[Senate Hearing 118-34]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-34
LIVING UP TO AMERICA'S PROMISE:
THE NEED TO BOLSTER THE
U.S. REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
CITIZENSHIP, AND BORDER SAFETY
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 22, 2023
__________
Serial No. J-118-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-655 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina,
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHN CORNYN, Texas
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
PETER WELCH, Vermont THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Katherine Nikas, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and Border Safety
ALEX PADILLA, California, Chair
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Ranking Member
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TED CRUZ, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii TOM COTTON, Arkansas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
PETER WELCH, Vermont MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Alyson Sincavage, Democratic Chief Counsel
Ryan Raybould, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 22, 2023, 2:32 P.M.
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Padilla, Alex, a U.S. Senator from the State of California....... 1
Cornyn, John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas............. 4
WITNESSES
Witness List..................................................... 29
Canny, William, executive director, Migration and Refugee
Services, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
Washington, DC................................................. 12
prepared statement........................................... 35
Sesay, Dauda, national network director, African Community
Together; vice chair, Refugee Congress Board of Directors; and
founder and president, Louisiana Organization for Refugees and
Immigrants, Baton Rouge, Louisiana............................. 8
prepared statement........................................... 42
Burns, Christopher M., Brigadier General, U.S. Army, retired..... 10
prepared statement........................................... 30
MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submitted by Chair Padilla:
2023-03-20, Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and
Immigration, statement, March 22, 2023..................... 46
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, letter, March 22, 2023 50
Church World Service, statement.............................. 56
Episcopal Church, The, statement, March 22, 2023............. 57
HIAS, statement, March 22, 2023.............................. 58
International Refugee Assistance Project, statement, March
22, 2023................................................... 61
Kids in Need of Defense, statement, March 22, 2023........... 65
Lawyers for Good Government, statement....................... 71
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, statement, March
22, 2023................................................... 72
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, letter, March 21, 2023. 76
National Association of Manufacturers, letter, March 24, 2023 77
National Immigration Forum, statement, March 22, 2023........ 79
Refugee Advocacy Lab, statement, March 22, 2023.............. 82
Refugee Congress, statement, March 22, 2023.................. 86
Refugees International, statement, March 22, 2023............ 89
Talent Beyond Boundaries, statement, March 22, 2023.......... 91
Voice for Refuge Action Fund, statement...................... 95
LIVING UP TO AMERICA'S PROMISE:
THE NEED TO BOLSTER THE
U.S. REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2023
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
and Border Safety,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 2:32 p.m., in
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Alex Padilla,
Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Padilla [presiding], Whitehouse,
Klobuchar, Coons, Welch, and Cornyn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Chair Padilla. Good afternoon, everybody. I'd like to call
this hearing to order. Welcome to the first hearing of the
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and
Border Safety for the 118th Congress. The theme of today's
hearing is ``Living Up to America's Promise: The Need to
Bolster the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program,'' and it's our
goal to have a productive discussion on the historic success of
America's Refugee Admissions Program and what we can and should
be doing to bolster the program going into the future.
I want to begin by thanking all of our witnesses for being
here today and for sharing your stories, your experience, your
perspective, and your work. I also want to thank Chairman
Durbin and Ranking Member Cornyn and their Committee staff for
the work that's gone into making this hearing happen. Now,
since the founding of our Nation, the United States has been
seen as a beacon of light for people around the world, people
with dreams of economic opportunity, of religious and political
freedom, and of a home free from violence and conflict.
And over generations, the view of America as a refuge for
immigrants has been embraced across party lines. You can open
up America's storybook to find a Democratic President-elect
Kennedy and a Republican President Reagan invoking the same
quote of Puritans setting out for New England, describing
America as a ``City upon a Hill.'' And here in the Senate, you
can find countless examples of Senators from both sides of the
aisle coming together to support and defend refugees.
As recently as 2019, nine Republican Senators joined with
nine Democrats to write to the Trump administration opposing
the potential elimination of refugee resettlements in America.
That list of Senators includes many still serving in this body
today like Senators Lankford, Coons, Rounds, Shaheen, Thune,
and Van Hollen. I won't name them all, but just to give you a
flavor of Democrats and Republicans coming together on this
issue.
There's many more, and I will be submitting this particular
letter that I referenced and others into the record later in
the hearing. But I raised this as just one example of many that
we'll hear about today that shows Americans from every
background vocalizing their support for refugees. They do so
because the belief in America as a welcoming nation for
immigrants is embedded in what we know as the American Dream,
where immigrants with dreams for a better future can work hard
enough and dream big enough to make it here.
And while we have never fully lived up to that idea, one
area where we've had remarkable bipartisan cooperation over the
last half century is in our commitment to resettling refugees.
The modern U.S. Refugee Program began with the Immigration and
Nationality Act and the Refugee Act of 1980, which together
established a permanent basis for refugees to be resettled each
year. In the 1980s and 1990s, the number of refugees admitted
into the United States on an annual basis never really fell
below 61,000, and in fact, reached its highest level of 207,000
in 1980. In more recent years, that number has fluctuated in
the area of 56,000 and 85,000.
Now, this all took a drastic turn during the Trump
administration. With his clear intent to reduce the number of
immigrants entering the United States, President Trump
attempted to shut off all points of entry. His efforts included
aggressively reducing refugee admissions, slashing the total
number admitted down to around 22,500 to 30,000, and finally
just under 12,000 in his final 3 years in office. Now, because
of these dramatic cuts, 134 resettlement offices throughout the
country were shut without enough refugees being processed to
justify the costs of staff and offices.
Now, during that time, conditions only worsened for
millions of refugees fleeing persecution, and the COVID-19
pandemic created additional unprecedented challenges in
processing refugees, as in-person screenings were delayed and
increased demand for flights made refugee travel more
difficult. And while the Biden administration has made efforts
to rebuild and scale the refugee program back up, the Trump era
cuts and the culmination of COVID processing challenges have
made it difficult to return to the typical historic annual
admissions numbers.
But today, according to United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees, there are more refugees than at any point in
history, and the political situations in Afghanistan, Ukraine,
and elsewhere have only made that population grow. In the
coming years, we know that our changing climate will only lead
to even more displacement. So we have a moral responsibility as
well as the urgency to step up.
While the process by which the Biden administration has
expedited processing for Ukrainians and Afghans differ from the
typical refugee admissions process, I hope that the urgency of
the circumstances and the efficiency demonstrated over the last
year and a half provide an example to follow as we search for
solutions. It's important that we act thoughtfully, not just
because so many people are counting on us, but because we also
know the enormous value that refugees bring to our country.
Past refugees are now our families, neighbors, coworkers,
and in many ways critical parts of our communities. They're
also a critical part of our economy.
[Poster is displayed.]
Chair Padilla. As the chart behind me shows, taken
together, the spending power of all refugees and former
refugees living in the United States amounts to $73 billion.
They pay a combined $26 billion in Federal, State, and local
taxes, and they often fill critical workforce gaps, including
working on the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic in
healthcare and food supply chain industries, among others.
And they've become so integral to our community that you
don't have to look far to find a refugee who serves as the
cornerstone of their community, people like Basma Alawee, a
refugee who fled Iraq and became a math and science teacher
teaching at a middle school in Atlantic Beach, Florida, or Emma
Yaaka, an Ugandan refugee who works in the healthcare field and
has dedicated himself to advocating for equal medical services
for refugees.
And just last week, a former refugee won an Academy Award
for best-supporting actor. Ke Huy Quan's family fled Vietnam on
a boat after the Communist takeover of South Vietnam, and he
spent a year in a refugee camp in Hong Kong before being
admitted to the United States. On the biggest stage in
Hollywood, accepting his Oscar, he said of his journey, ``This
is the American Dream.''
So today, this Committee is tasked with answering the
question, ``How can we keep that dream alive?'' In our
discussion today, I want us to be clear and focused. We are
discussing refugees and the refugee resettlement process. I'm
asking all Members of the Committee to stay focused and not
distract this good-faith discussion with arguments over our
asylum process, which is a different legal pathway, or debates
over the southern border.
Today, our witnesses, our experts here, are here to discuss
the refugee admission process wherein refugees who have fled
their home country for fear of persecution apply for admission
to the U.S. and are thoroughly vetted outside of the U.S.
before they can enter our country. And we'll be exploring that
during the hearing as well. As we'll discuss, refugees are one
of the most thoroughly vetted groups, having to fill out
multiple forms, go through numerous interviews, and pass
numerous agency vetting processes, and even go through medical
screenings before they can step foot on U.S. soil.
