[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


.                PRESIDENTIAL POWER TO SECURE THE BORDER

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION INTEGRITY, 
                        SECURITY, AND ENFORCEMENT

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-66

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-072                       WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                
              
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ADAM SCHIFF, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           J. LUIS CORREA, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             ERIC SWALWELL, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          TED LIEU, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

                                 ------                                

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION INTEGRITY, SECURITY,
                            AND ENFORCEMENT

                   TOM McCLINTOCK, California, Chair

KEN BUCK, Colorado                   PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington, 
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Ranking Member
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               ZOE LOFGREN, California
CHIP ROY, Texas                      J. LUIS CORREA, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 ERIC SWALWELL, California
WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   Vacancy

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
         AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Thursday, March 7, 2024

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Tom McClintock, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement from the State 
  of California..................................................     1
The Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 
  on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement from the 
  State of Washington............................................     3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     5
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary 
  from the State of Ohio.........................................     7

                               WITNESSES

Andrew R. Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law and Policy, Center for 
  Immigration Studies
  Oral Testimony.................................................     8
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    11
Thomas D. Homan, Retired Director, United States Immigration and 
  Customs Enforcement (ICE); Visiting Fellow, The Heritage 
  Foundation
  Oral Testimony.................................................    72
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    74
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Policy Director, American Immigration 
  Council
  Oral Testimony.................................................    80
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    82
Gene P. Hamilton, Executive Director, Executive Vice President, 
  and General Counsel, America First Legal Foundation
  Oral Testimony.................................................   100
  Prepared Testimony.............................................   102

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement are listed 
  below..........................................................   130

Materials submitted by the Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Ranking 
  Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, 
  and Enforcement from the State of Washington, for the record
  A report entitled, ``Review of the Department of Justice's 
      Planning and Implementation of Its Zero Tolerance Policy 
      and Its Coordination with the Departments of Homeland 
      Security and Health and Human Services,'' Jan. 2021, 
      Evaluation and Inspections Division, Office of the 
      Inspector General, Department of Justice
  A memo from Gene P. Hamilton, Executive Director, Executive 
      Vice President, and General Counsel, America First Legal 
      Foundation
  A report entitled, ``The Fiscal Impact of Refugees and Asylees 
      at the Federal, State, and Local Levels From 2005 to 
      2019,'' Feb. 2024, Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
      Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and 
      Human Services
  A report entitled, ``The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 
      2034,'' Feb. 2024, Nonpartican Analysis for the U.S. 
      Congress, Congressional Budget Office
  An article entitled, ``Where the `Migrant Protection Protocols' 
      Stand, Four Years After Going Into Effect,'' Mar. 24, 2023, 
      Immigration Impact
A letter to the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee 
  on the Judiciary from the State of New York, Aug. 22, 2023, 
  regarding the amicus brief filed before the U.S. Court of 
  Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Missouri v. Biden, from the 
  Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member, submitted by the 
  Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York, for the record
Materials from the Honorable Veronica Escobar, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and 
  Enforcement from the State of Texas, for the record
  An article entitled, ``Trump urges House GOP to fix immigration 
      system, expresses no strong preference on rival bills amid 
      uproar over family separations,'' Jun. 20, 2018, The 
      Washington Post
  An article entitled, ``POLITICO Playbook PM: Trump sends letter 
      to the Hill,'' Jan. 4, 2019, Politico
  A letter to Congress asking Congress to take action from the 
      former President Trump, The White House, Jan. 4, 2019
An article entitled, ``Border Crackdowns Won't Solve America's 
  Immigration Crisis,'' Mar. 1, 2024, The Wall Street Journal, 
  submitted by the Honorable Deborah Ross, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and 
  Enforcement from the State of North Carolina, for the record

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

Question to Gene P. Hamilton, Executive Director, Executive Vice 
  President, and General Counsel, America First Legal Foundation, 
  submitted by the Honorable Tom McClintock, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and 
  Enforcement from the State of California, for the record
  No response received at the time of publication

 
                      PRESIDENTIAL POWER TO SECURE
                               THE BORDER

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, March 7, 2024

                        House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security,

                            and Enforcement

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:52 p.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Tom 
McClintock [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives McClintock, Jordan, Biggs, 
Tiffany, Roy, Van Drew, Moore, Hunt, Jayapal, Nadler, Lofgren, 
Correa, Escobar, and Ross.
    Mr. McClintock. The Subcommittee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    I want to welcome you all to today's hearing on 
Presidential power to secure the border.
    I want to thank all of you for your patience. We were 
delayed by votes. That's the bad news. The good news is we 
won't be interrupted by votes during the hearing.
    I think I will begin by recognizing myself for five 
minutes.
    During a trip to the Yuma sector last year, we met with a 
group of Border Patrol Agents. I said, ``Look, Congress writes 
the laws. We can't enforce them. So, what laws do you need us 
to write?'' To a person, these line agents all said, ``We don't 
need new laws. We need to enforce the laws we already have.''
    At Eagle Pass in January, the head of the Border Patrol 
said,

        I'm standing in front of an open fire hydrant with a bucket. I 
        don't need more buckets. I need someone to turn off the 
        hydrant.

    Donald Trump did exactly that. He enforced our existing 
laws. He used Title 42 to stop millions of illegal crossings. 
He implemented the Remain in Mexico policy, requiring asylum 
claimants to remain in Mexico until their cases were heard. He 
enforced court-ordered deportations. It worked. Illegal border 
crossings fell to a 46-year low.
    The laws didn't change, but the administration changed. On 
Biden's first day in office, he ended the Remain in Mexico 
policy. He ordered ICE to stop enforcing court-ordered 
deportations, and he ordered all construction on the border 
wall to cease.
    Since that day, he has deliberately released into the 
country more than 4.5 million illegal aliens and allowed an 
additional 1.8 million to evade apprehension by the Border 
Patrol, while it was overwhelmed by this influx. That is the 
combined population the size of the State of Missouri, our 18th 
largest State with eight Congressional Districts. I said the 
laws didn't change. The enforcement of those laws changed.
    This crisis should be a surprise to no one. This is exactly 
what the Democrats promised to do. This is exactly what they 
have done, and this is exactly what they have defended every 
day for the last three years.
    Today, we will hear from officials who served in the Trump 
Administration who will describe how the immigration laws were 
enforced with an eye toward border, interior, and national 
security. They will describe how enforcement has changed so 
radically under the Biden Administration.
    Now, we can pass laws that make it harder to assert phony 
asylum claims; prevent future Presidents from flouting the law, 
as this one has done; finish the border wall that Border Patrol 
Agents tell us is a critical tool for them, and we can put 
teeth into laws protecting American workers from the flood of 
cheap illegal labor the Democrats have unleashed. In fact, the 
House did that; it did all of that by passing H.R. 2. Senate 
Democrats refused to take it up.
    Instead, they support a bill that the Senate can't pass. 
That bill would make it impossible for a future President to 
secure the border by requiring release of 4,000 such claimants 
a day into the country before the President can take any 
action. Current law requires the detention of all such 
claimants. The Senate bill would require the release of all 
such claimants, while tapping American taxpayers for another 
$1.6 billion on top of the billions we are already paying to 
support them, and to encourage millions more still to come.
    Under the Senate bill, even when an administration can 
finally use the weak authority to shut down the border, the 
border is never really shut down, as the bill requires at least 
1,400 illegal aliens a day to be processed into the country at 
points of entry--at a minimum.
    The American people are coming to well understand the 
implications to the safety, security, and prosperity of our 
Nation. Our public schools are being overwhelmed by illegals 
requiring education. New York estimates the cost to be a 
billion dollars a year so far. Well, that's the same as a 
billion-dollar cut to the New York City schools for New 
Yorkers.
    Our homeless shelters and social programs have been 
overwhelmed to the point that services are now being cut or 
denied for Americans. Fatal drugs, like fentanyl, are now 
flooding our streets. Entirely preventable and tragic violent 
crimes are reported daily. Violent criminal gangs and 
international crime cartels are now operating in our cities, 
and sanctuary policies protect these criminals from 
deportation, and in many cases even from detention.
    Here's the fine point of the matter: The President has the 
authority to stop this. Trump did; Biden did not. Far worse, 
Biden's policies have actively aided and abetted this 
catastrophe.
    Congress can't fix this by laws that won't be passed--or by 
bills that won't be passed or laws that won't be enforced when 
they are passed. Ultimately, this crisis can only be fixed by 
replacing this administration with one that is determined to 
secure our borders, protect our people, and uphold the rule of 
law. That can only be done by the American people at the ballot 
box.
    Today, our witnesses include some of the architects of the 
successful Trump Administration immigration policies, and I 
would urge my colleagues to listen attentively to what these 
experts have to say.
    The policies they helped put in place worked to reduce 
illegal immigration and to secure the border. President Biden's 
policies do the exact opposite, and we can see that so clearly 
today.
    With that, I will yield back, and now recognize the Ranking 
Member, Ms. Jayapal, for an opening statement.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I welcome all our witnesses.
    Mr. Chair, it feels like we've been stuck in a time loop 
since this Congress began. House Republicans struggle, and 
often fail, to do the most basic aspects of governing, while 
this Committee continues to hold the same hearings on the 
border. Today seems no different.
    Today's hearing appears to be an attempt by my Republican 
colleagues to justify their inability and lack of desire to act 
in a bipartisan fashion to address the border and fix the 
broken immigration system.
    I think it is important for us to take a step back and 
remember how we got here. Earlier in this Congress, Republicans 
passed their cruel, inhumane, and unworkable border bill, H.R. 
2, through the House. After its passage, all we heard from our 
colleagues was that H.R. 2 could secure the border. That bill 
has since failed twice to pass the U.S. Senate, rejected on a 
bipartisan basis.
    Then, after insisting for months that the only way to 
address the border was through harsh border security 
legislation, former President Trump instructed Republicans to 
dismiss out of hand a bipartisan border bill that Minority 
Leader Mitch McConnell calls, ``the strongest and toughest 
border bill in 30 years,'' and that was written by the second 
most conservative Senator in the U.S. Senates, James Lankford.
    Immediately, Speaker Johnson and others began to claim the 
President doesn't need this legislation; President Biden can 
secure the border through Executive actions; there's no bills 
needed at all.
    Let us be clear. The American people are not stupid. They 
know that Republicans do not actually want to solve or address 
the situation at the border because Republicans have said that. 
Donald Trump has said that over and over again: Let's not do 
anything to solve the problem at the border. Let's keep it out 
there as an issue for the election. As we have heard from 
multiple Republicans, including on this Subcommittee, they 
would rather weaponize the border as a political issue for this 
election year.
    Today's hearing will not bring my colleagues the answers 
that they are looking for because the reality is, no, the 
President cannot, quote, ``close the border.''
    Speaker Johnson and others have said that all the President 
needs to do is to use Section 212(f) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to, quote, ``shut down the border to all border 
crossers.'' However, what they seem to forget is that President 
Trump tried to do exactly that in November 2018, and he was 
stopped by our courts. Even the Supreme Court refused to 
intervene and lift the lower court injunction.
    Whether the President can technically close the border or 
not actually misses the point. The reality is attempts to use 
cruel and inhumane deterrence and enforcement alone, which is 
what President Trump and other administrations have tried to 
do, simply does not work.
    Let's think back. When President Trump implemented the 
Remain in Mexico program early in 2019, did people stop 
crossing the border? No. No, they did not. In fact, that summer 
we saw some of the highest levels of immigration of the entire 
Trump Administration.
    We saw the same thing with the use of Title 42. When 
President Trump used Title 42 to turn back all border crossers, 
encounters between the ports of entry shot up, not down. They 
went up.
    Remember, Title 42 was also a boost to cartels. Knowing 
that they would be turned away under Title 42, migrants were 
forced to rely on cartels to try to get smuggled into the 
country between points of entry. Cartels actually offered 
packages for migrants to make multiple attempts at crossing. 
One migrant was apprehended over 40 times--just one alone. 
Human smugglers told reporters that Title 42 saved them money--
with some going as far as to say, quote, ``It's great for us.'' 
This is the cartels we're talking about.
    Let me be very clear that the vast majority of these people 
that are coming across the border, migrants, do not want to 
engage with cartels. They want to follow a legal process, and 
they do follow a legal process when we provide workable ways 
for people to seek entry and refuge.
    I have said to all Congress, the best way to help secure 
the border is to expand lawful pathways and adequately fund the 
immigration system. We have not updated the legal immigration 
system in this country in over 30 years. The more broken the 
legal immigration system is, the more people will try to come 
to the border as the only means of entry.
    We should be having hearings on this Committee about how we 
can expand lawful immigration to the United States and how it 
benefits the United States. Just last month, the Congressional 
Budget Office said that,

        Because of the recent increase in immigration, over the next 10 
        years, the economy is going to grow by $7 trillion and revenues 
        will increase by a trillion dollars.

