time that
decision was made.
Senator Klobuchar. We are where we are now, and we need to
do something about it. I appreciate your work on this and just
more broadly, the broader issues of our immigrants who've
served in the military.
I just--one of my most fond memories in life is meeting a
World War II vet who had been brought over. He was a DREAMer.
They didn't call them that back then. Brought over and, through
no fault of his own, didn't know it. He actually served--signed
up to serve in World War II. That's when he found out that he
was not born in America. As he told this story--he's since
died. He was almost 100 when I brought him to Washington.
He said back then they brought him to Canada for one day,
and he stayed in a really nice hotel. Back then he thought it
was. Then he came back, and he was a citizen because they
needed him to serve in the military. He went on to serve under
General MacArthur, came back, had a family, and his son served
in Vietnam.
It just made me think about the fact that back then it was
easier than it is now. Given that we're more and more global--
in a more and more global economy and world, it makes little
sense that we are not recruiting and keeping our immigrant
service members as well as in general our immigrant population.
Thank you very much for your work, Ambassador, and thank you to
all the witnesses. Thanks.
Chair Padilla [presiding]. Thank you. Senator Blackburn.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador
Crocker, it is so good to see you even if it just on the
screen. I thank you so much for the great work you have done on
behalf of our country.
These SIVs are of tremendous concern. I have a family that
we're working with here in Tennessee. The interpreter is out.
Parents are ready to come out. The frustration with a younger
sibling not being out or able to get out knowing that the
Taliban is going to kill every single one of these individuals
if the administration and the State Department cannot get their
act together on this knowing that these people are in danger,
knowing that they are depending on us.
Very frustrated with the embassy in Afghanistan. It is
closed because of COVID. They should be working remotely. Mr.
Ambassador, I will tell you I completely agree with you that we
are going to have to get these individuals, send them to a safe
third country to get them out of harm's way, and then go ahead
and complete this processing. We cannot leave these individuals
to die, and we know that they will every single one be
slaughtered.
Your insights into this region are so vitally important. I
just wondered. As you were answering Senator Cornyn's question,
how many Afghani nationals are potentially in this program? How
many F2As are children, and are there any statutory limits that
you feel like would hamper or hinder us moving forward in
getting these individuals out of the country?
Ambassador Crocker. Thank you, Senator. The--in terms of
numbers, we have about 18,000 individuals in the backlog. If
you conservatively estimate that each individual would have
three others, say a spouse and two kids, and that is a
conservative estimate, you're talking about over 70,000 people.
We've got a huge number. That presents an enormous security
and logistical challenge if we have to turn to evacuation.
Frankly, I don't see any other alternative right now to
evacuation.
Senator Blackburn. Let me just come back to you on that.
Actually, to fulfill our promise and our obligation to these
individuals that have risked their life to help us and to keep
our men and women in uniform safe, we have about 70,000 that
need to be moved out before the Taliban--the--and we hear the
Taliban is right now very aggressive in how they're moving into
these areas in Afghanistan.
It is 70,000 people that you feel like we need to move to
that safe third country so that they can go through the
processing and that you are recommending that we do this by
evacuation.
Ambassador Crocker. I don't see any other alternative to an
evacuation. I'm not even sure though that an evacuation is an
alternative for the reasons I've just tried to state. I do
think there is a necessity that is beyond urgent to have that
assessment, that conversation starting right now.
It will--you know, the State Department doesn't have the
resources for this. It would have to be effectively a military
operation. The military is in no way ready to execute that
operation. The White House has got to, in my view, take charge
of this contingency. It's their policy. We're all leaving. Got
that. What do we do about, in this case, our interpreters?
Senator Blackburn. I will yield my time back to the
Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, as I said, your insights are so
important. When I was in the House, we--I really appreciated on
my trips over the time that you would spend with us and having
your insight into the application of U.S. policy in this
region. I thank you for your--very much for this. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chair Padilla. Thank you. We will now begin our second
round of questions for Senators who wish to ask additional
questions. I would like to begin with a follow-up question to
Colonel Stock on this topic of the withdrawal from Afghanistan
and SIVs.