Today's discussion will be about shoring up one of the
lawful pathways to come to the United States through the
refugee admissions process. I'm looking forward to hearing from
all three witnesses here today, and it's my sincere hope that
we can work together to get our refugee admissions process back
to a standard that reflects our Nation's values. And with that,
I'll turn it over to Ranking Member Cornyn for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Cornyn. Well, thank you, Chairman Padilla, and
thanks to each of our witnesses for being here today. I'm proud
of this country's commitment to offering a place of refuge to
people fleeing persecution on account of their race, their
religion, their nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion. Just over 2 years ago, I
collaborated with the Chairman of this Committee, Senator
Durbin, to hold a hearing in this Subcommittee on how the
United States can support Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement
through our refugee policy.
I also joined Senators Rubio, Coons, Tillis, Durbin, and
others to encourage the Secretary of State to grant priority to
refugee status to Uyghurs who are being persecuted by the
Chinese Communist Party, basically held in concentration camps,
about a million Uyghurs in the People's Republic of China.
America should continue its tradition of welcoming refuge and
resettling those fleeing oppression.
President Ronald Reagan in his first year of office stated,
``More than any other country, our strength comes from our own
immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other
lands.'' He went on, however, to say, ``No free and prosperous
nation by itself can accommodate all those who seek a better
life or flee prosecution.''
We must share this responsibility with other countries, and
that's what the Refugee Resettlement Program does. No refugee
can self-select their coming to the United States. They can be
resettled in a number of other countries. All free nations need
to share that commitment, but we should not lose sight of the
fact that the refugee system is fundamentally about providing a
path to safety, not necessarily a path to the United States.
Furthermore, the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program is not the
solution to the chaos and the crisis that we see on our
southern border. In January, President Biden announced a new
measure to address the border crisis, including a provision
that would welcome up to 20,000 refugees from Latin America and
Caribbean countries during FY 2023 and 2024. I understand that
the administration's new strategy includes other components as
well, most of which I believe will merely camouflage the
severity of the problem we're experiencing.
But let's be clear, increasing refugee resettlement is not
the solution to what we see on the border happening today. In
each of the last 2 fiscal years, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection encountered 1.3 million migrants from Mexico and
Northern Triangle countries. So at the pace of 20,000, this is
a drop in the bucket. It will not alleviate the strain caused
by the current crisis on our southern border and it will not
prevent migrants with weak or non-existent asylum claims from
unlawfully crossing the border.
The solution of the crisis lies in enforcing our
immigration laws and deterring migrants from undertaking the
dangerous journey to the southern border when they do not have
a valid basis for asylum. Unfortunately, the Biden
administration has not shown a willingness to quickly remove
migrants with frivolous or no asylum claims. So there's just
simply no consequences associated with coming here, claiming
asylum, being released into the interior of the country,
perhaps never to be heard from again.
Certainly, the administration has taken zero efforts to
actually--once people fail to show up for their asylum hearing,
assuming they can get one in a reasonable period of time--those
who don't qualify, there is no program or system for removal of
those individuals who don't meet the legal threshold for
asylum.
Just last week, the New York Post reported that a migrant
who was paroled, which means in this context to be released
into the United States to await a future court hearing--the New
York Post reported that a migrant who's paroled in New York
City today will have to wait until October 2032--2032--to
receive his or her notice to appear, which starts the
immigration court process. That's a 10-year wait to even begin
the process.
Meanwhile, that individual's set down roots, perhaps
married, has children, and it is a disservice to those with
valid asylum claims to make them wait so long when 85 percent
or so of the individuals who do actually present in front of an
immigration judge do not qualify. It's unfair to those who do
qualify. Paroling a migrant into the United States and waiting
nearly a decade to start deciding whether or not he or she has
a valid asylum claim is absurd. But that's just another
consequence of the current policy by this administration at the
border.
I think this stands in stark contrast to the sober
deliberate process of considering refugee applications through
the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. But you look at the number
that President Biden's administration has set for the cap for a
year, it's 125,000. During the first 2\1/2\ years of the Biden
administration, we've seen 5 million migrants show up at our
southern border. So 125,000 is not a significant number when
considered in that context. But the process is sound, I
believe.
The applicants for the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
undergo multiple rounds of interviews and submit to multiple
and continuous background checks to determine whether or not
they pose a safety or security risk to the United States. Their
biographic and biometric information's checked against the U.S.
Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security,
Department of Defense, FBI, and National Counterterrorism
Center holdings. And there's a randomness factor, too.
The likelihood that any individual refugee will be sent to
the United States is low, so low that it is a poor vehicle for
terror groups of those who intentionally want to come to the
United States to do so. It's a whole lot easier to show up on
the border and claim asylum and then be paroled under current
policies into the United States. So I don't believe the Refugee
Resettlement Program represents a substantial safety risk, but
I'm anxious to hear what the witnesses have to say.
When a refugee is finally admitted to the United States, he
or she is qualified as a refugee. Although no system is
perfect, we've taken significant measures to screen out those
who would seek to do us harm or come lying about or
misrepresenting their circumstances. So again, this stands in
sharp contrast to the chaos we see at the southern border.
Since the beginning of the Biden administration, more than
800,000 migrants have been paroled into the United States.
Again, this is the process by which they show up, they're given
a notice to appear or told to report for a future court hearing
but then released into the interior of the United States.
Again, and only a small percentage, maybe 15 percent,
ultimately qualify. And many don't show up for a court hearing,
but there's never a process, a systematic way to try to remove
those who do not qualify even if they don't show up.
We will not begin to decide whether they qualify for asylum
for years, in some cases, as I said, more than a decade, but we
know historically that about 85 percent do not qualify for
asylum. And again, if you think about the unfairness to people
who actually do, making them wait for 10 years before actually
getting an asylum hearing because of the backlog caused by
people who do not qualify, is very unfair. Security screenings
for migrants at the border does not even begin to approach the
rigorous process refugees undergo.
True, Border Patrol has successfully screened out some
criminals and individuals who matched records on the Terrorist
Screening data set, and I look forward to asking General Burns
about his experience. And the numbers are increasing. In 2020,
Border Patrol apprehended only three individuals who matched
records on the Terrorist Screening data set. That number has
increased to 15 in FY 2021, to 98 in 2022, and 69 so far in
2023. In other words, in 2023, 69 people so far who were
apprehended--we're not talking about the gotaways--the ones
that were apprehended were on the Terrorist Screening
watchlist.
Well, in FY 2022, we don't have an exact number, but it's
estimated that there are about 600,000 migrants who did not run
to the Border Patrol to claim asylum. They ran away from the
Border Patrol because, frankly, they knew they couldn't qualify
or they knew that they were transporting drugs or for some
other reason they would not be able to legally make it into the
United States. Recent estimates in the media place this number
for Fiscal 2023 at more than 350,000 gotaways so far.
I recently was in El Paso with some colleagues at a night
patrol where they detained two gentlemen from the People's
Republic of China. This is El Paso, Texas. The People's
Republic of China is a long way away. And we don't really know
why they decided to come to El Paso, Texas, or what they will
do once they're paroled into the United States awaiting a
immigration court hearing.
We should, together with the rest of the world, offer
protection of victims of persecution. There's no difference
between us on that score. But allowing chaos to persist at the
southern border is counterproductive, to say the least. The
Biden administration can do better and must do better. We need
a safe, orderly, humane, and legal system for people to come to
the United States. I believe we have that in the Refugee
Resettlement Program. We do not have it at the southern border,
thanks to the administration's failed policies. Thank you.
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Thank you for
recognizing the distinction. And again, today's hearing is
focused on the Refugee Admissions Program and settlement
process. I want to welcome Senator Welch to today's hearing.
We'll acknowledge other Members as they arrive. Well, let's
proceed now with witness introductions, then we'll swear in the
witnesses, and begin.
After I introduce and swear in the witnesses, they will
each have 5 minutes to offer opening remarks. We will then
begin our first round of questions, and each Senator will have
5 minutes. So, I'd like to begin with Mr. Dauda Sesay. Mr.
Sesay is the national network director of African Communities
Together and vice chair of the Refugee Congress Board of
Directors. Mr. Sesay fled Sierra Leone at age 16 due to a
brutal war and was in a refugee camp in The Gambia for nearly
10 years before he was resettled in the United States.
Today, he serves as National Network Director for African
Communities Together and is a founding member and president of
the Louisiana Organization for Refugees and Immigrants, a
nonprofit community-based organization that assists refugees
and immigrants through their various stages of integration into
the United States. Mr. Sesay is also a member of the Mayor
Sharon Weston Broome International Relations Commission, and
chairperson of the Commission on Culture and Art Engagement, a
commission established to help make the city of Baton Rouge
more inclusive and welcoming.