This was further backed up by another new government study by 
the Department of Health and Human Services, which shows that 
refugees and asylees have a net positive impact of $124 billion 
over 10 years.
    I ask for unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, to enter those 
studies into the record.
    Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
    Ms. Jayapal. Unfortunately, the Republicans have time and 
time again blocked additional funding and seem to oppose more 
legal immigration. They are not interested in real solutions, 
and that is extremely unfortunate for the American people, for 
all of us across the country who want to get to a real 
solution.
    I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses and the 
perspectives they bring on this issue.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much.
    I will next recognize the Ranking Member of the House 
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, no President has ever had the ability to fully 
stop unlawful crossings. The notion that the President has all 
the authority, not to mention the resources, that he needs to 
solve all the issues at the border with the stroke of his pen 
is a fantasy.
    It has been dreamed up by a Republican Party desperate to 
justify their rejection of a bipartisan Senate deal to address 
border security. They are embarrassed to admit that the real 
reason they abandoned the deal was because Donald Trump told 
them to.
    At the behest of Donald Trump, Republicans cannot take yes 
for an answer. They are tying themselves in knots, not willing 
to do anything to actually address the border or to fix our 
immigration system, because they want to keep immigration alive 
as a campaign issue.
    So now, they have changed course. Despite spending the last 
year claiming that the only solution to the border crisis was 
their absurd, unworkable messaging bill, H.R. 2, a bill that 
got only 32 votes in the Senate last week, House Republicans 
now tell us that the President has had the authority to fix the 
border all along; he just won't use it. What a joke. What pure 
hogwash.
    Let's take a trip down memory lane. We have not 
meaningfully updated our immigration system in 30 years. 
Congress has tried multiple times to enact comprehensive 
immigration reform. The Senate last tried in 2013. House 
Republicans have stood in the way of progress at every turn.
    House Republicans have also refused to provide additional 
resources and personnel for the border. In 2021, all but six 
House Republicans voted against the bipartisan infrastructure 
deal, which provided additional funding to points of entry to 
combat smuggling of people and drugs.
    By the way, we know that most fentanyl, almost all the 
fentanyl comes in hidden in trucks that pass through points of 
entry. The way to stop the importation of fentanyl and the 
poisoning of our people is not to worry about individual 
migrants; it is to increase the inspection facilities at the 
points of entry, but Republicans don't want to do that.
    All but two current House Republicans voted against 
providing robust funding for border security operations in the 
Fiscal Year 2023 appropriations omnibus legislation. That bill 
provided more than $17 billion to Customs and Border 
Protection, including funding for an additional 300 Border 
Patrol Agents. The omnibus also included $16 million to hire 
125 CBP officers and $70 million for nonintrusive inspection 
technology to detect narcotics, like fen-
tanyl, and firearms at points of entry.
    Then, in October 2023, President Biden asked Congress for 
additional funding to support CBP in security our points of 
entry from drugs, to create a more orderly process at our 
border, and to hire more asylum officers and judges, so cases 
could be heard in weeks, not years.
    He also proposed providing the support that Ukraine and 
other allies around the world desperately need--support, I 
might add, that does not just go abroad, but that runs through 
manufacturing towns across America. Again, at Donald Trump's 
direction, Republicans said no.
    Instead, they made what they thought would be an impossible 
demand: That they would not provide aid to Ukraine or fund the 
President's border request unless policy measures to secure the 
border were attached. Then, to their surprise and horror, 
Democrats actually reached across the aisle to work with them 
toward a bipartisan solution, throwing a wrench into their 
plans.
    Republicans want to believe that Democrats are the 
characters they paint us as on Fox and Newsmax. What they fail 
to understand is that all we want is a government that works 
for the people. That is why we fight for a humane immigration 
system, an expanded social safety net, and protections for 
women, people of color, and the LGBTQIA+ people.
    Most importantly, they fail to understand that we govern 
responsibly. We don't allow ourselves to fall into chaos that 
does nothing but weaken us on the world stage. So, House 
Republicans were caught flatfooted when Senate Democrats worked 
with the minority, with the Republicans, to craft a bill to 
meet their border demands--a bill that Minority Leader Mitch 
McConnell called, ``the strongest border bill in 30 years,'' 
and that Senators Thune and Graham said, ``contains measures 
that could never be passed in the Republican-led Senate.''
    Even this bill, which contained provisions that I and many 
of my colleagues on this side of the aisle found deeply 
troubling, was not enough for House Republicans. They bowed to 
the demands of Donald Trump that they preserve the immigration 
issue for his campaign, and they killed the bill before it even 
got off the ground. As ever, they could not bring themselves to 
take yes for an answer.
    So now, in a desperate attempt to save face, they are 
switching tactics. Despite the months they spent saying that 
H.R. 2 was the silver bullet, and that legislation was 
absolutely necessary to fix the border, now they say that the 
system had a magic silver bullet in it all along. Speaker 
Johnson and the chaos caucus are insist-
ing that the President can simply use Section 212(f) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to prevent immigrants from 
crossing the border.
    If this sounds like a familiar argument to you, it should. 
That is because President Trump tried to do exactly that in 
2018, and he was immediately shot down by the courts.
    The President does not have the authority to unilaterally 
shut down the border. Neither our laws, nor our democracy, 
allow such a power. To pretend otherwise is absurd.
    Congress must work together to provide the legal tools and 
the resources necessary to address the border crisis. I know 
that there are Democrats willing to put in the hard work, but, 
so far, House Republicans have proven that Democrats have no 
partner in this effort.
    So, while I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, we 
already know the answer to the questions the majority is posing 
today. More importantly, we know exactly why they are opposing 
it. MAGA Republicans want to talk about the border, but they 
don't want to do anything about it--for the most partisan, 
cynical reasons.
    I yield back.
    Mr. McClintock. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair is now pleased to recognize the Chair of the 
House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Jordan.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the Chair. I won't make a statement. 
I want to get on with the testimony here from these fine 
witnesses. I want to mostly thank the Chair for putting this 
hearing together on this critical subject that the American 
people care deeply about.
    With that, I would yield back.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
    Well, then, we will now go to our panel of witnesses. I 
want to again thank them for their patience for the delay.
    The witnesses we have today are Mr. Art Arthur. He is the 
resident fellow in law and policy for the Center for 
Immigration Studies. Prior to that, Mr. Arthur served in the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service General Counsel's 
Office; as a Counsel in the House Judiciary Committee; as an 
Immigration Judge, and Staff Director for the National Security 
Subcommittee for the House Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform. He earned a JD from George Washington School 
of Law and a bachelor's at the University of Virginia.
    Mr. Tom Homan is the former Acting Director of U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Trump 
Administration; serving in senior roles at ICE during several 
administrations. He has 34 years of experience in Federal 
immigration enforcement, and he currently serves as a visiting 
fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
    Next, Mr. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick. Mr. Reichlin-Melnick is 
currently the Policy Director at the American Immigration 
Council, where he has also served as the policy counsel and a 
staff attorney. Prior to that, he was justice fellow on the 
Immigrant Justice Corps and the Legal Aid Society in New York. 
He earned a JD at Georgetown University Law Center and a 
bachelor's at Brandeis University. He is here at the invitation 
of the minority.
    Finally, we have Mr. Gene Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton serves as 
the Vice President and General Counsel of American First Legal. 
Prior to that, Mr. Hamilton served as Counselor to the Attorney 
General at the Department of Justice during the Trump 
Administration. He previously served as Senior Counselor to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security and as General Counsel to the 
Senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Hamilton earned 
his JD from the Washington and Lee School of Law and his 
bachelor's from the University of Georgia.
    I would like to welcome these witnesses today; thank them 
again for appearing.
    We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and 
raise your right hand?
    Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the 
testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record show the witnesses have answered in the 
affirmative.
    Please know that your written testimony will be entered 
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we would ask that 
you summarize your testimony in five minutes.
    We will begin with Mr. Arthur.

                 STATEMENT OF ANDREW R. ARTHUR

    Mr. Arthur. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I don't want to correct the Chair, but I never actually 
served in the Trump Administration. I served from the George 
H.W. Bush Administration through Barack Obama, President Barack 
Obama.
    Chair McClintock, Ranking Member Jayapal, and the Members 
of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today.
    The topic is timely, as we are in the midst of an 
unprecedented border crisis. Every month, tens of thousands are 
apprehended at the Southwest border, even while more than 
43,000 others without visas schedule appointments at the border 
ports. The majority are released, which, as a Federal judge 
found last March, is driving the border crisis. That doesn't 
count tens of thousands who evade agents monthly, so-called 
gotaways.
    Their entries are imposing billions in fiscal costs on 
States and localities for housing, healthcare, education, and 
other expenses. As the 2024 DHS Homeland Security Threat 
Assessment has explained, this crisis has created a 
vulnerability, quote, ``terrorists and criminal actors may 
exploit.''
    The Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act 
provide the President with numerous and sufficient authorities 
to bring security to the border, which I discuss at length in 
my written testimony.
    Key, however, is detention, which has been mandated for 
aliens at the ports since 1903, and for unlawful entrants since 
1996. Unlike preceding administrations, the current one has 
largely failed to comply with those statutory mandates; 
instead, ending family detention entirely, while asking 
Congress for fewer detention beds in succeeding budgets and 
claiming they'll be sufficient to comply with DHS's statutory 
mandates. They're not.
    The DHS Secretary, under 8 United States Code Section 
1368(b), is supposed to tell this Committee every six months 
how many beds the Department needs to meet those requirements. 
If it has sent you those semiannual reports, it's news to me.
    Congress must fund that detention and the resources needed 
to adjudicate those aliens' cases and removals. That will be 
costly at first, but those costs will quickly drop as entries 
drop.
    As long as illegal entrants know they'll be released to 
live and work here indefinitely pending the adjudication of 
their asylum claims, they'll continue to come.
    Detention also allows DHS to screen out those with valid 
asylum claims and remove the rest, as importantly, it would 
shift the cost of caring for those migrants from the cities and 
States to the Federal Government, where it belongs. Such 
detention must be humane and provide those held sustenance, 
medical care, and education. As a judge, I had jurisdiction 
over a family center that exceeded all those standards.
    A 2015 District Court order in Flores v. Lynch, however, 
prevents DHS from housing families for more than 20 days. I 
respectfully disagree with the conclusions therein.
    In 2019, a Federal bipartisan panel concluded that the 
children in those families were traumatized by the illegal 
journey here and that parents and children alike are 
particularly vulnerable to criminal predation. The panel found 
that Flores had exacerbated the pull factors drawing those 
migrants to this country and called on Congress to reverse it 
by legislation.
    Failing that, it asked DHS to issue regulations replacing 
that order and allowing for family migrant detention. The last 
administration did so, only to have those regulations enjoined.
    The incoming Biden Administration failed to seek Supreme 
Court review. It has also failed to issue regulations of its 
own.
    More than 1.8 million family aliens have been apprehended 
at the Southwest border since February 2021.
    The administration could also use diplomacy to encourage 
its regional partners to secure their own borders, which would 
deter new arrivals from abroad. The U.S. accounts for 25 
percent of global GDP and it is Mexico's most important trading 
partner. Reports suggest that the Biden Administration has used 
its diplomatic power to encourage greater enforcement in that 
country, but more can be done.
    Last, the administration did attempt to restrict asylum for 
aliens entering illegally, and until recently, was fighting 
court challenges against it. Last month, however, DOJ asked the 
courts to pause those cases, pending settlement negotiations. I 
commend you the February 21 order in one of those cases, East 
Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, and, in particular, the 
dissent by Judge Lawrence VanDyke.
    I take no position on the claims that Judge VanDyke makes, 
but, in any event, it's incumbent on DOJ and DHS to coordinate 
any administrative actions securing the border to ensure 
challenges will be litigated forcefully and to a conclusion.
    In September 1994, Barbara Jordan, former Member of this 
Committee and Chair of the U.S. Committee on Immigration and 
Reform, appeared before this Subcommittee and warned that, 
quote,

        If we cannot control illegal immigration, we cannot sustain our 
        national interest in legal immigration.