As someone who was represented clients in these Special
Immigration Visa cases, what are your views on what should or
can be done before the troops in Afghanistan are withdrawn?
Colonel Stock. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. As
I've said on the record in other contexts, the only solution at
this point is to invoke the section of the Immigration and
Nationality Act that allows for evacuations that have been
discussed. It's the parole authority in Section 212. We have
done this before.
The Pentagon has taken charge of similar operations in the
past. The most memorable one I think that comes to mind is 1996
Operation Pacific Haven where we evacuated thousands of Kurds
to the island of Guam. There, they were able to orderly--do the
orderly immigration process in a safe place that's doable here.
Of course, it will take leadership at the White House.
They'll have to tell the Pentagon to dust off the plans, change
the names, and get the resources flowing. It's perfectly doable
with the--with leadership at the top. Again, you wouldn't be
processing visas in Kabul. You'd be paroling people into the
United States to a safe location. I'm not saying it has to be
Guam. It could be Alaska but someplace where you can keep
people safe and you can send the resources in to vet them and
process them properly for asylum status or, you know, Special
Immigrant Visas or other benefits to which they might be
entitled.
Chair Padilla. Okay. Thank you very much. An important part
of today's record. Next question. It's estimated that there's
currently about 11,800 service members who are serving actively
who have a family member who is facing deportation. This seems
dangerous from a military readiness point of view. If service
members are distracted or worried that--about the possible
deportation of a family member, it could negatively impact
their focus on their mission.
Furthermore, veterans who have honorably--who have served
honorably should not be put through the additional stress and
burden of having a family member deported. I recently heard of
Alejandra Juarez, a case where the mother of two children was
forced to self-deport to Mexico. Her husband has served
honorably in the United States Marine Corps and was put in a
financial and emotional strain when his wife became a priority
for deportation after living in the United States for 20
years--more than 20 years.
He was forced to support two households, one in Florida and
one in Mexico, and did his best to care for their daughters.
Almost 3 years later, Alejandra was finally allowed to come
back home, but her future remains uncertain.
Colonel Stock, what remedy is currently available to
deported family members of military service members and
veterans? Of course, what can Congress do to make sure family
members of military service members and veterans are protected
from deportation?
Colonel Stock. This is a very complex problem. The only
remedy in most cases is for the family member to somehow get a
hold of some expert immigration lawyer to help them. The
American Civil Liberties Union and the American Immigration
Lawyers Military Assistance Program have been trying to provide
help to these family members. Of course, it takes a lot of work
and many hours and lots of experts.
Recently, DHS has announced a new policy where they will
allow prosecutorial discretion in cases involving military
family members. I mention this in my written testimony as well.
I applaud the Department of Homeland Security for coming
forward with this new guidance. I think it'll go far.
People need an attorney to help them request the
prosecutorial discretion. It's gonna be difficult for many
people to realize that there's a memo out there and to request
this relief.
Chair Padilla. Thank you. One additional question for you.
According to the INA, military service members are entitled to,
quote, ``expedited naturalization if they serve during a period
of active hostility or wartime.'' The United States has been in
a period of active hostility since the war on terrorism began
in September 11--on September 11, 2001. Colonel Stock, in your
experience, have military naturalizations been expedited or
fast-tracked since 2001? How long does the process take on
average?
Colonel Stock. Senator, they were being fast-tracked from
about 2002 through about 2016 when the administration decided,
at the behest of civilians employed at the Department of
Defense, to stop expediting naturalizations for military
personnel. We found this out through the various lawsuits that
got filed.
Right now, they're not expedited. I--as I said earlier, I
think it would go far for Congress to lift the sunset date on
the Military Citizenship Processing Act and restore the mandate
that the Agency must process these cases within 6 months.
Chair Padilla. Thank you very much. Recognize Senator
Blumenthal for your questions.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for having this hearing and your leadership on the
Subcommittee. Thank you for your testimony today, Colonel
Stock. I was disheartened but not tremendously surprised to
learn of recent GAO findings concerning ICE's mishandling of
veterans' cases.