He was recently appointed as the first refugee to serve as
U.S. advisor at the UNHCR High-Level Officials Meeting on
Global Impact on Refugees in December of 2021 and on the Annual
Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement in June 2022. Most
recently, he was among the first advisors to serve on the
United States Refugee Advisory Board.
We also welcome Mr. Bill Canny. Mr. Canny has served as
executive director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,
Department of Migration and Refugee Services since 2015. In
this capacity, he is responsible for all of the Department of
Migration and Refugee Services operations, including its role
as National Refugee Resettlement Agency and its programs for
unaccompanied migrant children and unaccompanied refugee
minors.
Mr. Canny has an impressive career history that spans from
Catholic Relief Services to the International Catholic
Migration Commission in Geneva to the Papal Foundation. He has
managed and executed relief in development operations in
Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. He oversaw programs
in war-torn Kosovo, Albania, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and East
Timor, as well as refugee processing in Thailand, Croatia, and
Turkey.
He has also advocated internationally in support of rights-
based policies and long-term solutions in collaboration with
Catholic Bishops' conferences around the world. And I'll now
turn it over to Senator Cornyn to introduce General Burns.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to
introduce Brigadier General Christopher Burns, who's retired
from the United States Army. General Burns completed 36 years
of service to our country, culminating as the Commander of
Special Operations Command North at Peterson Air Force Base in
Colorado. In 1987, he was commissioned as a distinguished
graduate of the ROTC program at the University of Connecticut.
Following his training to become a U.S. Army Special Forces
Officer in Rhode Island, he spent 36 years, as I said, working
in numerous Theater Special Operation Commands, Joint Special
Operations Task Force, U.S. Special Operations Command, and the
Joint Staff. He's been previously deployed in staff and command
positions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in
Afghanistan. Thank you for your service, General, and welcome.
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. I'll ask each of
the witnesses to please rise and raise your right hands.
[Witness are sworn in.]
Chair Padilla. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record
reflect all witnesses have acknowledged in the affirmative. And
with that, let's begin with witness testimony starting with Mr.
Sesay.
STATEMENT OF DAUDA SESAY, NATIONAL NETWORK
DIRECTOR, AFRICAN COMMUNITY TOGETHER; VICE CHAIR,
REFUGEE CONGRESS BOARD OF DIRECTORS; AND FOUNDER
AND PRESIDENT, LOUISIANA ORGANIZATION FOR
REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA
Mr. Sesay. Chairman Padilla, Ranking Member Cornyn,
honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee, I humbly greet
you all in my special way, and I want to thank you for holding
this crucial and timely hearing. My name is Dauda Sesay. My
wife, daughter, and I came to the United States as refugees
from Sierra Leone in 2009. I am deeply honored for the
opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee because one of
my personal connection to the Refugee Resettlement Program, and
to express my gratitude to my fellow Americans for welcoming me
and others like me to this country.
In the 1990s, my country, Sierra Leone, was violently
attacked in one of the bloodiest civil wars that resulted in
over 70,000 people being killed and almost 2.5 million people
displaced. That war was defined by widespread atrocities,
including amputations, child soldiers, pregnant women
undergoing brutal stillbirths, family burnt alive, including
mine. So many children like me had to endure these atrocities.
At a young age, I had an aspirations and dreams to study
medicine and become a gynecologist or a pediatrician because my
country at that time had the highest and continue to have the
highest infant mortality rates. But all my aspirational goals
were shattered. At the age of 16, I was forced to leave
everything behind after armed rebels attacked my hometown.
On that day, after school, I remember playing with my
friends outside my father's work complex, waiting for our
parents, when armed rebels attacked. There were gunshots
everywhere. Armed men stormed the complex capturing nine of us.
They placed us in line for our hands to be chopped off, using
the slogan, ``Do you want long sleeve?'' That mean your hands
will be cut here. ``Do you want short sleeve?'' Hands will be
cut here.
In an unspeakable horror, I watch five of my childhood
friends' hands were amputated. A portion of my hands were
almost cutoff, and I got shot in my leg. In the midst of that,
my dad came out pleading for our release, but sadly and
painfully, he was killed. My father is a true hero. He died in
front of me and my friends, and he gave his life to protect us
and what was left for our community.
When I regained consciousness, I later learned in an
internal displaced camp that my family house was set on fire
with my mom, siblings, and other relatives inside. My mom
survived, but horrifically, my 7-years-old sister, an innocent
baby, was burnt alive. That was a sad fact I learned when I
reconnect with my mom decades later. And I remember, during one
of my conversation with my mom, she said, ``I am hopeful that I
will see my husband again.'' That's my dad. She said, ``The
same faith that brought us together, that same faith would
bring him back.''
It was in that moment I realized that she didn't know that
dad was killed. I had to tell her the breaking news, the
heartbreaking news. Like so many refugees like me, I would have
preferred to stay or remain in my homeland. However, due to the
constant fear of persecution in the brutal war that took away
my loved one, I had no other choice but to leave. The refugee
program was my only hope. When I met my beautiful wife, who is
here today with me, and my daughter in a refugee camp, life
there was very tough.
We lived in a plastic tent, crowded in one big space with
no privacy or sense of dignity. As one of the fortunate
refugees considered for resettlement, we had to undergo many
background checks, and I spent almost 10 years in the refugee
camp, even with my medical conditions, before I was finally
resettled in Baton Rouge. The screening process was vigorous
and there were no shortcut.
After experiencing such suffering in the refugee camp, I
faced post-resettlement challenges once I arrived in the United
States, such as dealing with discrimination, language barriers,
and learning a new way of life. My community members in
Louisiana, and one of them is here with me today, helped me to
get through these hardships. I enrolled in college and earned
an associate degree in applied science in process technology
and worked at Dow Chemical for over 7 years.
Today, I work with refugees and immigrants as the National
Network Director at African Communities Together. I also
founded the Louisiana Organization for Refugees and Immigrants,
LORI, and I vice chair the Board of Director Refugee Congress.
In my work, I see firsthand the resettlement program face
serious challenges as it struggled to regain capacity. I
encourage Congress as I'm here today to reaffirm its commitment
to refugees by passing the Refugee Protection Act.
As someone who knows firsthand the horror that causes
individual to flee and the sense of hope that finding a home
bring, I am compelled to share my experience to you all today
so that I can help Congress make an informed decision and ask
you to help restore and strengthen this lifesaving resettlement
program, a program I came through to help me be part of the
fabric of this great Nation. Thank you again for your time and
consideration. God bless you all.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sesay appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Padilla. Thank you for sharing your powerful story.
Now, I turn to Brigadier General Burns for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER M. BURNS, BRIGADIER GENERAL, U.S.
ARMY, RETIRED
General Burns. Senator Padilla, Ranking Member Cornyn, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to
appear before you to discuss Refugee Admission Program. My
testimony today examines the current refugee challenges through
the lens of someone who has looked at this problem from a
whole-of-Government approach as the former Commanding General
of Special Operations Command North and prior to that as the
Assistant Commanding General for Special Operations Central
Command. This experience includes 36 years of service to the
Nation and experiencing refugee challenges firsthand around the
world.
My testimony today is my own opinion based on those years
of experience and does not represent the opinion or policy of
anyone else. My goal today is to hopefully bring to you a
unique set of perspectives and possible points to consider as
you ponder the path forward on this very challenging issue.
The first portion of my testimony will focus on the U.S.
Refugee Admissions Program. It has been around for some time
and has shown to be an underutilized but effective program. It
is thoughtfully designed and does the due diligence that is
needed to ensure that the persons claiming refugee status are
indeed a valid entrant to the program, that is, that the
applicants are truly persecuted on the basis of their race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group
or political opinion, and that they do not pose a national
security threat to the United States.
This program allows United States Government to manage
through a deliberate process, which in turn leads to the best-
forecasted outcomes since it is a planned program. As noted,
President Biden increased the number from 15,000 per year to
125,000 per year, although the administration's projected last
year admissions were only 23,000 to 25, 000. This Committee
has, on the whole, expressed support for helping victims of
persecution through the Refugee Admissions Program. I could not
agree more that this is the right way to bring in refugees who
have a strong desire to be U.S. citizens.
In contrast to this orderly, deliberative process of
screening refugees through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program,
the current situation on the southern border poses a risk to
our safety and national security. Many of the migrants who have
crossed the border and claimed asylum do not meet the
qualifications, the same standard that applies to refugees, and
desire to enter the country for economic, medical reasons, or
being trafficked as slaves, sex workers, organ harvesting, drug
mules, dealers, criminals on a terrorist watch list, or cartel
elements. There are other reasons, but the key point is that
for most, they're looking at what is the easiest way to enter
the country. Some have noble reasons, some do not.