    Look at the polling; talk to your constituents, and you'll 
see that's what's happening today. That's bad because America 
needs immigration, albeit on the terms Congress has 
established.
    The administration and this Congress can and must do more 
to secure the border; the stakes are too high not to.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Arthur follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
    
    Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you very much for your 
testimony.
    Next, I'm pleased to welcome Mr. Tom Homan back before this 
Committee.

                  STATEMENT OF THOMAS D. HOMAN

    Mr. Homan. All right. You have my written statement. I 
don't--I'm not going to read an oral statement. I'm just going 
to talk.
    I started as a Border Patrol Agent in 1984. I became a 
Special Agent and climbed the ranked to become the first ICE 
Director that actually came up through the ranks. I worked for 
six Presidents, starting with Ronald Reagan. I've seen a lot of 
policies come and go. I see policies that worked, policies that 
didn't.
    Every President I ever worked for took border security 
seriously. Clinton and Obama took it seriously. They took steps 
to secure the border because they understood, like every other 
President, you can't have strong national security if you don't 
have strong border security.
    Understand this: President Biden is the first President in 
the history of this Nation who came into office and unsecured 
the border on purpose by signing over 90 Executive Orders 
abolishing everything we did that were successful policies.
    The result of that is: Over 1,700 aliens have died entering 
this country--a historic record.
    Three hundred and forty known and suspected terrorists off 
the Terrorist Watch List have been arrested at the Southern 
border, almost twice as many at the Northern Border--a historic 
record.
    A hundred and 14 thousand people have died from fentanyl 
overdoses that's coming across an open border--an historic 
record.
    Sex trafficking in women and children, a 600 percent 
increase--a historic record.
    Over 450,000 children have crossed this border that used 
the cartels. This administration has lost track of almost 
100,000 of them. We know where they are. We found some in 
forced labor. We found some in sex trafficking. We found some 
in debt bondage.
    On top of that, we've got 1.9 million known gotaways--not a 
guess: Known gotaways, 1.9.
    Border Patrol has arrested people from 181 different 
countries. Some of these countries are sponsors of terror. 
They've arrested 340 on the Southern border. How many of that 
1.9 came from countries sponsoring terror? If you think it's 
zero, you're wrong.
    At the same time, he destroyed the border, he abolished 
ICE. I said for a long time they're never going to abolish ICE; 
they'll never abolish a Federal agency. Well, they didn't 
abolish the agency; they abolished their mission.
    The latest victim of that, her name is Laken Riley, a young 
woman who was murdered by an illegal alien in Georgia; a young 
lady who tried to call 911 because she was about to enter hell. 
Because she was being attacked by somebody, she was living in 
terror for the last few minutes. She got taken away. This young 
lady died, a horrific murder death. She tried to get help. She 
fought for her life, and she died.
    She's one out of so many. I've met hundreds of angel moms 
and dads through my career--hundreds. How did this 
administration fail Lake Riley?
    First, the perpetrator should never have been in the 
country. He shouldn't have been in New York. He shouldn't have 
been in Georgia. He should been in Mexico in the Remain in 
Mexico program that this administration abolished.
    Even if they didn't have the Remain in Mexico program, he 
should have been detained when he entered the country illegally 
without proper documentation. The law says you ``shall be 
detained.'' Not maybe; shall. He was released.
    In New York City, he was arrested for a crime. If you read 
the newspaper, they say, well, New York City's at fault because 
they're a sanctuary city. Well, that's part of the story, but 
the other part of the story: Let's say they didn't release him.
    Based on this memorandum by Secretary Mayorkas on ICE 
priorities, ICE wouldn't have dropped a detainer on him anyways 
because he wasn't a bad enough criminal for ICE to drop a 
detainer on him. Even though the law says there is no 
prerequisite to commit a crime after you commit the crime of 
illegal entry to be a target for enforcement, but Secretary 
Mayorkas has taken a lot of criminal aliens off the table for 
ICE.
    How do I know that? By sheer numbers. A 57 percent decrease 
in arrested criminal aliens under this administration; a 68 
percent decrease in at-large arrests of criminal aliens; a 44 
percent decrease in detainer requests for criminal aliens; a 67 
percent decrease in deportations of criminal aliens; a 55 
percent decrease in immigration-related criminal convictions.
    Laken Riley was just released--was just the latest victim. 
There will be another one next week. As a matter of fact, 
there's been two since her.
    When we leave here today, nothing's going to change. If 
this administration wanted to secure the border, they've had 
three years to take action. Why do they wait until now? Well, 
there must be an election coming up.
    Then, they come up with a bill in the Senate that they know 
will never pass the House. So, they can say, well, now it's the 
Republicans' fault, and they want to blame President Trump for 
his actions.
    People will say President Trump is inhumane; Tom Homan is 
inhumane; we're racist. When Trump had immigration at a 40-45-
year low, how many women didn't get raped; how many children 
weren't lost; how many women and children weren't sex 
trafficked; and how many pounds of fentanyl didn't get into the 
country to kill Americans?
    President Trump's policies saved lives. The bottom line: 
The data shows it. This administration has destroyed the most 
secure border I've seen in my lifetime and 34 years doing this 
job. That's just a stone-cold fact.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Homan follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
    
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much.
    We will next hear from Mr. Reichlin-Melnick.

              STATEMENT OF AARON REICHLIN-MELNICK

    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Chair Jordan, Chair McClintock, 
Ranking Member Jayapal, and distinguished Members of the 
Committee--of the Subcommittee, my name is Aaron Reichlin-
Melnick. I am the Policy Director at the American Immigration 
Council, a nonprofit 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 seeking protection.
    There should be no doubt that we need new laws and more 
resources to respond to the current situation at the border. 
The last time Congress made any major changes to the asylum 
process was 1996, when the Macarena was still a hit dance 
craze, and the main concern at the border was Mexican laborers 
seeking work.
    Our asylum system was designed in a largely pre-digital age 
before the rise of social media, smart phones, translation 
apps, and a world that has become smaller than ever.
    Over the last decade, Presidential authority to address the 
border has been stretched as far as it can go and often taken 
beyond what the law allows. Every president over the last 20 
years, from Bush through Biden, has called for changes in the 
law and for more resources.
    Even President Trump previously said in 2018 that, ``the 
only long-term solution was for Congress to act.'' Despite 
decades of bipartisan agreement that Congress needs to 
legislate, with of course stark disagreements as to how, in 
recent months, an unusual theory has taken hold, that the 
President can shut the U.S.-Mexico border to migrants with a 
stroke of a pen and no help from Congress.
    This theory is fundamentally wrong. No such authority 
exists, not even Section 212(f) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, which in 2018 President Trump tried and failed 
to use to shut the border.
    Even if there were some overlooked law on the books which 
authorized the President turn away everyone, operational and 
diplomatic limitations prevent any President from simply 
shutting the border overnight.
    First, U.S. and international law still require a screening 
for anyone who expresses a fear of persecution before 
deportation, even if asylum itself is banned. Without enough 
asylum officers to carry out those screenings, even a policy 
which bars asylum to all migrants can only be applied at the 
border to a limited number of people.
    This is not theoretical. In May, the Biden Administration 
restricted asylum for nearly all migrants crossing the border 
outside ports of entry. Even though DHS is currently setting 
new records for credible fear interviews, nearly double the 
number of credible fear interviews done under the Trump 
Administration, lack of asylum officers means that most people 
crossing can't have this restriction applied until years later 
in court in front of an immigration judge.
    Other issues exist too. Many migrants arriving at the 
border today cannot be deported at all because there is no 
country that is willing to take them. For example, Venezuela, a 
country which we have subject to intense sanctions, has for 
years retaliated by barring direct U.S. deportation flights.
    Fewer than 3,000 Venezuelans have been deported by 
commercial airlines in the last decade. When the Biden 
Administration briefly got Venezuela to restart deportation 
flights, they ended in a matter of months because once again 
the Maduro regime cracked down on elections and stopped the 
planes.
    So, how do we fix this? Well, hiring more immigration 
judges and asylum officers is an easy first step. A robust 
infusion of resources over time will eliminate bottlenecks and 
allows us to carry out basic screenings and decide asylum cases 
in months, not years.
    We also need innovative thinking about restructuring the 
system for modern challenges that we face today. For example, 
migrants must wait years for their cases to be heard in a 
system that is backlogged as it. Back in 1996, we made it 
illegal for asylum seekers to work and support themselves in 
the months after they arrive.
    If asylum seekers could work, they wouldn't have to sit 
around in shelters all day, and they could support themselves. 
If the Federal Government played a leading role in coordinating 
arrivals, cities could work together and tap Federal resources 
to get people on their feet as they go through the process with 
a limited impact on local budget and improvement of the process 
for everyone.
    Beyond providing sufficient resources to reestablish a 
functioning asylum system, Congress must also pay attention to 
our legal immigration system, which is plagued with backlogs 
and rising costs. Not only are we driving away the world's best 
and brightest, but our broken legal immigration system helps 
unscrupulous actors sell migrants on the idea that the asylum 
system is their only way to seek the American dream.
    Over the last decade, we have seen Presidents trying more 
and more aggressive crackdowns and ramped-up enforcement. It 
has not worked. So today, Congress has a choice. Do we kick the 
can down the road yet again, or do we do the one thing that we 
haven't tried and rebuild our broken asylum system, hiring more 
asylum officers, cutting backlogs, and giving people a fair 
shot?
    I urge legislators to address this issue with the 
seriousness it deserves and not to fall for a myth that can be 
solved overnight. Thank you, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Reichlin-Melnick follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
    
    Mr. McClintock. Finally, we will hear from Mr. Hamilton.