I was really staggered by the scope of the failings by ICE
with regard to our Nation's veterans. ICE is required to
provide special consideration for veterans' health and military
service, as you know, when making a determination to remove a
veteran from this country and must obtain higher approval from
a field office, as I understand it before initiating a removal
proceeding.
In 2019, GAO found that in the proceeding 4 years, ICE
failed to obtain that approval in 70 percent of the veterans'
cases that it reviewed. That means that those veterans did not
receive full due process. Veterans of our military did not
receive due process, and consideration should have been
required under ICE's policies.
As startling as the GAO also found that for nearly 15
years, certain groups of ICE agents failed to seek that
approval because they were entirely unaware that they were
required to do so.
This report is troubling. My question is two-fold. First of
all, what can be done to assist those veterans? Second, what
can be done going forward to improve ICE's performance and
restore veterans' trust and our trust in the system?
Colonel Stock. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I
think at the outset I should point out that there are three
immigration agencies. To ICE's credit, at least they have
guidance. The other two immigration agencies, Customs and
Border Protection and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, also put military members and veterans into
deportation as well as their family members. They don't have
guidance, and GAO did not look at them.
For example, in the record today, a Sergeant Major in the
Army, Jeremiah Wagner, put a letter in explaining how Customs
and Border Protection summarily kicked his wife out of the
country on Memorial Day weekend this year when they did not
have to do that. They didn't have to check with a supervisor
before doing it either unlike the ICE folks.
Going forward though, as far as what can be done, I think
it's important for the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security to put out guidance to all three of the immigration
agencies, not just to ICE.
ICE does have guidance that was released on May 21st that
now mandates that they're supposed to take into account
military service as well as the military service of family
members when making a decision whether to put somebody into
removal proceedings.
I actually have positive things to report about ICE.
Unfortunately, I have no positive news to report about Customs
and Border Protection and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, which continue to blindly put military personnel,
veterans, and their family members into removal proceeding
without any consideration of any equities.
Senator Blumenthal. These are ongoing failures in violation
of due process.
Colonel Stock. These are ongoing failures. I can give you
an example. If you're a military member and you're afraid to be
sent back to your country of origin because it's hostile to the
United States, let's say you're from Afghanistan and you don't
want to go back to Afghanistan and you file for asylum, you're
going to file with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Asylum Office.
If you don't file your application within 1 year after you
get to the United States, they automatically try to deport you.
That's happened--we have a whole bunch of current members of
the U.S. military who are facing deportation because they filed
for asylum and USCIS says they missed the deadline for filing.
Senator Blumenthal. We, in Congress who are concerned,
maybe even justifiably outraged by this----
Colonel Stock. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Issue should be hammering
the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense and the
Department of Homeland Security, correct?
Colonel Stock. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. I didn't mean hammering in a physical
sense.
Colonel Stock. They need to realize what's happening.
Senator Blumenthal. Yes.
Colonel Stock. It's beyond belief that a current member of
the military should be in removal proceedings. That makes
absolutely no sense. They're a U.S. Government employee in
removal proceedings forced to hire an attorney to defend
themselves against the U.S. Government trying to deport them.
Senator Blumenthal. When they are serving and sacrificing?
Colonel Stock. They're serving our country right now. They
have a military ID card.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Seeing no
other Senators wishing to ask further questions, we'll begin to
wind down this hearing.
Before we conclude, want to move to enter a number of
documents into the record including a joint statement from the
Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mark Takano;
Congressman Juan Vargas, representing the 51st District of
California; and then Congressman Raul Grijalva, representing
the 3d District of Arizona, as well as statements from the
American Legion, the Center for Law and Military Policy,
Retired Judge Frank Ochoa, and Immigration Attorney Craig Kraig
Rice, and Sergeant Major Jeremiah Wagner.
I'd like to also enter into the record a letter that I am
sending to Secretary Mayorkas on behalf of Mr. Bailey
requesting that his immigration case be reopened and that he be
granted humanitarian parole. He should be reunited with his
family in the United States while he awaits a formal decision
on his case. Mr. Bailey fought for our country, and I'm happy
to fight for him.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Without objection, these statements will be included and
want to announce that the record will close 1 week from today.