This has led to many refugees taking the easy wrong versus
the hard right of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Some are
convinced by cartels that the cartel's way is the best way
because it is cheaper process, and they guarantee that you'll
get in or they will cross you again. Some of the people are
trafficked in and the cartels own them as they pay off the cost
of their entry. This factor combined with the people who do not
qualify for asylum leads to a huge demand for the cartel model
of entering the country.
The Biden administration has announced its intent to triple
the refugee resettlement for the Western Hemisphere through the
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. If we don't take serious
action to deter the migrants from taking the wrong way and
placing their lot with the cartel, this approach will not have
its intended results. It's worth pointing out that these
illicit pathways have existed for decades, and the only thing
that changes is the commodity that passes through them.
When I was a SOCNORTH Commander, we saw a lot of human
trafficking because that was where the money was. Drugs had
declined because they had become less profitable than human
trafficking. Fentanyl was just starting to rise and was a
concern for us given the ease of production and movement that
was on the horizon. I think a point that can be made is that
the size of the breakage rate or seizure of drugs and is in
proportion to the amount coming across.
A large seizure means more coming across on a net basis.
The best approach is to look at the cartels as a business, and
they are going to move whatever commodity makes them the most
money. And when that dries up, they will look at other means to
generate revenue just like business. We are competing against a
well-marketed program with global reach that is cheaper,
faster, and has a guarantee to deliver and is highly adaptable.
So, for our program to be the program that is selected, we
need to make it more attractive and also increase the
difficulty of the illicit pathways. This will not be easy given
the impressive track record of the cartels getting people and
commodities into the United States. Some things to consider as
you look to increase security on the southern border and
protect those who truly persecuted, vetting needs to happen
outside the country to ensure the right people enter.
Our system is not designed to quickly net large numbers of
migrants on the border for the veracity of the other asylum
claims, and then potentially criminal background and national
security threat. Understand it is a business for the cartels,
and whatever action you take, they will counter to make money.
That may be a different commodity or some action inside the
United States that will generate revenue with those that are
indebted to them. They are in the business of making money.
A lot of disinformation is fed to those who try to transit
through the border on social media, word of mouth, etc.
Innovation is also taking away many lower entry-level jobs here
in the United States. We need to bring in people who need our
help, but we can also provide a path to success for them. If
you look at Amazon Market and McDonald's, those are two
examples of where reduced number of lower-entry jobs are
available and you're typing in your order.
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting a different outcome. If the changes
you make are working, you will see a decrease in the illegal
entries and we will be able to offer refugees to the truly
persecuted. If not, try something else and realize that you
have a competitor who's got a market share and will adjust.
From a global perspective, we need to make sure that failed
states can get their national talent back and not keep them. If
not, we'll be creating an ungoverned space that various actors
will exploit.
And as someone who is out there, one of the greatest fears
we have is as they leave those countries, as you just said, you
wanted to stay, but you can't. So how do you reconstitute that
state and it becomes a failed state? So we need to be cognizant
of the fact we also need to not create a brain drain in that
process as we do that. I thank you for your time and look
forward to any questions you might have I'll be able to answer.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Burns appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Padilla. Thank you very much. I'll buy him a minute
while he takes a sip of water. We'll now hear from Mr. Canny.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM CANNY, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, MIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICES,
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC
BISHOPS, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Canny. Thank you, Chairman Padilla, Ranking Member
Cornyn, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee for
holding this hearing and providing me with the opportunity to
testify. I have had the privilege of leading migration and
refugee services at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for
the past 7 years. During that period and over the course of my
career, I have witnessed the Refugee Admissions Program at its
highest and lowest points. With each, I have only grown in my
appreciation for the program, its lifesaving impact, and all
those who work to make it one of the most successful human
enterprises in human history.
In 1980, Congress standardized the process of resettlement
and established the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, USRAP. The
USCCB became one of the original resettlement agencies for
USRAP, building on decades of prior experience helping refugees
integrate into American communities. Historically, the USCCB
has been the largest of these organizations. This reflects the
Catholic Church's long-standing commitment to welcoming
newcomers and protecting the life and dignity of our most
vulnerable brothers and sisters.
Our work is motivated by the Gospel, which calls us to
welcome the stranger as we would Christ and see him in all
those we serve. Much about our country and our world has
changed since 1980, but the Refugee Admissions Program remains
true to its roots, an expansive public-private partnership
supported by a diverse group of faith-based organizations
alongside a number of secular partners. Local agencies and
communities across 48 States play a crucial role in welcoming
refugees.
Meanwhile, those resettled through USRAP continue to be
some of the most vulnerable and robustly vetted refugees in the
world. In 2020, we commemorated the 40th anniversary of USRAP.
Unfortunately, 1 year later, we observed another milestone, an
all-time low number of annual admissions with fewer than 12,000
refugees admitted that year. This pales in comparison to the
historical average of about 80,000 annual admissions, spanning
both Republican and Democratic administrations.
In large part, this decline can be attributed to policies
put in place by the prior administration combined with a
devastating toll of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this
program and those who support its operation have demonstrated a
strong resolve and a capacity to adapt. There is perhaps no
better illustration of this than the Herculean effort
undertaken by the resettlement community to welcome almost
80,000 Afghans over the span of 7 months in 2021 and 2022. This
could not have been accomplished without the steadfast support
and participation of Americans from all walks of life,
including many veterans and veterans' organizations.
While many of these Afghans have already become integral
members of new communities, as humanitarian parolees, they lack
the certainty provided to those with refugee status. There
remains an urgent need for Congress to pass the bipartisan
Afghan Adjustment Act. In many ways, USRAP is at a crossroads.
The program has been slow to rebuild processing infrastructure,
and significant case backlogs continue to delay resettlement
and family reunification.
So far, this fiscal year, out of a possible 125,000
admissions, based on the Presidential determination, less than
15,000 refugees have been admitted to the United States,
excluding, of course, Afghan and Ukrainian parolees, who are
also served by the resettlement agencies. That said, there is
much opportunity to innovate and improve efficiency within the
program. The current administration has made some steps forward
in this regard, but Congress' continued commitment, oversight,
and investment are needed.
Early in his Presidency, Ronald Reagan described refugee
policy as, and I quote, ``an important part of our past and
fundamental to our national interest.'' President Reagan
recognized that in resettling refugees, we further our
reputation as a nation of opportunity, a beacon of hope, and an
adversary of oppression while at the same time advancing our
national security and foreign policy objectives.
Over the past 40 years, a strong bipartisan majority of
Congress has shared this view. With record levels of forced
displacement around the globe, it is my hope and prayer that
you'll join with communities across our country in bolstering
this program for the next 40 years and beyond. Thank you again.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Canny appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Canny, and to all of you for
your opening statements. We will now proceed to questions from
the Committee. And I'd like to begin by asking Mr. Canny for
some help. I think there's often confusion among the various
ways individuals fleeing persecution can enter the United
States. Oftentimes, refugees and asylum seekers are conflated.
Now, many times it's unintentional. Sometimes, it's very
intentional.
In addition, with the recent surge in Afghan and Ukrainian
arrivals to do the parole process, the different pathways into
the United States has gotten even more complex. One thing is
clearer though. These were all lawful and unique pathways for
individuals and families to come to the United States and seek
safety. So, Mr. Canny, can you spend a minute just explaining
the differences between asylum, refugees, and parolees so we
can ensure that the focus of this hearing remains, as I
mentioned at the outset, on the refugee process specifically?
Mr. Canny. So a refugee in the context of this program is
generally referred to the United States by the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugee. They've been determined to have
refugee status by the U.N., but they go through a process
outside of the country, and they're often in either refugee
camps or other parts of cities outside of the country, a
process of vetting, process of determining if they meet the
criteria, are they a threat, etc., and through that process are
admitted or rejected to the program.
An asylum seeker comes into the country and, at that point,
makes a case for their own persecution, which is similar to a
refugee, but a case for their own persecution or the
possibility of persecution before courts while they were in the
country.
A parolee, oftentimes referred to as a humanitarian
parolee, comes on a parolee visa. They are allowed in for
humanitarian purposes, also for perhaps the good of the United
States as it may be determined. And they come in and they are
allowed in for a short period of time, usually, in these recent
instances, 2 years, perhaps 1, and they are here for a short
period of time with no guarantee of a path toward residency in
the United States. So those are the three distinctions.
Chair Padilla. Thank you, very helpful and useful here. So
how is the program going? I think we've laid out some history
through our opening statements. The U.S. Refugee Admissions
Program has on average admitted 80,000 annually since 1980, and
it has only been since 2017 that the number has dropped
significantly. The Trump administration's severe cuts to the
number of refugees admitted into the U.S. even though the
program had enjoyed robust bipartisan support for nearly four
decades.