                 STATEMENT OF GENE P. HAMILTON

    Mr. Hamilton. Thank you. Chair McClintock, Ranking Member 
Jayapal, other the Members of the Committee, I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify before you today about this important 
issue.
    Laken Riley, Kayla Hamilton, Kate Steinle, Lizbeth Medina, 
and Melissa Powell and her son, Riordan. These are just a few 
of the Americans who have been killed by illegal aliens who 
should not have been in the United States.
    These are tragically just a few victims, not to mention the 
countless victims of assault, sexual assault, human 
trafficking, smuggling, and other crimes affecting American 
communities across the United States, as my colleague Mr. Homan 
articulated.
    Congress has provided the President and the Executive 
Branch with significant, powerful tools that can secure the 
border. Unfortunately, the situation we see today, the chaos, 
the crime, the overwhelmed cities and States, and the tearing 
apart of the very fabric of our Nation is the result of 
deliberate, intentional policy decisions made throughout the 
Biden Administration since January 20, 2021.
    President Biden himself bears responsibility for the 
situation today. The Biden Administration has abandoned reason, 
common sense, and fidelity to the law when it comes to our 
immigration system.
    They have opted to end effective immigration enforcement 
policies employed by prior administrations of both political 
parties and knowingly adopted policies that facilitate the 
entry of millions of illegal aliens into the United States.
    No society can thrive, much less sustain itself, under the 
pressures and damage caused by these decisions. As a country 
defined by our commitment to the rule of law, and given our 
exceptional position in recorded human history, we must 
acknowledge some fundamental principles when it comes to border 
security in our immigration system.
    Every country has a sovereign right and responsibility to 
control its borders, and the United States is no different. The 
United States is the greatest country in the world, and 
hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people worldwide 
would come here if they could. We cannot accommodate even a 
fraction of those people.
    Most illegal aliens are not asylum seekers. Deporting 
illegal aliens from the United States advances our national 
sovereignty and is an essential component of our immigration 
system. Further, doing so accords due respect for the 
individuals who obey our laws and come through the legal, 
established visa programs.
    For those individuals who do not intend to use our visa 
system, but want to come to the United States anyways, only one 
thing matters--getting released into the interior of the United 
States. Of course then, releasing illegal aliens into the 
interior of the United States fundamentally results in more 
illegal aliens trying to come to the United States.
    The Biden Administration's publicly available data 
demonstrate that Southwest border encounters are at record 
highs. The overwhelming majority of illegal aliens encountered 
at the Southwest border are released into the interior of the 
United States.
    The Biden Administration is adding millions, millions of 
illegal aliens into the population who are already here. They 
know that using tools like migrant protection protocols, asylum 
cooperative agreements, expedited removal, visa sanctions on 
countries that refuse to take back their nationals, detention 
of aliens who are apprehended at the border pending the outcome 
of their immigration court proceedings, and other effective 
uses of law would end the crisis at the border relatively 
quickly.
    They don't actually want an end to this crisis.
    I am happy to answer your questions and thank you for your 
attention to this matter.
    [The statement of Mr. Hamilton follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
    