As this hearing concludes, I'd like to thank again my fellow
Subcommittee Members for their participation and especially to
our witnesses for joining us both in person and virtually.
The stories of service that we've heard today are just a
small fraction of the long history of immigrants serving
bravely in our Nation's Armed Forces. Immigrants have played a
critical role in every major U.S. conflict from the first
battles of the Revolutionary War to the last troops stationed
in Afghanistan today. It's our job to ensure that our
immigration laws reflect this outstanding history of service to
recruit individuals with the skills our Nation needs, to
support justice for people like Mr. Bailey, and to keep
soldiers' families safe so service members can stay focused on
their missions.
We should be making it easier, not harder, for service
members to naturalize while in uniform. As the American Legion
put it in their statement for the record for this hearing, and
I'll quote, ``It is a failure of all those involved that
service members do not receive citizenship unless they
specifically do not desire citizenship or have done something
during their service which resulted in a dishonorable
discharge,'' close quote.
Our military needs diverse recruits to stay prepared for
the challenges of the 21st century. Immigrant veterans and
their families deserve the permanency of citizenship in the
country they have given so much for. The Trump administration
weakened our national security by blocking paths to citizenship
for service members. In some cases, active duty soldiers have
faced immigration enforcement proceedings even--and even been
deported from the home they served in uniform.
We need a clearer picture for the number of deported
veterans and their families. As a recent GAO report discovered,
ICE is required to take additional steps prior to removal
actions for veterans like considering their service record. As
of 2019, ICE was not doing that. Therefore, we have no real
idea of how many members of our Armed Services and their
families were unjustly deported.
Veterans, citizen and noncitizen alike, often struggle with
the return to civilian life. A number of noncitizen veterans
have been removed from the United States as a result of simple
transgressions or criminal convictions tied to post-traumatic
stress disorder or another physical trauma they suffered while
on active duty.
It's an outrage that our laws forced the deportation of
people like Mr. Bailey who served our country honorably and
lost his green card over a simple mistake. We need to bring
back transparency and accountability. ICE needs to follow its
own policies to prevent these deportations.
Overall, it's clear that we need to act immediately to
restore and strengthen the immigration services available in
the Armed Forces. We need to reunite military families
separated by deportation. Thousands of noncitizen immigrants,
including DACA and TPS recipients, are eager to bring their
talents to our military.
Restoring programs like MAVNI and Naturalization at Basic
Training will increase our military preparedness for any
challenge that lies ahead.
I again want to thank Senator Duckworth for her leadership
in addressing the immigration needs of military families and
veterans. Look forward to working with her and all of our
colleagues to solve the problems we've heard about today with
the urgency that they deserve.
Our service members, veterans, and military families
deserve a solution, and our national security depends on it.
With that, today's hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
Miscellaneous submissions:
ACLU Statement from Jennie Pasquarella and Scarlet Kim........... 95
Adoptee Rights Campaign (ARC) letter, June 29, 2021.............. 118
Adoptee Rights Campaign, US Territories and Armed Forces
statement..................................................... 125
Cutler, Beverly W., statement, June 28, 2021..................... 90
Dejesus, Ariel A. Dejesus, statement, June 23, 2021.............. 81
Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission letter, March 25, 2021..... 114
Mayorkas, Hon. Alejandro, Secretary of Homeland Security, letter,
June 30, 2021................................................. 88
Ochoa, Judge and Rice, Kraig W., statement, June 23, 2021........ 121
Statements of Hon. Mark Takano, Hon. Juan Vargas and Hon. Raul M.
Grijalva, U.S. House Presentatives, June 23, 2021............. 87
Stirling, Dwight, statement, June 23, 2021....................... 72
Waggoner, Jermiah, Sergeant Major, U.S. Army, Fort Bliss, Texas
letter, June 18, 2021......................................... 149
WSJ article for the Record....................................... 153
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]