And despite the fact that, you know, through this program,
refugees could enter United States with arguably the most
significant vetting process in place. Then COVID-19
dramatically limited the ability of refugees to be processed as
USCIS officers could not go abroad to interview them. So COVID
offered additional challenges. While the Biden administration
has set the refugee ceiling number at 62,500 for FY 2021 and
125,000 for FY 2022, only 11,411 and 25,465 were admitted in
those years, respectively, creating this significant gap
between the cap and the actual number admitted, again, as the
chart behind me demonstrates.
[Poster is displayed.]
Chair Padilla. So, question for Mr. Canny, can you discuss
what challenges the Biden administration has faced in
rebuilding the refugee program and what actions the
administration can take to resettle closer to that 125,000
number of refugees by the end of FY 2024?
Mr. Canny. The challenges have been many, but they've been
primarily, I would say, staffing--staffing particularly with
DHS, USCIS, refugee officers, who by the way are well trained
once they are hired and trained to go out and do the work. They
have not had enough, due to staffing, primarily circuit rides
to go out and adjudicate refugees. They've been slow to restaff
refugee processing centers, the seven that we have overseas, to
get them again staffed up to adjudicate the numbers of refugees
that we would like to get into this process.
They've also been, I would say, distracted for good
purposes, with the Afghan evacuation, and the system was forced
to focus on the 80,000 Afghans that came in. I'm proud to say
that our Government and our communities and the nonprofits that
worked in that did a fantastic job. That was, you know, at sort
of the expense to a degree of getting other refugees into the
country through the pipeline to reach the 125,000 that you
mentioned.
I think the security vetting that they've inherited from
the Trump administration previously, I think needs to be looked
at again. My concern, and I'm not an expert, that some of the
vetting that was put into place by the last administration may
not be as meaningful as it should be. It could also have some
processes that are duplicative. I think we need to look at
those processes of duplication also in order to get this
pipeline moving in the pace that we need to complete, 125,000
by 2024.
Chair Padilla. Thank you very much. Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. As I said at the beginning, I think the
Refugee Resettlement Program is a good model. And for a variety
of reasons, I think it works, and I'm certainly willing to work
with my colleagues in the administration in making sure that
more people get access to this program. But I'm struck, General
Burns, by the differences that Mr. Canny described, and I'm
going to ask him a little bit about it, too.
It is confusing between refugees and people seeking asylum
and then those who simply come in, let's say, to the border and
if you're an unaccompanied child, there's another process.
There are the gotaways. It's a hodgepodge of different programs
and different ways into the United States, but it strikes me,
General, that the protections that, for example, Mr. Sesay and
his family went through in terms of vetting and that sort of
thing, that it's completely absent when it comes to people who
show up on the border from anywhere around the world and simply
make a claim for asylum.
I think Mr. Canny said the test is basically the same,
credible fear of persecution for these various categories, but
because of the volume of people coming across, they're simply
released into the interior and given a notice to appear for a
future court hearing. So, in the refugee program, it seems like
there's significant vetting. There's no self-selection process.
My understanding is about 35 countries accept the vast majority
of these refugees.
So somebody can't say, ``I'm a refugee. I want to go to the
United States.'' They get assigned to one of these countries.
Now, certainly, the numbers are dramatically different: 125,000
cap for refugees and, as I mentioned, about 5 million migrants
have presented at the border in the time that President Biden
has been in office. And then, of course, there's the fact that
there's a lawful process for refugees, and the process by which
people present at the border is largely in the hands of
transnational criminal organizations that care about nothing
but money.
I've heard it expressed that they are something this way,
that they are commodity agnostic. In other words, anything that
makes them money, they will do: arms, sex trafficking, drugs,
and the like. So, as I said at the beginning, I support a safe,
orderly, legal, and humane system for legal immigration, for
refugee replacement, but that's not we're seeing at the border.
And then, finally, General, you've talk about the global reach
of this problem.
I was in El Paso recently on a night patrol with the Border
Patrol, and we had two young men presenting with passports from
the People's Republic of China. And how they got to El Paso, I
don't know, and what they did once they were released, nobody
knows. So do you consider the current chaos and lawlessness
associated with what's happening at the border to be a national
security risk?
General Burns. Yes, Senator, I do. And I think the--you
kind of draw it out, the point that if we have a consistent
vetting process because if they're all going to enter the
United States, you would want to have a consistent process for
that entry to make sure that nefarious actors do not enter the
United States or people that don't meet the criteria that we
have. And the challenge we have is that without that consistent
vetting, you have what we used to call when I was a young
lieutenant, ``the challenge between speed and security.''
So you have a very large number jamming up the system. You
need to get them worked through the process, so security gets
reduced to get the speed through that process. So, whereas if
you could have a consistent vetting process for all, then you
would know you were in a good shape or a better shape.
Everything has an error rate, but at least you would have a
consistent process to follow. And also, you would create
friction for the cartels in terms of how they'd be able to get
it through.
And as I said in my opening comments, the problem right now
is the cheapest way into the United States is through the
cartels. And it's a little bit euphemistic, but you could
almost argue they're the largest travel agency in the world in
terms of processing people through, as you mentioned with
people from China, they come from all over the globe because
it's the easiest way to get in with the lowest bar. But if we
have a criteria of vetting that is standard, we can handle that
process and look through that.
And then, I would say the other challenge is just
supporting them as they come through the process as well to
make sure we put them in the right place economically so they
can be successful.
Senator Cornyn. If the Chairman will allow me. I have just
one quick yes or no question for Mr. Sesay and Mr. Canny. The
Biden administration has recently proposed a rule they call the
Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule that purports to
establish a rebuttable presumption against asylees, in other
words, a presumption ineligibility for asylum for migrants who
don't follow certain prescribed pathways. Mr. Sesay, are you
familiar with that proposed rule, and do you support it or
oppose it?
Mr. Sesay. Thank you so much for your questions. I've heard
about the ruling. One thing I know for sure when individuals
seeking protections, they have the credible fear like what my
family experience. If I am in that situation and America is the
closest place, from what I experienced, I will definitely run
and get to that place for safety because I always say this to
people like refugees, ``You are running when the grass under
you is burning.'' So wherever I----
Senator Cornyn. So you would oppose a rule that has a
presumption of ineligibility for asylum?
Mr. Sesay. I don't know the detail of that, but----
Senator Cornyn. That's fair enough.
Mr. Sesay. Yes.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Canny, are you familiar with the
proposed rule and----
Mr. Canny. Not familiar with the rule, so----
Senator Cornyn. Okay. I'm striking out. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Senator
Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, Chairman, and thanks to the
witnesses for coming in today. I'm from Rhode Island, and we
have a pretty robust refugee program with over 1,000 refugees
and parolees that have been welcomed to Rhode Island shores. We
could, of course, be doing more, but we have a very long
tradition of this beginning with Hmong and other Southeast
Asian communities coming to Rhode Island in the wake of the
Vietnam War. And so, there's a lot of community support, a lot
of goodwill.
We have organizations like one that takes folks in when
they arrive, gets them language support, gives them an
immediate job, trains them up so that they can go elsewhere in
the workforce, and our church communities are very, very strong
in this, Mr. Canny. You'll be glad to hear. I understand that
over a 10-year span, the Department of Health and Human
Services has calculated that U.S. refugee resettlement brought
in $63 billion more in Government revenues than it cost.
So this looks like it's a net winner for us fiscally as
well as culturally and from a humanitarian perspective. Mr.
Canny, what would the most useful things be that we could do to
undo some of the damage done to the Refugee Resettlement
Program during the Trump administration and encourage all of
this benefit?
Mr. Canny. Senator, thank you. A number of things are staff
up, certainly, the organizations USCIS, PERM to go out and
adjudicate cases, staff up the refugee processing centers.
Certainly, consider enlarging the number of processing centers.
I would say looking at getting one into Pakistan would be
critical to saving thousands of Afghans who are currently in
Pakistan without a path out of there, without a refugee
processing center or some form of means to be adjudicated.
Further, take a look at vetting. Make sure it's meaningful.
Make sure that, you know, the things that have been put in the
last couple years are not slowing the process down
unnecessarily while guaranteeing our national security and
safety. So taking a look at vetting from that perspective would
be another thing that can be done. The Central American Minors
Program is stalled a bit. I think it needs a push by the
administration to go out and educate people on the
possibilities they have to come into the country. Perhaps
getting some NGO's out there to, again, provide information.