    Mr. McClintock. All right, thank you very much for your 
testimony. We will now move to questions from the Committee's 
Members, and we will begin with Mr. Tiffany.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    So, Mr. Hamilton, I would like to add a story from Northern 
Wisconsin in my district. Steven Nasholm is dead. He is dead 
today, just died a month ago when a second-time DWI offender 
who was here illegally in America got his first DWI a little 
over a year ago, allowed to skate, not detained.
    Now, a father of three daughters in Northern Wisconsin is 
dead as a result of what is going on down at the Southern 
border.
    So, I think I will start with you, Mr. Arthur. We heard 
from Mr. Reichlin-Melnick that we could be employing all these 
people that are here illegally in America. It seems like the 
most robust wage growth that happened for those people in the 
lower socio-economic scale four years ago happened during the 
previous administration in like 20 or 30 years. Is that 
accurate?
    Mr. Arthur. It is, Mr. Tiffany. Wages among Hispanic 
Americans, African Americans increased during that period of 
time.
    Mr. Tiffany. We heard about these backlogs of people that 
want to come into our country legally. Does all of this, what 
ten million people at this point, help alleviate the backlogs 
that we have here?
    Mr. Arthur. Respectfully, I would disagree with Mr. 
Reichlin-Melnick. The pull factors it creates encourage people 
to, even greater numbers of people, to come here illegally.
    In addition, this is a problem that we are going to be 
facing for years to come right now, it creates smuggling 
networks that other nationals from countries far away from the 
United States' traditional sending countries can then use to 
come to this country.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Homan, we heard that enforcement has not 
worked. Administration after administration, enforcement has 
not worked. Is that your experience?
    Mr. Homan. Absolutely not. There has to be a consequence. 
Look, you can't demand I have the right to claim asylum, I got 
a right to see a judge. You get the order removed, and we don't 
execute the order. If that is the case, shut down the 
immigration courts, take the border patrol off the border. 
There has to be a consequence.
    Entering this country illegally is a crime. It is not OK. 
So, we have to execute final orders removal. That is why lately 
there has been a lot of hate on, well, Trump said he is ``going 
to run the biggest deportation operation in history.''
    Well, he is going to have to, because we just went through 
the largest historic illegal immigration crisis we have ever 
seen. Ninety percent of these people lose their case and get 
order removal. They need to be removed.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Hamilton, I was recently down on the 
Southern border and stopped at Casa Alitas, one of the links in 
the chain for illegal immigration here in America, the NGO's 
that are doing their work.
    Just first I throw out to you generally, is it correct, my 
observation that NGO's, along with the cartels, the United 
Nations, and our U.S. Government, are a critical link in this 
chain at this point of bringing people into our country 
illegally?
    Mr. Hamilton. Absolutely. That is fundamentally true. There 
is absolutely no doubt about that, based on my personal 
experience, observations in the past, and what is happening 
today.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are you familiar with the story of the Red 
Cross passing out maps to illegal immigrants as they go through 
Central America and Mexico to show them their way here?
    Mr. Hamilton. I have heard of such things, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would defer to the two gentlemen on the 
left. Isn't that accurate that this has happened?
    Mr. Homan. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Isn't it also accurate that organizations like 
the International Organization for Migration, which I think we 
fund 25 percent of the United Nations, don't we? Something like 
that. Isn't it also accurate that they are passing out prepaid 
debit cards?
    Mr. Homan. That is correct.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, the NGO's are a critical chain in this, 
part of this whole chain for illegal immigration. What should 
we do in regard to those NGO's that are facilitating illegal 
immigration, that are a link in the chain? Go ahead.
    Mr. Homan. Well, I think you need to stop funding them, 
first. Because you know, while there's thousands of empty ICE 
beds, at about $117 a night sitting empty, we will pay an NGO 
to put them in a hotel room in New York City for 500 bucks a 
night, three meals a day, free medical care, and work 
authorization.
    You are rewarding illegal behavior. So, when you are in ICE 
detention, the average length of stay is 35-40 days. When they 
get out, it will be years.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chair, I am going to yield back. It seems 
like the NGO's are profiting from this.
    Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. 
Jayapal.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to start by noting that one of our witnesses was one 
of the leading architects of the Trump Administration's cruel 
and horrific family separation policy.
    I was the first Member of Congress to go and meet with 
separated moms detained in Federal prison. I heard firsthand 
how the Trump Administration imposed a zero-humanity policy to 
prosecute parents in mass court proceedings, resulting in the 
U.S. Government under Donald Trump tearing thousands of 
children from their moms and dads.
    None of the mothers that I met with even got to say goodbye 
to their children. Some were put in rooms right next to their 
children, and they could hear their children sobbing for them, 
and they never got to say goodbye. I am still to this day 
haunted by the testimonials that I heard from parents and from 
children.
    The Department of Justice Inspector General came out with a 
detailed report that says that Attorney General Sessions and 
his top aides, like our witness Mr. Hamilton, were the key 
drivers of that policy.
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter that report 
into the record.
    Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
    Ms. Jayapal. We have memos that were leaked, filled with 
edits and comments from Mr. Hamilton where he clearly approves 
of a plan to begin ``separating family units'' and is even 
looking for ways to ensure that children who are separated from 
their families are removed as quickly as possible.
    I ask unanimous consent that this be placed into the record 
as well.
    Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thanks to Democratic oversight efforts, we 
know the tragic results of Donald Trump's cruel family 
separation policy today. As many as 2,000 children still remain 
separated from their parents.
    We have testimony from child welfare experts that the best 
available evidence shows that Donald Trump's policy of tearing 
children from their parents ``entails very significant and 
potentially lifelong risks of psychological and physical 
harm.''
    So, Mr. Hamilton, my question for you is simple: Do you 
regret the role that you played in the family separation 
policy, yes or no?
    Mr. Hamilton. I would refer you to the statement that I 
provided.
    Ms. Jayapal. I asked for a yes-or-no answer.
    Mr. Hamilton. I am giving you an answer. I am not going to 
give you a yes or no. I would refer you to the statement that I 
provided the Inspector General about my assessment of their 
report and the accuracy thereof.
    Ms. Jayapal. A 2021 DOJ Inspector General report determined 
that your office, after investigation, after talking to you, 
the Office of the Attorney General was the ``driving force 
behind the family separation policy.''
    The Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, actually 
issued a statement of regret for his role. I assume that you 
have no such statement of regret to offer us today?
    Mr. Hamilton. I think if you read my statement and not just 
the hatchet job that the Inspector General's Office issued, you 
would see my feelings about the matter.
    Ms. Jayapal. The evidence clearly indicates that your zero-
humanity policy was intended to permanently separate children 
from their parents. It is a fact that DOJ did not coordinate 
with HHS or even give HHS a heads up on the policy before 
rolling out the family separation policy.
    As you know very well, children deemed or rendered 
unaccompanied are in HHS custody, and the DOJ Inspector General 
noted your own experience coordinating across multiple agencies 
to implement policy. You knew very well, Mr. Hamilton, exactly 
what you were doing.
    Your former colleague, Attorney General Sessions' Chief of 
Staff, Matt Whitaker, admitted to me under oath in this room 
that DOJ did not have a system in place at the outset of the 
family separ-
ation on the prosecution side to track separated parents and
children.
    No less than five of your own prosecutors raised concerns 
with you about what was to happen to separated kids in the days 
after you released the policy. Your boss's response was we need 
to take away children.
    I am deeply troubled that you can't even do what Deputy 
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did and, actually say, that you 
regret your role in that absolute catastrophe.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, very quickly because I only have 18 
seconds left, my colleagues claim that Section 212(f) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act gives the President the ability 
to shut down the border. Can you please explain that is 
inaccurate, and what happened when former President Trump tried 
to rely on that so-called authority to shut down the border?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Well, just as quickly as I can, you 
cannot override the Immigration and Nationality Act.
    Chair Jordan. Use your microphone.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. The Supreme Court itself said both in 
2018 and--
    Mr. McClintock. Microphone.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Just really quickly, but the Supreme 
Court said in both 1993 and in 2018 that 212(f) cannot override 
the core provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. One 
of those is the right to seek asylum, regardless of how a 
person enters the country. Therefore, you just cannot use it 
for this authority.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. It can be used to interdict people at 
sea, but that is different because they haven't arrived on U.S. 
soil. Migrants who have already crossed the border and are on 
U.S. soil cannot be turned away without authority.
    Mr. McClintock. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Jayapal. I yield back.
    Mr. McClintock. Chair Jordan.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Hamilton, did Joe Biden cause this problem?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. He not only caused the problem, but he told 
us he was going to cause the problem, didn't he?
    Mr. Hamilton. He absolutely did.
    Chair Jordan. In the Democrat debate in 2020, here is what 
then-candidate Joe Biden said quote, ``migrants should 
immediately surge to the border.'' They took him up on his 
offer.
    So, the idea that the Democrats say oh, no, no, it was 
Trump who caused the problem, it is Republicans who caused the 
problem, it is climate change that caused the problem is BS. 
Joe Biden caused it, and he told us he was going to do it.
    What has that resulted in? Eight million migrants are 
coming into the country in three years and 47 days. Eight 
million, and we are on pace to get to 12 million. That is the 
magnitude of the problem.
    Mr. Hamilton, has that magnitude of that, that volume of 
individuals coming to our country, has that put a strain on the 
United States, on communities and everything else?
    Mr. Hamilton. Absolutely. Anyone can look and talk to 
mayors, talk to local communities, talk to any governors, and 
see the results themselves for themselves.
    Chair Jordan. Does it put a strain on schools?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Remember up in New York when they told 
parents your kids can't come to school today because we have to 
put migrants in the schools? They are going to have to learn 
remotely.
    Mr. Hamilton. Correct.
    Chair Jordan. Did it put a strain on hospitals?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. How about law enforcement?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. All kinds of law enforcement concerns, not 
just the attacks on law, but there's all kinds of other 
concerns, right?
    Mr. Hamilton. Right.
    Chair Jordan. Concern on safety in communities around our 
country, not just on the border, did it put a concern on 
safety?
    How about municipal budgets, is there a concern there?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Because of this problem that Joe Biden told 
us he was going to cause and actually caused it. Have migrants 
died in this journey coming here because Joe Biden told them to 
surge to our border and come into our country?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Kids?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Women, all kinds of terrible things happen to 
them.
    Mr. Hamilton. Absolutely.
    Chair Jordan. Then back to your opening statement. Have 
Americans died?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Laken Riley, Kate Steinle, and others, right?
    Mr. Hamilton. Right.
    Chair Jordan. That is the magnitude of this problem. We are 
on pace, we are on pace to get to 12 million in the four-years 
of Joe Biden being President.
    I tell people that is equivalent to the entire population 
of our State. We are a big State. We are the seventh largest 
State in this great country. Twelve million people.
    So, here is where I think we are at. We know the cause of 
the problem; we know the magnitude of the problem. What is the 
solution? It seems to me we call time out. It seems to me we 
say no more. Let's not exacerbate the problem, let's just say 
time out.
    I have advocated for a simple sentence that I want you guys 
to comment on. I have advocated for a sentence in an 
appropriation bill that says no money can be used to process 
any more or release into the country any new migrants.
    What do you think about that, Mr. Hamilton?
    Mr. Hamilton. I think that would be a wonderful idea.
    Chair Jordan. Don't you think the American--I have never 
seen in my time, I have been in politics a few years now. I 
don't know if I have ever seen an issue with this intensity.
    We got a time with record inflation. Take your family out 
to dinner in the Biden American economy, right now you can take 
your family out to dinner, it is 300 bucks just to take your 
family out for a nice meal in this Biden inflation world.
    What is the No. 1 issue in polling across the board? It is 
the border. That is how intense this issue is with the American 
people. Maybe we should just say time out. Let's stop now.
    What do you think, Mr. Homan, should we do that?
    Mr. Homan. I think we need to secure the border and save 
lives. Bottom line is I understand one of the Congresswoman met 
with separated families' parents.
    Did she meet Laken Riley's parents? How many of them have 
met with--we got angel moms and dads by the thousands who were 
separated from their families, but they buried their children 
because of the open border.
    Chair Jordan. I am all for securing the border. We passed 
good legislation a year ago that would do that. What I am 
saying is when the problem is this--when the magnitude of the 
problem is where it is now, the old line, when you are in a 
hole, quit digging, right?
    Like, let's quit making it worse by allowing more and more 
people to come into the country. Maybe we should just say time 
out and then focus on securing the border of course. Just stop 
the influx that we see.
    That is what I am asking you. Do you think that makes sense 
now?
    Mr. Homan. We have to stop the influx.
    Chair Jordan. Yup. Mr. Arthur?
    Mr. Arthur. Mr. Chair, it is clear that we have to stop the 
influx. This is unsustainable.
    In fact, President Obama did an interview, former President 
Obama, did an interview on ABC on Good Morning America back in 
September 2021. He talked about the humanitarian concerns. We 
are a humanitarian people, and we have instincts for that.
    He noted the fact that open borders are unsustainable. Mr. 
Chair, right now we are seeing the unsustainability of open 
borders. Cities and towns across the United States.
    I live in North Carolina. We don't really have a whole lot 
of illegal immigrant problems. The people in North Carolina 
when they are polled say it is a huge issue. My neighbors, they 
tell me that is a huge issue because they are feeling it 
everywhere.
    Chair Jordan. Joe Biden caused the problem. He told us he 
was going to do it. The magnitude of the problem is so 
egregious it is the No. 1 issue on the minds of the American 
people.
    The solution to the problem could be with Congress if we 
would just say we are not going to fund the processing and 
releasing of any more migrants into the country. That is what 
we could do.
    Short of that, we are going to have to wait for an 
election. Hopefully have President Trump win so we can get back 
to a Chief Executive who actually will enforce the border.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. McClintock. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Hamilton, you authored Chair Jordan's August 2023 
amicus brief before Fifth Circuit in Missouri v. Biden, 
correct?
    Mr. Hamilton. That is correct.
    Mr. Nadler. That brief cites heavily to transcripts from 
interviews taken by this Committee, correct?
    Mr. Hamilton. That is correct.
    Mr. Nadler. Were you provided access to those transcripts?
    Mr. Hamilton. I was provided access to transcripts, yes.
    Mr. Nadler. How were they made available to you?
    Mr. Hamilton. Well, I am not going to get into anything 
further, anything that would be protected by a privilege. So 
no, I am not going to answer that question.
    Mr. Nadler. Wait a minute, how you got access to 
transcripts is not protected by privilege.
    Mr. Hamilton. Well, sure it is. My communications and the 
way that I talk with my client and the method in which I 
receive things from them is protected.
    Mr. Nadler. OK, but you got the transcripts. Are you aware 
that these transcripts have not been released to the public?
    Mr. Hamilton. I have no awareness of anything. I have 
awareness of what my client tells me.
    Mr. Nadler. That is an interesting admission. Are you aware 
that I sent Mr. Jordan a letter this past August explaining 
that the brief you wrote repeatedly misrepresented what 
witnesses actually said in those interviews?
    Mr. Hamilton. I have heard about a letter that was sent by 
you.
    Mr. Nadler. Are you aware that it is sanctionable violation 
of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to knowingly 
misrepresent facts before a tribunal?
    Mr. Hamilton. I am certainly aware of the rule. I am 
certainly aware that we did not violate the rule.
    Mr. Nadler. If you believe that you correctly and honestly 
represented the facts brought out in those witness interviews, 
will join me in calling on Mr. Jordan to make all the 
transcripts public without delay?
    Mr. Hamilton. I will do no such thing at this point in 
time.
    Mr. Nadler. Why not?
    Mr. Hamilton. I am not going to engage in a debate with you 
on something that I have with one of my clients in an open 
hearing.
    Mr. Nadler. OK, so let me summarize. There is testimony 
before a closed hearing of this Committee, a transcribed 
interview before a closed hearing of this Committee. Those 
transcriptions, or transcriptions of those interviews are made 
available to you. You use them in a letter--you use them in a 
brief that you write.
    Those transcripts have not been released to the public. 
Allegations have been made, including by me, in a long letter 
to Mr. Jordan that there were misrepresentations of those 
transcripts. You won't join me in asking that they be made 
public so we can see whether in fact I am correct in saying 
that your letter, or your brief rather, misrepresents those 
transcripts.
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to place my August 2023 
letter to Mr. Jordan into the record.
    Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Now, Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, my 
colleagues on the other side of the dais seem fixed on the idea 
that the President and the Executive Branch have the ability to 
exert total control over the border, even going so far as to 
force an impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas because he would 
not--he could not adhere to the impossible ``operational 
control'' standards of the Secure Fence Act.
    Has any President of any party ever been able to exert 
total operational control over the border in accordance with 
the standards for the Secure Fence Act?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. No, not all.
    Mr. Nadler. Has any country in modern history been able to 
exert such control over their borders?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. No, no country in human history has 
been able to shut the border to 100 percent of crossers. In 
fact, every Presidential Administration, the last three have 
all released many people crossing the border.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. When was the last time that Congress 
reformed the immigration system to expand lawful pathways, and 
have encounters at the border increased or decreased since that 
time?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. The last time Congress expanded 
lawful pathways was November 1990, one month before the first 
website went online. At the time, crossings were a little bit 
higher than they are today.
    At the time, only about one in three people crossing was 
even detected. Today, 70-80 percent of people crossing are 
detected, given all the border security apparatus that has been 
built up since then.
    Mr. Nadler. The numbers are about the same.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. About the same. It is hard to say 
because we don't have data on unique encounters, but--
    Mr. Nadler. OK.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Not that different.
    Mr. Nadler. In May 2023, last year, the American 
Immigration Council published a report entitled, ``Beyond a 
Border Solution'' outlining your recommendations for long-term 
fixes to the problems in our immigration system, rather than 
focusing on short-term patches.
    In the time we have left, can you please discuss some of 
the solutions you proposed in that report and how they would be 
more effective than trying to unilaterally shut down the 
border?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. The first and most important thing 
Congress can do is just put resources in the system. You cannot 
adjudicate asylum claims at the border rapidly if you don't 
have asylum officers to do it. You cannot have immigration 
cases heard rapidly if you don't have the immigration judges to 
do it.
    You need to get the system functioning again, and the only 
way to do that is if Congress steps in. Unfortunately, earlier 
this week, I think today Congress voted to actually cut the 
budget of the immigration court, cutting it by $16 million. 
This is not the way forward. We need to increase that budget.
    Mr. McClintock. All right, thank you very much.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much, I yield back.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Roy.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Chair. I thank the witnesses for being 
here and providing your testimony. Mr. Homan, a quick question. 
Would you characterize my engagement with the Trump 
Administration with respect to border security as strong, as 
supportive of what the Trump Administration was doing in 
working with you, maybe Mr. Morgan and others, to try to 
accomplish the objectives of securing the border of the United 
States?
    Mr. Homan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Roy. Would you characterize, based on your knowledge, 
that in some way, shape, or form I, though, bow down to the 
former President? Would you think that would be the common 
knowledge of people out in the world that somehow that is my 
position?
    Mr. Homan. Not you.
    Mr. Roy. Is it true that I endorsed an opponent of the 
former President in the primary?
    Mr. Homan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Roy. Is it true that the former President called on a 
primary challenger for me in December?
    Mr. Homan. Sir, I don't--
    Mr. Roy. Did the former President call on a primary 
challenger for me in December?
    Mr. Homan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Roy. So, the reason I bring that up is, are you also 
aware that I opposed fairly vigorously and loudly the Senate 
bill prior to the former President's commentary on the bill?
    Mr. Homan. You and every expert I know that's worn the 
uniform and did the job.
    Mr. Roy. Numerous Republicans that you know and work with 
that were concerned and seeking guidance on what we were 
hearing in terms of what the Senate bill was going to be and 
how it was produced expressed opposition to the bill prior to 
the former President commenting on the bill.
    Mr. Homan. Yes, because we believe H.R. 2 was a fix.
    Mr. Roy. Or the Senate bill, the Senate bill was a fix.
    Mr. Homan. No, we believe H.R. 2.
    Mr. Roy. You believe that H.R. 2 was the bill that would 
fix the problem. The Senate bill is a bill that was a big bill 
by our Democratic colleagues--
    Mr. Homan. Right.
    Mr. Roy. --to have something to hide behind.
    Mr. Homan. The Senate bill would not solve the problem. 
H.R. 2 would have solved the problem because it's based on 
policies that we proved are effective.
    Mr. Roy. So, this notion that our Democratic colleagues are 
putting forth for people to believe as we head into the State 
of the Union tonight that the Senate bill would actually solve 
the problem is false. The idea that somehow it is Republicans 
who were the problem because they put up a fake bill that 
wouldn't secure the bill, that would codify the mass releases 
that is somehow the actual reality, correct?
    Mr. Homan. I think the Senate bill was an attempt to switch 
gears and put it on the Republicans' head. It will never pass 
the House.
    Mr. Roy. To that point, I think it is critically 
importantly for Mr. Hamilton, you would have the opportunity to 
maybe respond to some of the accusations about the Trump 
Administration, about the policies. Do you have some thoughts 
on those?
    Mr. Hamilton. Well, I certainly do and thank you for the 
time. Look, our policies that we adopted across the Trump 
Administration and throughout the Trump Administration were 
about securing the border, about protecting the integrity of 
our immigration system, and reducing human suffering.
    It is undoubted no one can deny the fact that there are 
countless people who are harmed on the journey up to the United 
States who were trafficked, who were enslaved here in the 
United States. If we want to talk about family separations, I 
would like to point out that this administration's policies 
have led to 500,000 children being separated by their parents 
coming to the United States by themselves and subjected to who 
knows what and lost by this Department, by this Department of 
Health and Human Services.
    No one cares. No one cares where those kids are in this 
administration. No one is going out and looking for them. So, 
for all these crocodile tears that are shed about what happened 
in a prosecution policy during the Trump Administration, nobody 
cares about the 85,000 plus kids that this administration has 
lost and the 500,000 kids who have been trafficked here during 
this administration.
    Mr. Roy. The children that have been lost by this 
administration, they don't even know where they are, right? 
They're ORR?
    Mr. Hamilton. They're gone.
    Mr. Roy. Another issue here that I think merits 
consideration is the extent to which we--the allegation that 
you have got Members of the Republican conference who have 
expressed a belief that this administration could actually 
reverse a lot of the damage that it has done compared to our 
simultaneous belief that we need legislation to fix problems. 
Those two things can be true, correct?
    The idea that we are talking about 212(f), which by the way 
has not been fully explored, but also the notion that parole 
has been abused for mass releases, which is precisely how the 
individual got into the United States that killed Laken Riley, 
by mass releases. Is that true, Mr. Hamilton?
    Mr. Hamilton. That's true.
    Mr. Roy. Is that true, Mr. Homan?
    Mr. Homan. Yes.
    Mr. Roy. So, the idea that you don't also need legislation 
to deal with Flores, the catch and release, the issue they had 
previous rulings by courts that caused the family separation 
type issues is false. Of course we need legislation. We need 
legislation that works. H.R. 2 would work. The legislation 
would actually solve problems.
    It would create an environment where it could enforce the 
law. It would hold the administration accountable, and it would 
give power for States to be able to hold it accountable. The 
idea you can't have that at the same time and saying that this 
President is responsible through mass parole to endangering 
American people is a fiction by our Democratic colleagues 
trying to obfuscate and cover up for the open border policies 
killing Americans. I yield back.
    Mr. McClintock. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Correa.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, let me say that no 
Democrat, and I imagine no Republican, is for any kind of 
criminal activity. None of us condone any kind of criminal 
activity. I believe that any criminal that preys on our 
taxpayers should be prosecuted, and the United States is no 
place for a criminal.
    Now, a few years I came home from work to police sirens, 
police activity, many police cars in my neighborhood. Later, I 
found out that a man had been caught in the middle of an act of 
raping a woman in a local laundry room, an apartment laundry 
room. Later, the local police chief told me that they had 
determined through investigation that this man was responsible 
for at least 20 rapes that had been reported. All the victims 
were undocumented, and the perpetrator was an American citizen. 
The perpetrator was an American system. There is no place in 
our society for these animals.
    Mr. Melnick, I am going to ask you, what is a secure 
border?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. I mean, that's a hard question to 
answer because the definition depends on everybody. The border 
has had--is it a border that 100 percent--
    Mr. Correa. I am going to ask you again, have we ever had a 
secure border on any administration?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. No. No administration has ever 100 
percent shut the border.
    Mr. Correa. Mr. Melnick, did President or President Biden 
cause the COVID epidemic?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. No.
    Mr. Correa. Is the border challenge right now that we have 
essentially a refugee crisis at our border, is that unique to 
the United States?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. No. Every country in the Western 
hemisphere is--
    Mr. Correa. Colombia has about 3-4 million refugees that 
they are dealing with. Costa Rica's Ambassador was screaming at 
us the other day. He's got a refugee challenge. Mexico, and 
this morning, I found out even Jordan has a major challenge 
with refugees. Of course, Germany and the rest of Europe.
    So, my question to you is why are people coming? I found 
out that by the time women from Central America reach our 
border, about 80 percent of them, 80 percent of them are either 
raped or sexually abused. They prepare their bodies for that 
eventuality.
    So, my question would be from me to you is why in God's 
name undertake that dangerous trip North? Is it because they 
are looking for a place to enjoy vacation or why would they 
come North?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. No one wants to leave home. They 
leave because they have no other options, or they feel that 
they have no other options. Because our legal immigration 
systems just don't allow people to come here in a way that we 
would want them to.
    Again, because we have 7.6 million people waiting in green 
card backlogs, it is taking people 20 years to get visas to 
come here. That has allowed unscrupulous actors to sell this 
idea that coming to the Southern border is the only way. Of 
course, it's a mixed flow. We have people arriving at our 
border today who have slam dunk asylum claims. We have people 
who are just coming because the United States is the safest and 
most secure Nation in the region. We don't have a process--
    Mr. Correa. Is that something new or is that something that 
has been going on here for a couple hundred years?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. No, it's not new. What is new, is how 
far abroad people are coming from. Certainly, this idea of 
coming to the United States this way is not new. People have 
been crossing our border for over a century.
    Mr. Correa. So, would you say right now the debate here in 
this country is confusing the refugee asylum challenge with 
immigration reform? It sounds like we are talking about the 
same issue, but we really have two different issues.
    Today my guest at the State of the Union is a dreamer, who 
has been here almost all her life. She is studying medicine in 
my district. She can't find that line to that door we keep 
talking about. Her family can't either, yet they have been 
productive members of this society for 20-30 years. Are those 
two issues being kind of convoluted right now politically?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Yes, for most people there is no line 
that they can get into. There is no process to get there.
    Mr. Correa. Because there's no door.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. There is no door. If we just have a 
myopic focus on just the U.S.-Mexico border, and we ignore 
everything else that is happening in the--
    Mr. Correa. Is Mexico helping us at the border? Are they 
being partners with us or are they not?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Our relationship with Mexico is 
incredibly entangled on migration. They have been providing 
more and more assistance.
    Mr. Correa. Our guards in blue and green uniforms that told 
me they have never had better cooperation from Mexico at the 
border.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. It has been since the Programa 
Frontera Sur under President Obama in 2014 we have had 
increasing cooperation with the Mexican government. Of course, 
that has not been enough given the scale of migration and 
displacement in the Western Hemisphere over the last few years.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield.
    Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. 
Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Mr. Homan, who controls the U.S. 
Southern border?
    Mr. Homan. The criminal cartels in Mexico.
    Mr. Biggs. Who directs who is going to enter between the 
ports of entry?
    Mr. Homan. The criminal cartels of Mexico control our 
Southern border. They decide who goes where, when, and how.
    Mr. Biggs. When was the last time you were at the border, 
Mr. Homan?
    Mr. Homan. Ten weeks ago.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Arthur, my question for you is, you are 
aware of the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii?
    Mr. Arthur. I am, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. That dealt with Presidential authority regarding 
entry of non-U.S. citizens--excuse me, non-U.S. persons in the 
country. Can you explain to us what the holding was in that 
court, not dicta, but the holding?
    Mr. Arthur. The holding in that case was that the travel 
restrictions that the Trump Administration had implemented, 
which were implemented under Section 212(f), the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, were valid.
    The Supreme Court looked at 212(f), and they stated that it 
exudes deference to the Executive in every clause.
    Mr. Biggs. It exudes deference to the Executive Branch. So, 
Mr. Hamilton, does that mean that Congress needs to pass a new 
law immediately for this administration to try to grapple with 
the massive invasion from people coming across the border?
    Mr. Hamilton. I think that there are a number of tools that 
this administration has abandoned. There are number of tools 
that are available that have yet to be further explored and 
expanded on that Congress has already provided that could 
secure the border and begin securing the border tomorrow.
    Mr. Biggs. Give me an example of one of those tools.