Education would be another aspect I think that would be
important to increasing the number of people. The
administration is doing this. This is not easy looking back at
cases that have gone into sort of the black hole, sometimes
termed, where people are dinged for a security reason but
there's no follow-up to determine if it was valid or not. I
think that would be an important aspect in order to help tens
of thousands of people in that particular position to have a
re-look at their cases in fairness. So those are some of the
things that I would recommend the administration do, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Terrific. Well, that's a very helpful
punch list, and I appreciate it. I would surmise that beyond
the 63 billion calculable dollars that this program benefits us
by, there's also a very significant benefit to our country from
presenting an example of decency and refuge in the world. And I
don't know how you can put a price on that, but I think
Vladimir Putin is finding out the cost of doing the opposite
when you are setting an example of brutality and criminality in
the world. So, nice to have this as a polar opposite to that
kind of behavior. And I thank the Chairman for the hearing.
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator
Welch.
Senator Welch. I thank the Chairman for the hearing. I'm
just going to make a few comments because I was able to sit
through the wonderful testimony of all three of these
gentlemen. Number one, I strongly support the U.S. Refugee
Program. Number two, we have a real problem at the southern
border. So, Senator Thune, the comments you made in the trip
that you invited me on where we were exposed to just the
reality of the challenges of 2 million people showing up,
that's real, and we've got to deal with it. But that's a
different situation than what many of the refugees have. It's
entirely different.
Mr. Sesay's testimony shows that. He was not a person who
wanted to leave his home. He wanted to stay in his home, and he
had people with guns showing up ready to chop his hand off.
That's different. And General, to some extent, I think in your
testimony, many of the good points you made shouldn't be
conflated with the situation at the southern border and the
situation in Sierra Leone. And that's the point that I think is
so important.
The southern border situation has to be dealt with, but I
get worried at times that the failure of us to deal with the
southern border becomes an impediment to us to deal with a
separate situation that has its own independent reality and can
be resolved. So this hearing was extremely helpful to me, where
we could hear about the unique situation that so many refugees
have. They are, by and large, people who are really dedicated
to their communities. The grass is burning under them, and
that's the reason that they're running. And all of us would
want be welcoming in that situation.
That's different than a really serious situation of the
southern border that, hopefully, this Committee will help
address. And I just want to, again, thank Senator Cornyn for
inviting me on, you know, an early CODEL to get exposed to
that. But I just want to reassert that I fully support the U.S.
Refugee Program. Vermont supports it. Senator Leahy, my
predecessor, was a champion of this program. I thank you for
this hearing. I yield back.
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Senator Welch. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Happy birthday, Mr. Chairman. To
Chairman Padilla and to Ranking Member Cornyn, thank you for
convening this hearing. And to the three witnesses today, thank
you for sharing your compelling personal testimony, your
experience, and your service to our Nation. This is a problem
that should not be as complex to solve and as difficult
enduring as it is.
As some of you have heard me say, my own interest and an
exposure to refugees began when I was in middle school when my
mother and many of the other women of our church offered to
host a refugee family from South Vietnam. They'd been separated
during the war and the head of household had fought for the
army of South Vietnam and had been taken to a reeducation camp.
His wife and children had fled to Thailand. And when he
eventually escaped, he walked from Vietnam all the way through
Cambodia to Thailand and was reunited with his family.
He was picked up by the U.S. Navy off the South China Sea.
And they became a wonderful member of our community. This
family thrived in the United States and is a great example, I
think, of the real and concrete benefits. This is not just our
opening our hearts and our country, but welcoming people of
enormous creativity, who make tremendous contributions.
In 2019, Senator Lankford and I led a letter with 18
Senators urging the previous administration to reaffirm the
fundamental importance of the U.S. Refugee Program for our
foreign policy, economic vitality, and our core commitment to
human rights. And in this spirit, Senator Klobuchar and I led
an effort, that she worked harder on and was more effective on
than I was, to get the Afghan Adjustment Act passed.
At the end of the last Congress, it had 10 bipartisan Co-
Sponsors, and it is an effort similarly to honor the service
and sacrifice of those who served alongside us and who I think
deserve a legal status here. This past weekend, as Senator
Welch just referenced, Senator Cornyn and I and a bipartisan
group of House and Senate Members met with President Lopez
Obrador in Mexico City, met with both our national security and
foreign policy leaders at our embassy, and all the various
cabinet members of the Mexican government to talk about the
flow of guns south, the flow of fentanyl north, security along
the border, the prospect of economic development jointly, but
in many ways at the very center of it, this question of how do
we come up with a safe, orderly, legal, and humane system.
I appreciate the administration taking some bold steps to
try things that haven't worked before. They have seen some
significant progress, but at the end of the day, this can only
really be fixed by legislative action by Congress, not by
Executive orders by the President, as significant as they may
be, as impactful as they might be. Let me ask two quick
questions if I might. Mr. Sesay, thank you for your testimony
and for your advocacy on behalf of Americans like you who've
experienced what you did in Sierra Leone and in Gambia. What
have you learned in Baton Rouge about the local community's
willingness to welcome refugees and the recognition of the
value that you bring?
Mr. Sesay. Thank you so much, Senator, and thank you for
reaffirming your commitment to the refugee resettlement
process. There are so many that I can mention here that are
alone my experience, not just in Baton Rouge, in Louisiana as a
whole, and as I mentioned earlier, the challenges that I faced
in adjusting to life. And my family was able to overcome that
with the generosity of wonderful and great Americans.
And I'll cite one example. When I got here, I prioritized
learning English, my first priority. And I enrolled in the GED
program. And through my first job as a custodian at the
Louisiana State University College, LSU--I'm a Tiger fan--and
there, I learned the American football. But my supervisor at
that time--she's an American--adopted me as a son and showed me
the different programs that are there at LSU being I was
working there. And I was able to be at work and do my GED and
got my GED. To get my GED means so much to me.
And then, the next step, the same lady encourages me to get
to college. I enrolled in community college. My very first
semester, I experienced one of--I would say it's a bittersweet
when I faced with bullying and discrimination. Sometime, when
we talked about bullying, we talked about students doing it to
other students, but this was the professor. I came from a
country where the tradition, you respect teachers and respect
them. And I couldn't respond.
Instead of calling my name like everyone is calling it
right here, Dauda, two syllable, or call my last name, Sesay,
and as much as I showed the teacher how to pronounce my name--
and I even said, ``Okay. You know what? Dauda means David. Call
me David.''--but instead chooses to call me the slave boy,
Kunta Kinte. This is where I felt most welcome when my fellow
classmates stood up on my behalf and report that issue to the
dean.
One day, I walk in class--I almost dropped out, and I know
what that education meant to me, to become the first person in
my family to get a college degree, something my dad invested so
much before he was taken away. That's what it meant to me. I
walked in that class, and I saw the dean and I saw my fellow
students, and they said, ``Dauda, don't be afraid. We already
told the dean what happened.''
And I looked over 20-plus students, one professor, and then
they gave me a voice. And I learned that what is happening,
some of the dangerous weight of it does not represent the whole
of this country. And I saw that generosity firsthand. So if you
ask me--and that's just one I wanted to share so many.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
service. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance to
question and participate. I look forward to working with both
of you as we try to solve this challenging problem.
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Senator Coons. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, and happy birthday,
Mr. Chairman. And I understand you chaired two Judiciary
hearings today. You are quite busy. And Senator Cornyn, thank
you, as well. My State, we are very proud of our long tradition
of welcoming immigrants and refugees. Our State has the largest
Somali and Oromo populations in the U.S., second largest Hmong
population only to California, and the largest Liberian
population, 30,000 Liberians in Minnesota.
Our State also has the lowest unemployment rate in the
country. We have, per capita, one of the highest numbers of
Fortune 500 companies, depending on the year, 17, 18, 19 of
them, and so much of that. When you look at our country and who
is running companies right now or starting companies and the
numbers of people who won U.S. Nobel Laureates, you see
immigrants and refugees throughout.
So I am obsessed with their workforce issue right now. I'm
not going double down on that because I want to talk about the
Afghan Adjustment Act. But without refugees and immigrants,
we're not going to maintain the competitive edge that has
helped us, and that's why I want to pass either comprehensive
immigration reform or at least do something when it comes to
the DREAMers and temporary status people and add that into the
workforce permits, visas, work on the border combined.
I just believe that if we don't do something here, when I
look at our rural hospitals and doctors that are from other
countries, when I look at our hospitality industry, Ag
industry, we need the workers. So that's where my mind is, but
my heart is also with our refugees. And more than 75,000
Afghans who have taken refuge in our country, they're currently
in limbo.