    Mr. Hamilton. MPP.
    Mr. Biggs. Don't you need Mexico to cooperate to implement 
MPP?
    Mr. Hamilton. You need to overcome their will. It is a 
battle of wills, and Mexico is never going to want to accept 
it.
    Mr. Biggs. Mexico, indeed, did not want to accept it, 
right, Mr. Homan, when the previous administration under Donald 
Trump was trying to implement MPP?
    Mr. Homan. Yes, I was kind of thinking backward from the 
last conversation that the relationships with Mexico had never 
been better. They were excellent under President Trump. They 
put military on their Southern border and Northern border. They 
entered into a Remain in Mexico program. They entered into 
Third Safe Country Agreement. I have never seen cooperation 
better than it was under President Trump.
    Mr. McClintock. Does the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Biggs. No Yes, so I find it really interesting, I mean, 
on the many times that I have been down at the border, I 
remember seeing the Mexican National Guard in Juarez. I 
remember seeing them in various other locations along the 
Southern border including in Agua Prieta and Naco. I saw them. 
I saw them. We actually had mild discourse with them. So, I 
find it very interesting.
    Let's talk now about what else is happening. What other 
authorities are necessary? What does this President say? He's 
never really said what authority he thinks he lacks. Mr. 
Arthur, have you heard him say or identify any authority that 
he thinks he needs?
    Mr. Arthur. The President usually references a 
comprehensive immigration bill that he introduced on his first 
day in office back in 2021, that is really just kind of a 
matrix for amnesty. It doesn't have any enforcement power.
    Mr. Biggs. Right. So, if we're going to bring this under 
control, I guess, Mr. Homan, what would you say the first step 
is to bring the border under control with the current 
authorities? You agree that Mr. Hamilton's MPPs are a great 
option. What else?
    Mr. Homan. MPP was a game changer for the Trump 
Administration. It brought illegal immigration to a four-year 
low. We have got to stop catch and release. As my colleague Mr. 
Hamilton said before, the more you release, the more that 
comes. People around the world right now, you can cross the 
border illegally. You will be released in 24 hours. You will be 
flown to the city of your choice. You will begin work 
authorization. You get a free hotel room, three squares a day, 
and medical attention. The most vulnerable people in the world 
have been putting themselves in the hands of criminal cartels 
to take advantage of that. We have got to end catch and 
release.
    That is why the Remain in Mexico program worked. Because 
after it got going, in a few months they stopped. They realized 
they weren't being released in the United States.
    Mr. Biggs. So, I want to point out that the Yuma sector in 
2021--do we know how many? How many encounters were at the Yuma 
sector for the entire year, the last year that Donald Trump was 
President, 2020? It was 8,600, 142 miles along that, 8,600. How 
many Yuma gets, about how long it takes them to get to 8,600, 
it is about nine days now. When I was recently down on the TO 
Reservation, San Miguel, there is nothing on the Mexican side 
for 45 miles. Caborca is the nearest village. They are seeing 
600-1,000 people a day.
    This administration has plenty of authority to bring this 
under control. I yield back.
    Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time is expired. Ms. 
Escobar.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is always fascinating 
to me to hear folks talk about how often they have been to the 
border, or they parachute in to observe the border. I live on 
the U.S.-Mexico border. I represent a wonderful community on 
the border. I raised my kids on the border. I am a proud third-
generation border resident. There is so much to fact check in 
the conversation that has gone on to this point, it is hard to 
pick.
    Let me start with No. 1, this idea that the President alone 
can essentially change the status quo on immigration. If that 
were true, why would my Republican colleagues have put so much 
time and energy into filing their Immigration Bill, H.R. 2, 
which by the way relies almost completely on Mexico to accept 
nearly every migrant arriving at the Southern border. Something 
that has never happened. Something that will never happen.
    Not only is it an interesting irony that they say the 
President can do it, but here is our great bill that will solve 
it, again, kind of incongruous. I would like to introduce a 
couple of articles into the record so I would ask unanimous 
consent.
    The first from June 20, 2018, Washington Post, and the 
headline, ``Trump Urges House GOP to Fix Immigration System.''
    The second article from January 1, 2019, Politico, the 
article where the President says current authorities are 
``woefully inaccurate to meet the scope of the problem,'' said 
President Trump, complaining about illegal--or gaps in U.S. 
law.
    Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much. Also, there is a letter 
that President Trump sent us January 4, 2019, a letter to 
Congress asking Congress to take action.
    So, the whole premise of this hearing is that the President 
alone can do it. Donald Trump throughout his tenure was asking 
Congress to act.
    The second falsehood that I would like to debunk one of our 
witnesses said, ``Dems don't want an end to this crisis.'' I 
would like to refresh everyone's memory that there have been 
multiple efforts to address our broken immigration system where 
Democrats actually were willing to vote in a bipartisan manner, 
2006, 2014, and 2018. Every single one of those bills included 
strong border security components along with legal pathways.
    Who sabotaged the bills all those years? It was 
Republicans. Then this year, 2024, no longer were Democrats 
demanding legal pathways in exchange for border security, on 
the Senate side Republicans got everything they wanted in what 
was called the toughest border bill ever by Senate minority 
leader Mitch McConnell.
    Before there was even any ink on paper, Republicans decided 
to abandon that effort because as a Member of this Committee, 
Mr. Nehls, said very transparently, ``why would we fix the 
problem going into an election.'' Former President Trump 
himself said, ``I don't want them to fix it. They can blame 
me.''
    So, much more to debunk, but I would like to actually close 
by asking one of our experts, Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, thanks for 
the work that you do. The Republican colleagues frequently 
complain that the Democrats are open borders, which couldn't be 
further from the truth. The only people going on TV 
consistently talking about open borders are Republicans.
    Can you tell us what impact that makes, what message that 
sends to migrants to have Republicans constantly talking about 
open borders in America?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Well, I think as we have seen over 
the last decade, misinformation shared with migrants has a very 
heavy driver of people coming to the border. To the extent that 
people say things like the U.S. border is open, I think it does 
send a message.
    Of course, in 2018 when I was down talking to separated 
families, I saw--people telling me--I had one person tell me, 
President Trump opened the border to families, that is why I am 
here.
    So, this misinformation is not new. It is not something 
that has just happening now in the last three years.
    Ms. Escobar. Unfortunately, there is plenty of 
misinformation coming from the other side of the dais and from 
some of our panelists. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. McClintock. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. Van 
Drew.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair. I guess the other side is 
trying to say here we have never had a secure border, never had 
it. We know better. The American people know better. They feel 
it. They see it. They hear it. They see it in their 
neighborhoods. They are watching Americans get killed. Cities 
decay. Budgets explode in towns, cities, counties, and States.
    The President, this President, President Biden changed 
that. Let's just tell the real story of what happened. He ran 
on it. He spoke about it. He bragged about it. He let Title 42 
lapse. He didn't stop catch and release. He didn't continue 
with the Remain in Mexico policy. He didn't do his job.
    I am not saying he can do every single thing, but what I am 
saying is what people know, what you all know, which everybody 
watching this knows, it has gotten much, much worse with this 
President on purpose.
    Every hearing we have--and let me say another thing. We are 
all debating here with our nice suits and dresses in a 
comfortable building, but meanwhile people are getting hurt, 
people are dying, including, because we are out of control on 
the border and the cartels control the border, including the 
illegal immigrants themselves. We didn't even talk about the 
drugs today.
    By the actions of this President, we have increased--and it 
is true, I am not exaggerating--drug addiction in this country 
with fentanyl. Every hearing we have, every report we read, 
every statistic we see, paints the same picture. Our Southern 
border is in crisis now, and it wasn't before.
    Under the Biden Administration more than eight million 
illegal entries have changed and come into our country and our 
global world looks at us as a laughingstock. Every day the 
administration refuses to act in a real way.
    In this fiscal year, we have already seen a higher number 
of illegal entries than any year of President Trump's term. 
That is a fact. Let's tell the truth. I am fact checking, too. 
That is a fact. It has gotten so bad it makes you question 
exactly how an administration could even look Americans in the 
face like he will tonight and say this.
    When they ignore every law they can and dismantle every 
policy they can, there can be only one conclusion, and it is to 
change the country. It is to change it in a way that you all 
can't deal with and you are not here tonight, but it is to 
change the Electoral College and to change Congressional 
redistricting. That is the real world.
    This administration's policies have not only failed the 
law, they failed Americans. How many innocent Americans are 
they going to allow to be harmed or even murdered? We can't fix 
it with halfhearted attempts.
    The Senate bill, a bill that doesn't build the wall. A bill 
that doesn't completely end catch and release. A bill that 
would pay hundreds of millions of dollars to NGO's that help 
illegals subvert our laws. It is a bad bill. The only thing 
worse than where are now is to pretend that you are doing 
something. I don't give a damn if you are a Republican or a 
Democrat. Don't pretend to do something and do nothing. That is 
what that bill was. It was a political tool.
    Tom Homan, Mr. Homan, in your view, why have the numbers of 
illegal entries exploded since President Biden took office?
    Mr. Homan. Because he abolished every policy that we proved 
effective in the Trump Administration.
    Mr. Van Drew. I know we know the answers to these 
questions. Mr. Hamilton, the Biden Administration claims it 
needs new laws to provide any help, any sources to fix the 
border. Is that true? Is it just resources?
    Mr. Hamilton. No. You cannot out resource your way out of 
this crisis. You have to have policy changes.
    Mr. Van Drew. Can you tell us, Mr. Hamilton, the most 
successful, really quickly, Trump era policies and what the 
impact of the Biden Administration ending them? I don't know 
what we are arguing about. He ended policies that were working. 
We were better then, than we are now. You can shape it any way 
you want. Never has it been a 100 percent secure border. It was 
a hell of a lot better.
    When you try to say that it wasn't, people know that you 
are not being truthful with them because the just feel it all 
around them. Anyhow, can you tell just really quickly a few of 
the most successful?
    Mr. Hamilton. Look, some of the most successful policies 
worked as a patchwork. They worked with each other, tongue and 
groove, to ensure that we would dry up the number of people who 
were coming to the United States illegally and that we would be 
able to adjudicate cases as quickly as we can in the United 
States and get people back home who don't qualify for anything. 
So, that includes MPP. That includes asylum cooperative 
agreements. That includes other asylum reforms. The list goes 
on and on.
    Mr. Van Drew. A quick last question, yes or no. Is the 
border worse off now than it was four years ago under President 
Trump? Mr. Arthur, I will start with you, right down the line. 
Is it better off now or was it better off then, yes or no 
period?
    Mr. Arthur. It was better off then, sir.
    Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Homan?
    Mr. Homan. It's historically worse now.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Not that much better.
    Mr. Van Drew. Not that much better than. OK. So, you admit 
it's better and that's hard because you are--
    Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton--
    Mr. Van Drew. Yes, Mr. Hamilton and then, we're done.
    Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's--
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Better in some ways, worse than 
others.
    Mr. Hamilton. It was far better under President Trump.
    Mr. Van Drew. I yield back.
    Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. Ross?
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to enter into 
the record an article by Hein de Haas entitled, ``Border 
Crackdowns Won't Solve America's Immigration Crisis,'' that was 
published in The Wall Street Journal last week.
    Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
    Ms. Ross. In this article, which I commend to everyone who 
is here and anybody who is watching, de Haas highlights the 
economic drivers of immigration on our side of the border that 
are often too--are ignored in these policy discussions.
    The reality is that our economy needs more workers. In this 
intense labor market, that drives immigration. I hear this from 
employers in my own district in the research triangle of North 
Carolina. They are begging for legal pathways to hire more 
workers. We have heard this for the last two days in 
Washington, DC, from the business roundtable.
    Migrants accept the costs and risks of journeying to the 
United States because they understand that their labor is in 
demand here and that employment will be easy to come by. In 
fact, the House makes the point that immigration restrictions 
actually lead workers who might move to the U.S. temporarily 
for seasonal work to stay since their opportunities to come and 
go are severely limited.
    Because of the militarization of the border, we no longer 
have the labor flow that we used to have. Instead, we have a 
population of migrant workers living in the United States year 
around, and we have perverse policies like deporting kids who 
have come here legally with their parents who age out of our 
immigration system because they simply cannot get a visa to 
stay because the lines are so long, more than 200,000 
documented dreamers.
    I have a bipartisan bill that has passed this House twice 
to give them at least the ability to stay here, contribute 
their talents and be with their families, not be deported to a 
place that they didn't know. They, Mr. Chair, came here 
legally.
    If Republicans were serious about solving the border 
crisis, they would crackdown on the economic drivers of 
migration in this country.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, do we need to expand employment and 
family based immigration?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Absolutely. We haven't touched those 
laws in 33 years.
    Ms. Ross. Can you discuss how the creation of additional 
legal pathways can impact the numbers we are seeing at the 
border?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. There are a lot of people who were 
coming today who would like to come here legally, but no 
pathways exist. I think the best example to demonstrate this is 
what the Biden Administration has done with Haitian migrants.
    About no Haitian migrants, virtually none, are crossing the 
border illegally now and that is because the Biden 
Administration has expanded legal pathways through them for 
parole. Those pathways are narrow, not applicable to everybody, 
and fragile. Without Congress stepping in, that success could 
be reversed overnight.
    Ms. Ross. Especially what is going on with Haiti as we 
speak. What additional legal pathways should Congress think 
about creating?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Not just temporary guesswork or 
programs that would let people but also ways for people to come 
here more permanently and be here with friends and families. 
People should not have to wait 80 years to get a visa. There 
are people today, India nationals in particular, who are. You 
see this, people who would normally have come here on visas, 
say the legal immigration system just is not available to me. 
The only thing I think I can do, people will sell me on, is 
coming to the border. That is not how the system should 
function.
    Ms. Ross. Would the expansion of legal pathways lead to a 
more orderly and safe process at the border and if so, why?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Yes. By addressing this issue in a 
comprehensive way, we have to look beyond just the lens of what 
is happening exactly at the border. We have to look at what is 
happening in our legal immigration system, and we have to look 
at what is happening globally.
    If all we do is pay attention to the border and don't think 
about all these other broken parts of our system, we are just 
going to find ourselves here again five years from now, 10 
years from now, 20 years from now.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I just want to share with 
people, before I came back to Washington, I went to the annual 
farm breakfast that we have with our farming community in North 
Carolina. All across North Carolina they came.
    The No. 1 issue was having more legal pathways for people 
who work in the agriculture business in North Carolina, which 
is the No. 1 industry in North Carolina. I represent the high 
tech, medical industries. They want the skilled workers, the H-
1B workers. The farm industry, No. 1 issue, immigration. Thank 