That's why Senator Graham, the Ranking Member of this
Committee, and I joined forces with Senator Coons, Moran,
Wicker--these are the lead Republicans on the Veterans Affairs
and the Armed Services Committee--Blumenthal, Shaheen,
Murkowski, and many other supporters are leading the effort to
pass a bipartisan Afghan Adjustment Act to allow Afghans who
undergo additional vetting, which is very important to a number
of our co-sponsors that you see this as actually a plus, not
only for our country, not only for our reputation in the world
when half of them, at least, have letters from the Chief of
Mission in Afghanistan for helping our military rather as
translators, security, and the like, would have a streamlined
pathway to a green card.
I know that, Mr. Canny, your organization as well as the
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, we have 40 organizations
including the VFW and the American Legion supporting this bill.
It's a huge priority of former President Bush. Can you talk
about how our bipartisan Afghan Adjustment Act would help the
more than 75,000 Afghans who are currently living in limbo?
Mr. Canny. Sure. Thank you, Senator, and also for your
leadership in this particular area. Every day that an Afghan
who we evacuated into the country and did an excellent job,
both our multiple Government agencies, our communities, and our
nonprofits, including our own, who work together on the safe
havens to welcome them, should be commended for that work.
At the same time, while we have these folks integrating
into our societies and cities and counties, and finding work
and starting lives, every day that they're not secure by having
a path to citizenship, or at least a path to, you know,
permanent residency in this country, they are living in an
insecure environment, and it certainly has to be affecting
their mental health. In fact, I'm sure it is. I talked to many
of them. So, this Act is critical to securing their place in
this country.
We cannot send these people back to Afghanistan. We know
what's happening with the Taliban. I met many, many young women
who were well educated from Afghanistan who came through the
evacuation. They cannot go back to Afghanistan. There isn't
enough legal assistance there to assist them. The passage of
this Act, I feel, is common sense and imperative to those who
are here and to those tens of thousands that we hope to also
bring forward from places like Pakistan, which we discussed
earlier.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Well, thank you very much.
And by the way, thank you for your personal story. And we are
devoted to moving this bill ahead on behalf of those that have
stood with our country. So, thank you.
Mr. Canny. Thank you.
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Senator
Cornyn, let's proceed with the second round of questions. And I
have a few more, and I imagine you might as well.
One aspect of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program that is
particularly troubling is how long it can take someone to get
through the entire referral and resettlement process--two
different stages of it. These people are literally fleeing from
wars, environmental disasters, and persecution, and yet it can
still take years for them to find a new, safe home in the
United States.
The State Department has set a goal to try and process and
resettle refugees within 6 months from the time they are
referred to the program, but currently, it's taken 3 to 4
years, sometimes longer. Mr. Sesay, you spent almost 10 years
in a refugee camp waiting to be resettled. Can you just
describe for the Committee what that experience with your time
there in the refugee camp was like?
Mr. Sesay. Thank you so much, Senator Padilla, and thanks
for this hearing today. As I mentioned earlier in my opening,
life in the refugee camp is very tough. And I remember when I
got into The Gambia and in the refugee camp right in Basse. The
camp doesn't have any dedicated place to use when you wanted to
go to the toilet. And sometime, we would wait at night for you
to take a shower when it's dark. And you live in a space about
the size of from here to there. You get over 10 to 20 people
who lived in that space, and it's opened.
And the worst part, especially during the raining season,
when it rains, imagine you go further down and you use it, a
camp that is filled with people. And during raining season, all
the smell, the toilet, it's coming back where individuals are
living. And at that time, they are adjacent, not too far from
the camp--there was war going on at Casamance by Senegal's
border. So you run from a war and then close to the border,
there's instability going. And then, the host nation, they
already have their own situation. So, yes, this take us to some
of the reason why you see individual are finding other ways to
seek safety because of the conditions in the camp and the time
it took.
Chair Padilla. I'm sorry to interrupt, but there's another
question I want to ask you. I appreciate you sharing because,
again, I know it was not easy and it's still not easy, but for
all the reasons we may think of how we can and should
accelerate the time that it takes. The experiences that you're
sharing should remind us or give us additional reason and
motivation to move that process along more expeditiously. I
asked you the question about what it was like while you were
waiting.
I want to ask my next question of what it was like once you
came to the United States. You shared some good stories, some
not-so-friendly stories about that time period of integrating,
some welcoming families, an instructor who was not very proper.
I'll leave it at that. What are some of the biggest integration
barriers that you think that refugees face when they arrive
into the United States, and how can the Federal Government
address those barriers or challenges that when refugees do
arrive, they integrate more quickly and successfully and can
thrive more quickly?
Mr. Sesay. Thank you so much. And in my personal
experience, the first thing is language barrier, communication,
because it is key. And then also having a structure in place
especially, those that come here with little children. Like, I
came here with my wife and my daughter was 6 months old. Well,
it takes away the family dynamics. If I had to go to work
during the day, she looks at the child. And then, when I come
home, she has to go to work.
Refugee like us, we wanted to give back in the community
and we wanted to get to self-sufficiency, and I believe access
to childcare, access to safe and affordable homes, access to an
opportunity for you to go learn English, and then having
childcare in the process, and I think that would go a long way
to help us integrate and, at the same time, able to contribute
back to the Nation that gave us this opportunity. And finally,
I will say the refugee program, yes, needs to be protected. And
then we saw within the last 5 years how that infrastructure has
been damaged.
And I know personally in Louisiana, a career social worker
that help refugees and others like us integrate, majority of
those, they lose their job because of the low numbers that are
coming up. And I believe that low number is so critical. And if
Congress can pass either a bill or a legislation to have a
minimum cap of the Presidential determination, that will help
because once we have the minimum caps, we know when the number
went to below 15,000 or 15,000, we saw how those
infrastructure--in Louisiana, we have refugees resettlement
stations that are closed.
Second, let's have an equitable pathway to protections. We
all see what is happening in Ukraine, and then we saw the
response of the administrations. That response can be leveraged
across other nationality as well. What happened to me, it's
similar that I'm seeing that is happening in Ukraine. What is
happening in the DRC Congo is not that much different. What is
happening in Ukraine, what happened to the Afghanistan is not
different. What is happening in those other parts of the world,
including Mali right now--and I believe that equitable pathway
to protection will go a long way in protecting that
infrastructure and the system.
Chair Padilla. Thank you. And that's why we're here. How do
we improve the system? I'll just note before recognizing
Senator Cornyn for additional questions. It's a challenging
enough for Federal, State, and local governments to help
address the housing affordability concern. We recognize that
it's particularly difficult for refugees' access to quality,
affordable childcare--it's a concern for everybody, but again,
particularly difficult for refugees. So we have a lot of work
to do. Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Canny, I believe it was in 2016 when
you had previously testified about the small number of
religious minorities subjected to persecution, that the role of
these small number were resettled in the United States that
fiscal year. And I believe it was 2016, you said that you
focused especially on the plight of Christians and other
religious minorities in the Middle East, and of course, in my
opening comments, I talked about the Uyghurs and the People's
Republic of China, about a million Muslim Uyghurs who were
essentially held in concentration camps.
The previous administration had an entire category of
refugee admissions focused on victims of religious persecution.
A recent article in the National Catholic Register described
Nigeria, for example, as an epicenter of anti-Christian
violence with 5,014 Christians killed in 2022 alone, nearly 90
percent of the total number of Christians killed worldwide. Do
you think a category for religious persecution would be helpful
as opposed to just a geographical or country approach?
Mr. Canny. I think it's worthy to consider, but as we know,
for the refugee admission at large, religious persecution is a
category. I think what would be as important is to assure that
our adjudication officers, this is part of their training, to
be able to identify and be sensitive to religious persecution,
as you note is happening in many places around the world,
Christians and others alike. So I think that it's worth
examining the category, but perhaps most importantly
sensitizing our personnel that are out there adjudicating cases
and keeping an eye on religious persecution as a specific
category.
Senator Cornyn. General Burns, speaking of the Afghan
Adjustment Act now, the Inspector General of both the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense
have both published reports finding that during Operation
Allies Welcome Afghans who were either not fully vetted or who
were later found to have derogatory information, their
background had been paroled into the United States. Do you
think the manner in which Operation Allies Welcome was
conducted could potentially pose a national security risk as
opposed to having that vetting occur outside of the country?
General Burns. Yes, I think it goes to my former comments
on, we just have to have a consistent vetting process that's
outside the country that goes through all that process. And I
think what we need is, and hopefully it'll happen, is
innovation occurs. We'll be able to start to integrate in the
different systems between DHS, DOD, and everybody else as well
to get to the speed, so that way you're not waiting a long time
because we have to maintain security for stability. But we also
have to need to pick it up a little bit and hopefully,
innovation will do that.
And I think also, frankly, funding the right programs
between CBP and the different agencies, so that way they can do
it, because the size in these crises, unfortunately, keep
happening. As you were commenting earlier about refugees, all I
could think and hope for after 36 years of service is actually
not having the best year of refugees coming out, that's not a
good thing. I would like to see the lowest, and unfortunately,
we don't have systems right now to vet to the depth that we
need with the amount of refugees that we have as well as
everybody else, but that was definitely a concern.
And again, it's that speed and security thing. We were in a
very difficult situation in Afghanistan, getting people out,
and we needed to kind of position someplace else and then
migrate them in after the rigorous vetting and having a
standard process that we follow.
Senator Cornyn. And finally, Mr. Canny, you said you
weren't familiar necessarily with the rule that the Biden
administration is working on or promulgated for people claiming
asylum, but I think generally speaking, it could be described
as a way to encourage people to apply outside of the United
States and not then have to wait in the interior of the United
States for the process to conclude.
As you know, there was a Remain in Mexico protocol under
the previous administration, but I can tell you based on the
recent trip that Senator Welch and Senator Coons and I took to
Mexico, they've got their own challenges because they can't
accommodate a whole lot of people there. But they're happy to
have them move on into the United States so they're out of
their--they're no longer a concern of theirs.
But as a general matter, do you think it makes sense to vet
asylees outside of the United States if it can be done so like
applying through a consulate in their home country if that's
possible?
Mr. Canny. Well, then they would--yes, I do. They would
then be refugees. They wouldn't be asylum seekers.
Senator Cornyn. Yes, that's another part of the confusing
nomenclature here, because essentially, as I understand, the
legal standard is virtually the same for refugees or asylees,
but if you apply for the refugee program, you're subject to a
cap in this vetting, and if you show up on our border and claim
asylum, none of that applies. And I think the Biden
administration is trying to figure out how do we deal with the
humanitarian and public security crisis we have on our border.
But again, to your point, they become refugees not asylees if
they do it from their home country.
Mr. Canny. I do believe that the more processing centers
that we can put into the Southern Hemisphere to deal with some
of these situations would be helpful to all involved, both for,
you know, those who are leaving these countries so quickly and
due to the situation. Haiti is a very good example. If we can
get some refugee processing centers out there and go out and
adjudicate along with keeping, you know, our international
obligations and national obligations to welcome asylum seekers
when they come to our border or to give them a chance, I think
we can--I think we can do both better.
Senator Cornyn. We no doubt can do better than the status
quo. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Padilla. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. One last question
before we begin to adjourn here today. Coming back to Mr.
Canny. Now, we hear from employers all the time that the labor
market is tight and it is challenging for them to find workers.
We have a workforce shortage in America. At the same time, the
unemployment rate is currently at 3.6 percent, and refugees who
are able to come to United States help fill an important labor
shortage gap in communities across the United States and in a
number of important sectors of our economy.
In fact, the 2017 study conducted by the Department of
Health and Human Services found that refugees contributed $269
billion in revenue between 2005 and 2014, with the net fiscal
impact of $63 billion, meaning that they generated more revenue
for the United States than the amount spent on them by the
Government. I believe Senator Whitehouse referred to this data
as well when he was present earlier.
Sure wish we would have heard more about that study that
was conducted in 2017, but regardless, the data is the data.
Again, there's a chart demonstrating this behind me. Question
for Mr. Canny, in your experience leading one of the largest
resettlement agencies in the United States, can you share your
experience, how easy or difficult it is to assist refugees in
finding employment and what recommendations you may have to
help us help you help refugees?
Mr. Canny. Historically, not difficult to help refugees
find employment for a variety of reasons, largely because they
come and they want to contribute and they want to work. The
current program run by State Department and ORR puts a premium
on refugees finding employment and puts a premium on the
resettlement agencies. It's a primary goal to actually help
them find employment. After some 60 days--90 days, excuse me--
about 32 percent of refugees are employed after 8 months.
Our experience is that 80 percent of employable refugees
are employed and they are employed to the extent that they can
not only provide for themselves but be ineligible for public
grants such as TANF. So after 8 months, 80 percent of the
refugees that we work with find employment: various industries,
agriculture, meat packing, retail. I just, again, as I
frequently do, had a Uber ride from a refugee. And so, the
ability to help them find work is there.
The one thing that I would say is we have to look for ways
to follow them longer in their employability. In other words,
not just get them their first job, but look at ways that we can
help them develop their careers. So programs that can do that
and again our refugee support tends to be a bit shorter than
longer. Programs that can help them deal with English language,
learn English for longer periods, and then develop their career
over longer periods, I think would be beneficial to refugees
and our communities.
Chair Padilla. Thank you so much. I'll have to follow up on
that topic and many others, but I think at this point, we'll
begin to move towards adjournment of the hearing. But first, a
couple of housekeeping items. Number one, you heard from a
couple of my colleagues that, yes, today is my birthday.
[Laughter.]
Chair Padilla. Last year, 1 year ago today, it was Day 1,
if I recall, of the confirmation hearing for now-Supreme Court
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. And my sons at the time said,
``If you're not home for your birthday, Dad, you better have a
good reason.'' I think we had a great reason last year. We have
a very good reason here today. We will wait for the weekend to
blow out some candles, but thank you all for your
participation.
I do want to take this moment to enter a number of
statements into the record, including statements from CHIRLA,
from Church World Service, from HIAS, from the International
Refugee Assistance Project, from Kids in Need of Defense,
Lawyers for Good Government, from Lutheran Immigration &
Refugee Service, from Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns,
from the National Immigration Forum, from the Presidents'
Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, from Refugee
Advocacy Lab, from Refugee Congress, from Refugees
International, from Talent Beyond Boundaries, from the
Episcopal Church, and from Voice for Refuge. Without objection,
these statements will be included.
[The information appears as submissions for the record.]
Chair Padilla. Also to announce to everybody, the record
will close 1 week from today. I once again thank Ranking Member
Cornyn and his staff, along with Chairman Durbin, Ranking
Member Graham, and their staff, as well as all of our fellow
Committee Members for helping with the success of today's
hearing. I thank again our witnesses for joining us today and
for sharing your stories, your experience, and your expertise.
What we heard today should be a hopeful reminder of the
opportunity that the United States of America still represents
to millions around the globe, but should also be an urgent call
to action because for all that our Nation represents, we are at
risk of falling short of our ideals and our needs. We can see
that while the number of refugees worldwide is skyrocketing,
our Nation's admissions numbers have plummeted as a result of
the policies of the prior administration, as well as due to the
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Yet as we work to build back from COVID-19 and from the
prior administration, the Biden administration is working hard
to return to a standard fitting our Nation. And there should be
no reason why we can't find common ground and ensure the
refugee program has the resources it needs to fulfill its
mission. I also want to take a moment to emphasize a
distinction that we discussed several times during today's
hearing. There is a U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which was
the focus of today's hearing. Separately, there's the asylum
system.
Now, both programs are lifesaving programs, but they are
separate and distinct, and both need our support to ensure that
we can address the rise in displacement we are witnessing
around the world, including for the 103 million who cannot
safely return home. I do think it is important to underscore
that refugees are one of the most thoroughly vetted groups of
immigrants in the country. Another chart behind me, to help
drive home the points, just a small flavor of the many, many
steps, rigorous steps, that refugees go through before they can
enter the United States.
[Poster is displayed.]
Chair Padilla. I'll also acknowledge that a former National
Security Council senior director for the Trump administration
for a year and a half put it this way, and I'll quote, ``I did
used to think that the refugee program was vulnerable to
terrorist infiltration, but then I got here and made it my
business to learn the facts about the program. And now I know
that refugees are the most vetted category of any immigrant,''
end quote. She went on to say, again I'll quote, ``You'd be
crazy to come if you were a terrorist. This is the last way you
would try to get into this country,'' end quote. So this debate
is not about security.
As a country, we've taken painstaking steps to ensure
refugees are thoroughly vetted before entry. Instead, this
discussion is about our ability to live up to our founding
ideals and to welcome those in need with humanity. We can and
must do better, better for people just like Mr. Sesay, who have
credible fear of persecution at home but must still wait years
in a refugee camp fighting for better living conditions before
they can ever reach their new home.
And we must do better for the many Americans who want to
help in refugee resettlement efforts, who take their moral duty
as Americans and as human beings seriously by trying to lift up
and help refugees who dream of living free in the United States
of America. I believe we can and must work together in a
bipartisan way as has been done in the past to improve our
immigration system so more people have the opportunity to
utilize the refugee admissions process.
I thank you all, again, for your participation today, to
our witnesses and to my colleagues for joining us. And with
that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]