you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Mr. McClintock. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. 
Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Mr. Hamilton, in 2020 we had 4,651 Mexican 
encounters, or U.S.-Mexico border encounters. That was in 2020. 
In 2021, it went to 1.7 million in a 12-month period. What 
changed? Why did it go from 4,000-1.7 million in a 12-month 
period? How is that possible?
    Mr. Homan. Because President Biden abolished the
    Trump policies that were effective.
    Mr. Moore. What policies?
    Mr. Homan. Remain in Mexico policy, the MPP, the Third Safe 
Country that we had with Central American countries, Guatemala, 
Honduras, and El Salvador, any catch and release, building the 
wall. The wall works. Every place they built a wall, 
immigration went down. Drugs went down. The wall more 
importantly saved lives because the women and children, who 
were the most vulnerable, couldn't get over that wall, would go 
to a place where there is not a wall. Guess who is waiting for 
them? The men and women of the Border Patrol would give them 
first aid and take care of their humanitarian needs.
    Mr. Moore. Mr. Homan, we went to the border, it's been 
years ago, a couple years ago now, with Congressman Biggs, and 
do you remember the little girls, the kids they threw over, you 
remember they brought the two children to the high place in the 
wall and tossed them over down to the concrete, right?
    Mr. Homan. Yes.
    Mr. Moore. While they were doing that my understanding was 
that was just a decoy. They tossed that three-year-old and 
five-year-old child over the wall, so that others could come 
through in the opening up the road.
    So, as the border agents were going to the rescue of those 
kids, in turn, the cartel were smuggling people into an opening 
down the road. So, we were talking about children and women. 
They talk about how cruel we are for separating the children 
from their parents. My understanding is we have lost 100,000 
children. We don't know where they are at. Is that the number 
that you are hearing, since this administration took over, 
100,000 children?
    Mr. Homan. Approximately 100,000 and HSI ICE has numerous 
investigations for finding these children. For instance, 
cleaning up entrails in a meat packing plant, the midnight 
shift, being forced into debt servitude. These children have 
been trafficked.
    I can't say every one, the 100,000, have been trafficked, 
but we know many have. I have done this for 34 years. I have 
conducted many trafficking investigations. A lot of these 
children are living a life of hell right now.
    Mr. Moore. In one specific case I remember, we had one 
sponsor that got 20 children. We shipped 20 children to this 
one location but did not do a background check. You can't work 
a nursery in a church without a background check. We sent 20 of 
these children to a place to one sponsor with no background 
check.
    What is happening? When you say indentured servants, tell 
me what you mean by this indentured servitude that you 
mentioned when you are talking in your testimony? What does 
that look like?
    Mr. Homan. That is how they pay their smuggling fees. They 
are smuggled into the United States, and they owe the cartel. 
The family owes the cartel smuggling fees, and they are forced 
to do labor to pay those smuggling fees.
    Mr. Moore. So, these moms and dads send their children, put 
them in the custody of this cartel and then they have a fee 
they have to pay back. Is that what is going on?
    Mr. Homan. Approximately 450,000 children have been 
smuggled across the border into the hands of criminal cartels.
    Mr. Moore. They are making--they are servants, basically? 
They are indentured servants now to the cartel.
    Mr. Homan. Many are.
    Mr. Moore. Unbelievable, unbelievable. Mr. Hamilton, what 
do you think--how did Trump utilize--how did his administration 
utilize the Section 212(f) to make the patchwork, is that what 
you call it? Is that how we did it? Did you all secure the 
border?
    Sheriff Daniels came in, 40 years, four decades on the U.S. 
Southern border, he said in 2018 he had never seen it more 
secure than it was then. He has never seen it worse than it is 
today. What were you all able to do that worked?
    Mr. Hamilton. Look, again, without sounding like a broken 
record, MPP was a critical program. You have to dry up the 
flow. You can't just keep processing on the back end and 
allowing people to come into the United States. You have to dry 
up the flow of people who get caught and released into the 
United States because ultimately that is the only thing that 
matters.
    Mr. Moore. It is not just us talking about it on the news. 
It is them calling back home on the free cell phone saying, 
hey, we have a job, we have subsidies, or we have a place to 
stay, you all come join us.
    When you talk about dried up, you talk about putting 
pressure on the border. When you open it up that way, once we 
get them in here, and they know, they are calling back home, 
and it just continues to flow. I tell everybody a closed border 
is a compassionate border. We are losing children. We are 
losing families. We are having family separated obviously, but 
also just the death, the people trying to make that trip, and 
the women get raped. The compassion is the closed border.
    So, you are saying that just when they know they have got--
once they get it--they get here, I was told they get a free 
cell phone and $800 in Yuma, Arizona. That was the testimony 
that a sheriff gave me, under oath by the way. Then we just 
ship them wherever. So, that is the issue, right? Once they 
know if they come here, they have got an opportunity, and it is 
hard to stop it, isn't it?
    Mr. Hamilton. That's precisely right. It is the only thing 
that matters is release into the United States, and the ability 
to get work whether with or without authorization. That is 
precisely why the Senate bill is such a disaster. Because 
instead of stopping catch and release, what the Senate bill 
does is it mandates catch and release for a significant numbers 
of aliens coming to the United States. So, instead of solving 
the problem, it is just going to exacerbate the problem and 
make things worse.
    Mr. Moore. My time is up, and with that, Chair, I yield 
back.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much, Mr. Hunt.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think my colleagues have 
laid out a pretty comprehensive case as to why the Biden 
Administration has the authority to fix this border crisis that 
he created. How did he create this border crisis? By rescinding 
President Trump's Executive Orders.
    Instead, I want to talk about today, the deadly results of 
Biden's decision to open the border, and his decision to not 
act within his power to reverse this deadly course.
    Right now, we are witnessing a historic and devastating 
wave of migrants taking the lives of one innocent American 
after another. This whole reality is treated as a conspiracy 
theory on the left. That's not true. Since President Biden 
won't protect the victims of migrant crime or even be bothered 
to say their names, I will use my five minutes to speak for the 
victims of migrant crime.
    Look at the victims behind me. Their lives were taken from 
them because of Biden's decision to open our border so that 
violent criminals and gangs from other countries can terrorize 
and murder American citizens.
    These victims of migrant crime cannot speak for themselves 
so I will speak for them. I want to specifically speak on 
behalf of several victims from my home State of Texas. 
Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to speak on behalf of 
all them.
    Alex Wise, Jr., was a 10-year-old boy from Midland. He was 
walking home from school when an illegal immigrant ran him over 
with his car and killed Alex. This illegal immigrant, who took 
Alex's life, had previously been deported not once, not twice, 
not thrice, but four times, five times, and guess what? Under 
President Biden, he came right back.
    Another victim is 16-year-old Lizbeth Medina, a high school 
cheerleader from Edna, Texas. When Lizbeth did not show up to 
the town's lighted Christmas parade where she was scheduled to 
perform with the rest of her cheer squad, her worried mom 
rushed home and found her daughter stabbed to death. Who killed 
her? An illegal immigrant.
    Then there is the story of 11-year-old Maria Gonzalez. 
Maria was home alone while her father went to work. She told 
her dad that she was worried because someone was knocking on 
the door. When her father returned home from work, he found his 
daughter's body stuffed in a plastic trash bag beneath a bed. 
She had also been sexually assaulted. Her murderer, an illegal 
immigrant.
    Now, as a father of two little girls, if I ever saw my 
children in that State, I am getting some real Samuel L. 
Jackson a ``Time to Kill'' vibes right now. Everyone should 
feel the exact same way. If you don't, there is something wrong 
with you.
    Unfortunately, these stories are not isolated incidents. 
What I shared with you today is one tragic murder after murder 
weaving together a large tapestry of migrant crime.
    Mr. Homan, thank you for being here, sir. Under President 
Trump you served as the Acting Director of ICE. In your 
professional opinion, sir, what is the best way to deal with 
this massive issue of migrant crime?
    Mr. Homan. Get rid of sanctuary--you got to end sanctuary 
cities. Sanctuary cities provide a haven for--sanctuaries for 
criminals bottom, line, period. Sanctuary cities do not protect 
immigrant communities. When they release an illegal alien 
criminal back into the community, the very community in which 
he lives, he is going to revictimize the same victim, the same 
witnesses. The immigrant community don't want criminals in 
their neighborhoods either.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, sir. Up until this point, President 
Biden and the White House have been unable to say Laken Riley's 
name to date or the other victims that I have mentioned here 
today. They have no problem with uttering no, with uttering no 
and no comment, when it comes to Laken Riley's murder.
    Let me lay this out for everyone. For Biden's open border, 
Laken Riley would still be a Georgia college student; for 
Biden's open border, Alex Wise would still be able to go to 
middle school; for Biden's open border, Lizbeth Medina would 
still be cheering in Edna, Texas this fall; for Biden's open 
border, Maria Gonzalez's father would have been able to walk 
her down the aisle someday, instead of finding her stuffed in a 
trash bag under a bed.
    Finally, but for Biden's open border, all the victims 
behind me would probably still be alive. Tell me I'm wrong. 
Don't believe what the media is telling you. President Biden's 
hands aren't tied. He has the power to close the border today 
like President Trump would do if he were in the office right 
now. All he has to do is reinstate the policies set forth by 
President Trump a few years ago. Mr. President, we are waiting. 
Enough Americans have already died.
    With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Homan, for being 
here. I thank you for your service.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. We 
have discussed the importance of resuming the Remain in Mexico 
policy. We had it under Trump. Biden canceled it in his first 
day in office. So, obviously it can be done because it was done 
under the same laws that we have today.
    The Border Patrol leadership told us at Eagle Pass that 
this alone would reduce the flow by about 70 percent.
    Mr. Homan you mentioned the wall. It was nearing completion 
on Inauguration Day. Border Patrol tells us that is an 
absolutely necessary force multiplier for them. So, obviously, 
that could be done because that was being done under the same 
laws that we have today. Once again, Biden canceled that.
    What else could be done under current law? If you were 
advising the President right now, what else--Remain in Mexico 
and what else?
    Mr. Homan. The first thing I would is Remain in Mexico. 
That was a game changer. That moved illegal immigration down to 
a 40-year low. The highest courts in the land said it is legal. 
You can simply dust off the plans and put it back in action.
    Third Safe Country Agreements, I don't know why any 
administration would destroy an agreement with the Central 
American countries. If you are really escaping fear and 
persecution from your homeland and government and you get to a 
free country, claim asylum there. So, if you are really 
escaping for your persecution, it is all about getting to the 
United States. I have heard testimony today, they are coming 
for jobs. I get it. They are coming for a better life, I get 
it. That is not asylum. So, the asylum fraud abuse on the 
border for those that really do need across this world, there 
are thousands of people that need asylum, protection from their 
home government, they are sitting in the backseat because the 
system is overflowing with frauds and asylum claims.
    So, the Remain in Mexico Program, the Third Safe Country 
Agreements, and catch and release and continue building the 
wall. Every place they built a barrier, illegal immigration 
went down. It is not the end all, be all. As I said earlier, 
the most important thing about the wall is the most vulnerable 
cannot get over the wall. They are going to go to a place where 
there is not a wall. Most of the time, Border Patrol will be 
waiting. The Border Patrol saved tens and thousands of lives on 
that border because they were put in a place where they had to 
cross and where there wasn't a wall and Border Patrol was 
waiting on them.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Arthur, what else? Any other thoughts 
on what could be done under current law under by this 
administration?
    Mr. Arthur. No. I have to wholeheartedly concur with Mr. 
Homan. I am going to tell you another person who probably would 
concur with him as well.
    In 2007, when he was running for President, then Senator 
Joe Biden appeared in Winterset, Iowa, and he talked about the 
importance of the wall. He talked about the value of a wall, to 
stop people from entering the United States and slowing down 
the transmission of drugs into the country.
    Now, he didn't say--and, of course, there were caveats and 
things like that went along with it. I don't know if you have 
been to the border--
    Mr. McClintock. Five times. By the way, the Border Patrol 
tells me everything that you guys just did. That the wall is 
absolutely essential. That the Remain in the Mexico policy was 
working very well, and it all came to a halt on Inauguration 
Day.
    Mr. Arthur. Absolutely. Again, it is not going to stop 
anybody from entering the United States, but it will slow them 
down. It makes it a force multiplier for the 17,000 plus Border 
Patrol agents that we have down there. It makes it so much 
harder for the drug cartels to move drugs into the United 
States.
    Before they put the wall into Yuma, there were 2,500 drive 
throughs a year. Once they put in the wall, there were two, not 
2,000, two. So, it is absolutely crucial. I would commend 
everyone here to go listen to then-Senator Biden's remarks in 
Winterset, Iowa, 2007.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Hamilton, what would you add?
    Mr. Hamilton. Without sounding like a broken record, again, 
some of those same things. One of the other things we have to 
do, is we have to take a look at the way that our immigration 
court system is being abused.
    It is not necessarily the case that we need lots and lots 
more judges. We need a system that is not going to be abused by 
frivolous claims and unscrupulous attorneys. That is 
precisely--that is what happens every single day in the 
immigration world.
    Mr. McClintock. What percentage of asylum claims turn out 
to be phony and rejected by the courts.
    Mr. Hamilton. So, it depends on the demographic, and it 
depends on if we are talking about claims arising from the 
border or the interior, but we are talking about in the low 
teens as an average is the number or percent that are approved.
    Now, if you think about that, that means that 85 percent 
are denied. What kind of a world--it doesn't make sense--
    Mr. McClintock. When they are denied, what normally 
happens? When the asylum claim is denied, are not most of them 
after being ordered to leave simply disappear?
    Mr. Hamilton. That is correct. They don't go anywhere. They 
stay here. There is over 1.3 something million active orders of 
removal today in the United States, people who had their due 
process, they had their day in court. They decided to say here.
    Mr. McClintock. Final question very quickly, Mr. Homan. The 
Democrats have said this has been going on for over a century. 
There is nothing to see here, move along. That is just Fox News 
and Republicans fanning flames. Could you address that point?
    Mr. Homan. All they got to do is look at the numbers under 
President Trump. We had the most secure border. It wasn't 100 
percent secure. We had a little more work to do. We had more 
walls to finish, but it was the most secure border based on 
data, DHS's own data, than we have ever seen. We went from the 
most secure border to historic, never seen before illegal alien 
encounters. That's just a fact, 3.2 million encounters last 
year. The first year under President Biden historic records. 
Second year, he broke his own historic record. Third year, he 
broke both those two years' historic records. We have never 
seen anything like this.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much. For unanimous consent 
request?
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to enter 
into the record this article, ``Where the Migrant Protection 
Protocols Stand Four Years After Going Into Effect,'' which 
show clearly that with a million apprehensions over two years 
under the Trump Administration, only 70,000 people were 
actually put into the MPP program.
    Mr. McClintock. Ms. Jayapal, you know that is a request. It 
is not a speech.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
    Mr. McClintock. Without objection. That concludes today's 
hear-ing. I want to, again, thank our witnesses very much for 
appearing before the Committee today. This has been very 
helpful to us.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses 
or additional materials for the record. Without objection, this 
hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and 
Enforcement can be found at the following links: https://
docs.house.gov/
Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=116925.

                                 [all]